tax-and-spend liberal

09:05 Nov 27, 2017 

En cuanto a dejar la interpretación al lector, con una nota del traductor, me parece lo mâs aconsejable en este caso. Dependiendo de su contenido, una N.T. podría enriquecer la experiencia del lector, al proporcionarle (mayor) acceso al texto (fuente), así como a la labor y la profesión de los traductores. En este sentido, me parecen muy acertadas las palabras de Peter Bush a continuación:

"Breaking the silence that mystifies the art is perhaps the best form of self-defence for a profession that has too long worn the hair shirt of modesty wished upon it by those who exploit the fruits of its alchemy" (Peter Bush qtd. in 'Metaphor and Agency in the English-Spanish Translation of Texts in the Social Sciences' 2015: 48).

00:21 Nov 27, 2017 

En el caso de tax and spend, aunque el significado (establecer impuestos y utilizar lo recaudado) podría imaginarse limpio de connotaciones, como expresión solo descriptiva, me temo que no es así; la expresión impone, necesariamente, una connotación negativa; tax, en tanto que injerencia gubernamental abusiva sobre el individuo, y spend en tanto que despilfarro. Aunque no es tanto así por el significado real de las palabras sino por su combinación; recaudar y gastar transmite una idea parecida, no porque recaudar o gastar sean intrínsecamente negativos, sino porque la combinación, como adjetivo, evoca la idea de despilfarrar lo que obtienes del individuo al imponerle impuestos.
En fin, tene gracia; esto es tan difícil como explicar un chiste ;)
Y en cuanto a traducir literalmente liberal y añadir una nota, me parece la mejor opción. De la misma forma que progresista o izquierdista podrían funcionar, zurdo, en cambio, es intrínsecamente peyorativo. Pienso que izquierdista (también progresista/progre, aunque incluyen otras connotaciones) transmite mejor el peso y el sentido que imprime liberal -en boca de un republicano en este caso, pero sin perder el sentido global de liberal.

21:00 Nov 26, 2017 

La frase tax-and-spend, ¿se utiliza normalmente en inglés de algún modo no peyorativo, en una acepción técnica? Is there something like "tax and spend policies", or a "tax and spend policies" procedures manual? ¿Una especie de sinónimo de "fiscal policies", tal vez?

¿O tiene siempre una carga peyorativa? En cuyo caso asumo que al utilizar la frase es siempre con intención de dañar la imagen de alguien.

20:59 Nov 26, 2017 

Quiero aprovechar y agradecer a los integrantes de esta discusión por haber diseccionado tan precisamente dudas que yo mismo no estaba seguro de cuáles eran o de qué forma tenían. En algunos casos ni era consciente de su existencia. Me las mostraron y aclararon en un mismo acto.

Una muestra excelente de cómo funciona la inteligencia distribuida complementaria.

20:40 Nov 26, 2017 

De hecho, me voy inclinando a traducir "liberal" literalmente y dejar la interpretación a cargo del lector, orientándolo con una N. del T. explicando que "liberal" en EE.UU. sería muy similar a "zurdo" en la Cuenca del Plata.

20:34 Nov 26, 2017 

Es cierto, el término no es intrínsecamente peyorativo. Adquiere esa carga según cómo y quién lo use.

En su autobiografía, Isaac Asimov se refiere a la palabra "liberal" como "the L word" y "la que ya casi nadie se anima a pronunciar en voz alta" o algo así. Un ejemplo del tipo de cosas que me da la pauta de que para inicios de los 90 ya se la tomaba y usaba como "mala palabra" por si sola en muchos y muy diversos ambientes, no necesariamente sólo por parte de los opositores al progresismo, sino por gente relativamente neutral (justo como ahora se usa "zurdo" acá en Paraguay).

Lo que por supuesto no quita que la palabra sigue siendo no peyorativa, y que tu punto es 100% correcto y pertinente. Gracias por acotarlo.

20:21 Nov 26, 2017 

"Progre" podría ser interesante (y acá en América Latina también funcionaría) pero la audiencia meta no sentiría la carga peyorativa. Porque precisamente los progresistas son la audiencia meta. Por eso me inclino a poner "zurdos", que acá en la Cuenca del Plata se está usando de una manera casi equivalente. Sopesándolo mucho, creo que tendré que mantener el termino original y aclarar con N. del T.

20:14 Nov 26, 2017 

Respecto a tu primera observación, es justamente esa cuasi acusación de "¡comunista!" la que creo imprescindible comunicar.

20:08 Nov 26, 2017 

¡Al contrario, no te calles por favor! Gracias por aportar la chispa inicial.

18:41 Nov 26, 2017 

It's quite right to be precise. And it's certainly true that there are plenty of people who think that being a liberal in US terms is a good thing. However, I might take issue with your statement "it's the "tax and spend" part that really makes it pejorative, not the word "liberal" on its own". The point is that liberal is not on its own and it is inevitably coloured by the accompanying adjective. The insidious thing about this statement is that "tax and spend" can be, and I think certainly was, taken as an epithet, expressing an intrinsic quality of liberals. Reagan was implying that all liberals are like this: they're by definition people who take your money and squander it. The statement doesn't suggest that there are non-tax-and-spend liberals who are OK.

