Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I began, around age 12 or 13, in the post-McCarthy 1950's to call myself a radical Socialist, much to my parent's chagrin. When I registered for a political party, I joined the Democratic Party, to have a realistic vote. I changed my self-designated label to radical liberal. I had to live through the Reagan years and Bush years proudly refusing to call myself anything other than liberal, supporting the causes I had always championed. To this day I am a Ted Kennedy-esque liberal. I know Barack Obama will have to govern in a moderate and inclusive manner, like Bill Clinton, but I feel that there is room in the so-called "Democratic Party tent" for me and others who never gave in, never gave up, never sold out.
I am happy with either lable. I am progressive, I am liberal. Most of the people I know are not so easily swayed by obvious use of language to frame debates, which the republican party excels at. But this is mainly because it is targetted at those who are susceptible to such manipulation - i.e. their base. Of course, the Democratic party has abbetted them by modifying their actions in response to this crap.
The article mentions the phrase "tax and spend liberal". This is a good example of the right's manipulation. Both parties spend, so taxing is actually fiscally responsible. I'd like to hear people say "borrow and spend republican" whenever they say republican (well, actually, I hate to see level of discourse drop even further than 5th grade level but "They started it!").
Relatively informed people hear commentators talking about flag pins and "support the troops" and wish that we could hear about real issues. Low information voters, on whom the Republican party relies, are actually swayed.
So, the borrow and spend, 6th commandment violating ("Thou shalt not kill"), government expanding, fiscally irresponsible republicans can call me whatever they want.
The meanings of both big-L "Liberal" and big-C "Conservative" have become so polluted with least-common-denominator mass-media rhetoric as to have made the words useless except to mean "us" and "them" (or "good" and "evil") or vice-versa depending on the speaker. I know the second I encounter either word that what follows will not be in any way a serious discussion of political matters.
Let's use specific language instead of handy-dandy labels, shall we? For example, the two most popular political parties in the U.S. are an extremist proauthoritarian, procorporatist, and prochristianist party and a radical proauthoritarian, procorporatist, and prochristianist party. In that context, the difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" doesn't look like much.
The article neglexcts the history of the term "liberal" in political history.
Liberals opposed government efforts to aid workers and the poor. Labor parties arose in the 19th century in response to the deplorable conditions of the working class. Liberals opposed all efforts to respond. Conservatives, e.g., in Bismarck's Germany, led in the provision of government benefits such as old age pensions, to counter the growing tide of socialism among the workers.
Liberalism historically stood for freedom (of merhents, mostly) from government control of commerce and trade. The idea extended to freedom from government control of private activities of citizens. But it is crucial to remember that until the mid 19th century only a small fraction of national residents enjoyed basic citizenship rights such as the right to vote. Liberals as the defenders of property, largely opposed the extension of the franchise.
In the 20th century some political thinkers, including John Dewey, called for a new kind of liberalism that shed its affiliation with property and applied scientific thinking and planning to social problems. This was not liberalism per se, but a "new" or redefined liberalism.
In the politics of some of our mid 20th century political leaders like Hubert Humphrey this notion of liberalism took hold. But the very use of terms like "classical liberalism" and "neo-liberalism" show that the older sense still prevails.
The rsult is that the term today stands for both an old idea and its opposite. It is no longer useful as a meaningful term of politics.
"Progressive" has its own problems, of course. But it stands in today as a way of distinguishing social liberalism from anti-social liberalism.
Perhaps what is needed is a new political vocabulary capable of making the distinctions we need to make in response to today's problems.
and we'll try to live with it the next four years. A reformed Republican Congress may have to be installed after two years if Barry gets too randy (a la Clinton). Have to see how much Marxism we can take.
The problem with "liberal" for me is that it implies, or used to imply, some views which I don't hold.
For example, I'm against executions and punitive approaches to drug problems, and I believe that marijuana should be legal (not "recommended", but legal).
But on the other hand, when it comes to violent crimes, theft, and fraud, I'm "tough on crime". Not to the point of endorsing brutality, obviously. But even though I realize that crime is partially fueled by lack of education, opportunity, and so on, until such time as we achieve a perfect world, people who choose to gain their living honestly and respect the rights of others deserve to be protected from those who make the opposite choices. Between authoritarian punitiveness on one extreme and submissive permissiveness on the other lies a middle ground.
Likewise, I believe in moderate, local firearm control. I was annoyed that SCOTUS interfered with DC's local arrangement, but on the other hand, places like Montana and Vermont have many firearms and few violent crimes - why should they be interfered with?
I also respect all expressions of romantic love and/or sexuality that occur between informed, consenting adults, according to their own ethical or spiritual standards, and not violating the rights of others. Yet moral outrage at any heterosexual relationship that violates some arbitrary standards of perfect matching on categories like age (I said adults), education, or income is sometimes associated with "liberalism".
I am massively in favor of true, full equal rights and opportunities for women. I'm in favor of "women's lib", but I don't agree with some varieties of "feminism".
I know I'm progressive because I'm in favor of full human rights (including marriage and military service) for everyone, strong protection of the environment, strong social programs, universal health care, universally accessible higher education, good work conditions, etc. And I'm against discrimination, executions, punitive drug laws, pollution, violence and war except in true self defense, etc.
I'd like to think I'm liberal, too, but I'm afraid I may be a bit more tolerant and, well, progressive, on many issues, than a truly typical liberal.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
