Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Salon, please keep the Michael Lind essays coming. Agree with him or not, his writings are provocative, educational and a pleasure to read.
One simple message that I got from his article is that the term “Progressive” has been used historically to identify groups or temporary movements whose agendas may at times seem to follow a liberal tract, but as a way to distinguish the extemporaneous “progressive” policies from the "liberal" positions of their day. Looking back, I may at times have consorted with the progressives were I alive, because, if anything I am sometimes impatient with the slowness defined as liberal. The final quarter of the last century was the time period of chastened liberals hiding behind the term “progressive,” because the general public considered the term "liberal" pejorative primarily due to smears from the right. These smears were effective, in part, due to the linkage of the term "liberal" to enforced policies that frightened and angered many, such as affirmative action and school busing, even though my belief is that they were essentially right and have engendered increased civil rights, fairness, and a more just society.
I prefer the term liberal, as defining a philosophy of fairness, justice, freedom and shared sacrifice in order to build a community that benefits all; and a rejection of greed, bigotry, and domination of the weak - basically the morals that inspired the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, or the French motto of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity."
Moreover, any thinking person has the right and the responsibility to reject specific policies that they believe are wrong, even if they are the explicit policies of a group whose overall philosophy he or she shares. In other words, if I believe a liberal philosophy of governance, I may reject a specific policy considered liberal by mainstream liberals in the Democratic Party. I still remain a liberal. In such circumstances, the term “progressive” may gain popularity and temporary usefulness. It is understandable that conservatives and conservatisms’ friends in the media have assaulted and will continue to assault the term “liberal” for their own ends.
The term “liberal” can take the criticism, as it continues to appeal because of its longevity and association with the great historical movements in this country - some long term, rather than immediate. Liberalism has given us the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the New Deal, Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, Gay Rights and ended the Vietnam War. It also gave us the Vietnam War and has failed to produce universal health care, or end bigotry, or end the Iraq War, yet. Nevertheless, I embrace the label and the philosophy, and will weather its failures.
Gee! Michael and company it's all well and good you know, but neither of those names may fit very well in today's American/World Society. Liberal denotes giving away "OUR" money to those who may not deserve it outside the folks who actually worked and created it in the first place. Remember in these nasty economic times Americans are "GIVING" more to charity than they have done in many a year. So the question is not the government giving of our taxes, but Americans giving from out of their hearts. (A lot more story than there's room for here.)
Progressive is, as you say; a radical misnomer for Communist or worse.
We all once learned in Econ 101 that there's just so much in the world and whatever you have has been taken from others. Well, I have recently noted that there are a few worried stories from English Media defending the old "Lord Economics " himself and his World changing economic ideas in the 1940s and '50s etc. I've even seen Hayak's name and his book about "roads" and "serfdom" being raised again in the face of a near compleated cycle; as a warning against Liberal and Progressive alike. So it may be that both Liberal and Progressive may end up "verbotten". Save 'em for another time. Please the "time" concept for these names eludes me.
- if you don’t have any slaves.
- if you ‘let’ your wife vote, then you might be a ‘liberal'
- if you allow your daughters to learn to read… well, that’s a bit on the liberal side
- if you haven't banished a Jew lately, you just may be a liberal
- if you ever said ‘It’s a free country,’ well wasn’t that a ‘liberal’ thing to say
- if you’ve never burned a heretic, you are a flaming ‘liberal.’
- if you let your sister marry a Catholic boy she chose herself, both of you are ‘liberals.’
- if that’s a gun rack in your pickup, you’re as ‘liberal’ as the 2nd Amendment
- if you borrowed a book from a "free" library, you are a 'tax and spend' liberal
- You might be a ‘liberal’ if you think Rush Limbaugh should be allowed to broadcast.”
(Note: If you ARE Rush Limbaugh, you are a ‘liberal.’ You actually paid your Mexican housekeeper when she ran your drugs. And you’ve never set fire to a single Democrat.”)
- if you wear shorts, you just might be a liberal
- if you have ever driven on an Interstate with no tolls, what a liberal you are
- if you used the GI Bill for school or a mortgage, you are a welfare liberal
- if you believe in Jesus as your personal savior, you are a radical liberal
- if "one man, one vote" seems about right to you, congratulations, you are a liberal thinker
- if you think you have a ‘right’ to vote? Well, aren’t you the cutest ‘liberal’ thing.”
You, sir, are not like the Gopi Saraswati Chandi I used to know in Dehli where the air is so polluted from your dirty coal and horrid Tata trucks and cars, you walk out of the house and a minute later your white dhoti is black from alla da smoke.
You, sir, sound like some kind of hot head blood thirsty arrogant Hindoo smashing Moslems and Buddhists in their faces because they came too close to your friggin temple.
Why are you Communist Indians always telling everybody else what to do when your own country is such a horrid, corrupt mess? You got the worst of British bureaucracy and put it on steroids, you did.
If you are so interested in whirrled peas, why don't you give your lovely Chinese and Pakistani neighbors everything they want, why don't you?
All you can say is war crimes, war crimes. Do you remember Clinton's chicken high altitude bombing of Serbia?
War crimes, my tuches, Gopee Saraswati! Did you ever hear of friggin Arjuna? At least he was willing to listen to Lord Krishna's wonderful wisdom, and fight against the evil forces arrayed against him. Go back and read The Gita one more time.
After 9/11 we could no way Jose tolerate Taliban and Al Queda running Afghanistan. We could not tolerate Saddam laughing at all the mealey mouth, platitude spouting appeasers at the UN. That friggen guy gassed entire villages. There are mass graves of slaughterd Shia.
He had rape rooms for his enemies' young daughters.
Like so many Indian Leftoid Intellectuals, you are an arrogant know it all, Chandi-Bandi.
Go choke on your ghee for me, please.
Go have a basti.
You need it, sir.
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