18:29 Nov 26, 2017 

Sorry Charles, it was a minor point, I know, I was just trying to clarify it because I don't think it's the same as using terms such as "progre", or "SJW" which are intrinsically pejorative and designed to rankle.

18:23 Nov 26, 2017 

I wrote "En Estados Unidos, entre republicanos, "liberal" es intrínsecamente peyorativo" (emphasis added). I stand by this. My statement explicitly excluded "the proponents of such political ideals who use the terms in a positive sense to refer to themselves".

But I think we're in agreement.

17:50 Nov 26, 2017 

Ok. Fair enough. I agree. Point taken. I should have expressed myself more carefully.

17:39 Nov 26, 2017 

The only point I was making was in regard to your "intrinsically pejorative" comment.
I'm quite sure Reagan was using "tax and spend liberal" in a pejorative sense since, as I said before, that is a pejorative term.
Two things, however: (i) it's the "tax and spend" part that really makes it pejorative, not the word "liberal" on its own, and (ii), today, any Republican talking about Democrats will normally be referring to "liberals" pejoratively but that does not make the word "intrinsically pejorative" any more than using the terms "capitalist" and "communist" would be. Clearly, for many people on the opposing side of the political spectrum, those labels are, by themselves, pejorative, but to say they are intrinsically so is to ignore the proponents of such political ideals who use the terms in a positive sense to refer to themselves.

10:35 Nov 26, 2017 

tu comentario era pertinente y ha generado un debate interesante.

22:00 Nov 25, 2017 

Si lo llego a saber, me callo😉

21:12 Nov 25, 2017 

Cuando se trata de traducir una expresión puesta en boca de un personaje, entiendo que no es papel del traductor localizar los términos sino simplemente traducirlos.

Por otra parte, intentar localizar geográfica o históricamente un término tan polisémico como "liberal" es meterse en mares procelosos. En la España actual, pongo por caso, está asociado con políticas conservadoras cercanas a las de Reagan, pero, salvando las distancias, un español liberal del siglo XIX estaría sin duda en el bando contrario.

Como suele ocurrir con este tipo de textos, la interpretación correcta de la cita dependerá del nivel cultural del lector (en caso necesario se podría aclarar el sentido mediante N. del T.).

19:39 Nov 25, 2017 

The debate about what American readers make of the expression "tax-and-spend liberal" in English is really beside the point, since there can surely be no doubt that even those see being "liberal", in the US sense, as a good thing must be aware that Reagan was using it in a negative sense. It's a Republican mantra; surely everyone with a minimum of political sophistication in the US knows that.

19:35 Nov 25, 2017 

To my mind, Spanish-speaking readers who don't know the peculiar way "liberal" is used in the United States will interpret the word "liberal" in its normal Spanish sense, and will find the conjunction with "tax and spend" peculiar, since "liberales" are characterised precisely by not favouring taxing and spending. Those who do will get the point.

18:48 Nov 25, 2017 

...below regarding a public who interprets a term such as 'liberal' (as used in the US media) along party-lines: For Republicans (and those who might prefer watching Fox News) it's associated with 'out of touch,' 'ivory tower,' 'bleeding hearts,' but for Democrats (and those who might be more inclined to watch MSNBC) it's associated with 'compassion,' 'inclusion' and 'social justice.'

In translating a collection of essays by Michael Parenti (author of 'Democracy for the Few'), I primarily use 'progresista' for 'liberal,' but in this instance of a colloquialism with a certain rhetorical and stylistic effect, a literal rendering that may require more work on the part of target-text readers may be an acceptable option, even in Spain; indeed, I sort of remember seeing this very word in one of Parenti's Spanish editions published in Spain (by Hirú).

17:47 Nov 25, 2017 

Yes, for one thing times have changed (somewhat) since the 1980s, and for another it does depend on who is using the word. "Liberal" is something that some Democrats are happy to claim to be nowadays, just as the European left is no longer so shy about claiming to be socialist. But I am quite sure that even today, as used by right-wingers, "liberal" remains intrinsically pejorative, and that Reagan was using it in a negative sense close to "socialist".

To my mind, "liberal" is a much more problematic term in English than in Spanish. In Spanish it has retained its classical sense of free trade, free markets, individual liberty and minimal state intervention. In France it's a negative term for reasons precisely opposite to those that apply in the United States; this is an issue now with Macron. In English it's a term applied to both to Milton Friedman and to Bernie Sanders, both anti-state untrammelled capitalism and progressive social intervention.

You may be right that "liberal" was preferred by most American leftists in the Cold War, when claiming to be socialist was asking for a lot of trouble, and you're certainly right that the term "tax and spend" originated in the 1930s.

