Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I've just about finished reading Lind's "The Next American Republic," and while I don't agree with every conclusion, the observations are spot on. There's an "overclass" in this country that has its center-left and center-right branches, but real progress can only be made by breaking out of the mainstream and shaking up the oligarchy. When I was in Mexico, I thought it was odd that the same policies we consider "neoconservative" in El Norte were considered "neoliberal" south of the Rio Grande. Clinton was never a "liberal" in the true sense of that word, but rather more of a "neoliberal" like Mexican president Vicente Fox. Obama is a little better, but I think many of us who put a lot of effort into his campaign for "change" are going to find out his policies are disappointingly mainstream - better than McCain and his multi-generational background of privilege, but still far short of the genuine social reform needed to really change the paradigm.
You can call a rose a cabbage but if you attempt to eat it it will not taste like a cabbage but will continue to be a rose.
So too you can call a Liberal (or a 'progressive' or 'Lefty' or a 'radical'-meaning Left-wing radical) "soft on crime" or "weak on foreign policy" but a true Liberal--or lefty etc.-- will still pursue the just cause over expediency; will not be a scaremonger and use crime as a means to an end (e.g, getting elected), or sacrifice the human rights of a felon or murder innocent civilians in foreign countries by appealing to people's base instincts so they accept the unacceptable: the death penalty for the former and an illegal invasion in the case of the latter. They will continue acting as a Liberal( or as a Lefty or progressive or human rights activist) by being against injustice; being for universal human rights; being against racism, sexism, homophobia and intolerance of any kind; and being for freedom against want.
In other words, by Liberal (progressive, Lefty, activist) is meant not being Right-wing; not being for the death penalty; not being against women's rights; not endowing the foetus with personhood in order to appease one's extreme right-wing base; for single-payer universal health care; for affordable education; for freedom of speech and the right of assembly; for helping the poor, which means social democratic welfare; for equal rights; for enlightenment principles; and against barbarism.
Liberals and the Left haven't always been on the same side on everything , as they were in the 1930's and 1940's, say, but they do have this in common: they all favour justice for all, liberty, and tolerance. Each now--as in the past--are against laissez-faire, because untrammeled market relations cause suffering and evils like child labour.
Both advocate social justice, which is why they oppose pro-life zealots who believe a woman's life is worthless and have no scruple about seeing her as nothing but a breeder rather than as a human being in her own right. It's not only an injustice, but a breach of civil and human rights, to see women only as a means to an end; to sacrifice them to the state by pretending the foetus or blastocyst in the womb is a person at the same stage as a born person, when it doesn't even have synapses or is sentient at this stage of its evolution into a human being.
Obviously, I'm not talking about classical liberalism here, which has more in common with Right-wing Libertarians--the position of Wilson who was miffed when Roosevelt appropriated the Liberal moniker for himself, as the latter was pro-labour and for regulation. I'm talking about the reforms of the Progressive era (1910) when liberalism underwent a change in definition from the laissez-faire dogma of President Cleveland to the government interventionism of Roosevelt. This new liberalism is what many people identify liberalism with today. A Liberal today is generally somebody who agrees with the New Deal and would like to see a new New Deal brought into being. A liberal nowadays then is closer to the Left. They're egalitarian, which doesn't mean sacrificing individualism (it's capitalism which attacks the latter, since it requires conformity and willing helots to keep it going) and for fairness and security.
Take the name back, and make it mean fairness and justice and tolerance and freedom from want again.
The use of the word "liberal" as a pejorative has warped our view of what liberal really is. This is why people are so afraid to describe themselves as liberal has led the right to claim victory even as it loses. Most of us are liberal or conservative, depending upon what issue is being discussed. The use of these defining terms allows the right to "stack the deck" in the national debate.
YES, that's right, the word Bill O'Really tried to introduce. I am everything he hates...I'm also not American, so I could care less what you call it. Progressive, to me, seems to be far more universal, however.
A point about European (Neo-Marxist? WTF???) liberals. What's the difference between them and you? The same as between you and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich...you technically agree with almost everything he says, but since your society doesn't take it seriously, you don't either.
ps: Read up on Prussia, please...
I have always called myself a liberal. When the term 'progressive' started gaining currency, I started going out of my way to call myself a liberal. It always struck me that people who called themselves progressive were behaving as though they were ashamed of what they were. Liberals have nothing to be ashamed of, and much to be proud of.
Liberal, liberal, liberal.
Gederer says it perfectly:
I have always called myself a liberal. When the term 'progressive' started gaining currency, I started going out of my way to call myself a liberal. It always struck me that people who called themselves progressive were behaving as though they were ashamed of what they were. Liberals have nothing to be ashamed of, and much to be proud of.
The truth is, I have only used the word "progressive" in some letters posted on left-leaning blogs, like Salon and Kos and the rest. That was always uncomfortable to do, but it seemed to be the argot most used and approved of.
But in real life, I've been "a liberal" since before I got a bloody nose for defending Truman over MacArthur in 7th grade, and I've called myself by that term my entire long life. Others may debate the niceties of 'progressive' vs 'liberal'; for me as for Gederer, it always seemed folks were ashamed of being liberals for remarkably silly reasons.
liberal, liberal, liberal! Yeah, man!
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