17:23 Nov 25, 2017 

While I agree that the Spanish word "liberal" may be problematic (I'm not sure how it would be received in Spain), I don't agree that it's intrinsically pejorative at all. I read and listen to a lot of US media and many Democrats or people on the "left" in the US even refer to themselves as liberals (as opposed to conservative). I believe the distinction comes precisely from Democrats trying not to be associated with leftists or socialism, particularly during the Cold War. Having said that, Democrats seem to care a lot less about using the word socialism nowadays.
Clearly, "tax and spend" is pejorative, and goes back to the time of FDR and the New Deal, I believe.

16:30 Nov 25, 2017 

Esto, claro, obliga a hacer un trabajo interpretativo, como lectores, a la hora de entender qué significa, en origen, el término utilizado -sea este demócrata, republicano o liberal, por ejemplo. Las traducciones de sentido tienen, en muchas ocasiones, un rango de adecuación excesivamente limitado, tanto geográfica como temporalmente. Las traducciones literales, aunque pueden perder muchos de los matices del original, evitan la posibilidad de interpretaciones radicalmente erróneas.

En fin; a pesar de lo dicho, nunca está de más explorar la posibilidad de traducción de cualquier término. En este caso, y como ya dicho, podría plantearse traducir liberal como izquierdista o como progresista; en España al menos, progre también podría funcionar. Tengo una gran curiosidad por conocer posibles lecturas de tal traducción desde el otro lado del charco!

16:29 Nov 25, 2017 

Sí; progresista -o incluso izquierdista- serían términos equiparables al americano liberal: positivos, o neutros, leídos desde la izquierda, y peyorativos cuando utilizados desde la derecha -en España al menos.

No obstante, encuentro aquí dos problemas principales. Por un lado, la simple cuestión de uso. En relación a la política estadounidense, es habitual la utilización de traducciones literales en castellano y no de sentido. Así, no se habla de partido conservador o de derechas y de partido socialista moderado o de centro para aludir a los partidos republicano y demócrata respectivamente -aun cuando republicano tiene connotaciones bien distintas, por ejemplo en España, y demócrata en Europa y demócrata en EEUU son conceptos mucho menos cercanos de lo que cabría imaginar.

En segundo lugar, el problema de las traducciones de sentido es que, especialmente en política, donde todos los conceptos están en constante confrontación y donde los mismos términos se encuentran en las antípodas de significado y connotaciones en distintos países y en distintos momentos históricos, resultaría probablemente imprudente traducir determinados términos políticos de forma no literal (como liberal)

15:05 Nov 25, 2017 

Andy and Charles seem to me very much on point in that “liberal” really ought to be avoided in Spanish here. “El progre” or “los progresistas” are terms used in some Latin American in the same pejorative way as “liberals” is in the posted phrase, so perhaps these could be options here.

A more rigorous aporoach to a good translation here (for anyone willing to do the research) would be to see how this term, by now in use for more than 30 years, has been translated in the most prestigious media outlets in the Spanish-speaking world.

13:35 Nov 25, 2017 

Democrats would have been perfectly well aware that Reagan was using "liberal" as a dirty word.

13:22 Nov 25, 2017 

The question is what Reagan meant by it and what his audience understood by it, and that was definitely "socialism", the antithesis of classical laissez-faire liberalism. Thatcher was using the word "socialist" in Britain to convey exactly the same message. Reagan was speaking here for and to non-Democrats, that is, to people outside the Democratic Party machine and its core voters, people who, if not committed Republicans, could be and were persuaded that the legacy of the New Deal — state intervention, high taxes, public spending — was the root of all evil. This was the 1980s, a period in which Reagan in the United States and Thatcher in Britain were successfully selling this idea and persuading a significant number of people who had always voted Democrat or Labour that these parties were "venal, corrupt, inept, and completely unworthy of trust".

Obviously some people, who continued to support what Reagan meant by "liberal" politics (such as myself), resisted the new orthodoxy, but most people didn't; witness the eclipse of left-wing politics in these countries in the eighties.

12:53 Nov 25, 2017 

...would be at least as important as its connotations to Republicans in the context of pursuing an 'equivalent effect.' The original words would have been interpreted by (and would have had an effect on) a public comprised of more than just Republicans.

10:46 Nov 25, 2017 

En Estados Unidos, entre republicanos, "liberal" es intrínsecamente peyorativo. Significa más o menos socialista, intervencionista, prácticamente comunista. Si "liberal" no tiene esas connotaciones negativas en América Latina, tal vez haya que plantearse el uso de otro término.

03:11 Nov 25, 2017 

Aquí lo difícil no es la pregunta planteada sobre la expresión "tax and spend" sino "liberal". En EEUU significa lo opuesto (de izquierda) a su significado en Europa (de derechas).
En LatAm no sé cuál sería el equivalente pero sería lo primero a aclarar.