Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Self-Declared Liberals Have Nothing to Be Afraid of

By Greg Colvin, AlterNet. Posted September 21, 2007.


Should we bury the word "liberal" and try to define ourselves along a spectrum that puts progressives on the left side and conservatives on the right? No, for several good reasons.
Advertisement

I often think it's comical -- Fal, lal, la!
How Nature always does contrive -- Fal, lal, la!
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal, lal, la!
—Iolanthe, Gilbert and Sullivan, 1882

Hillary Clinton: "... So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics." Anderson Cooper: "So you wouldn't use the word liberal, you'd say progressive?" Hillary Clinton: [nods] --CNN-YouTube presidential primary debate, July 23, 2007

It is time for a fresh look at how we label political viewpoints in America.

These days, the terms left and right, liberal and conservative, are most often applied to ideas, groups, and individuals by those aiming to discredit them. Not a very reliable way of understanding what the words mean.

If you are inclined to be a liberal, you can't avoid hearing the radio voices of the Limbaughs, Coulters, Hannitys, and Savages growling and hissing in the back of your head.

Liberalism has been so demonized that many people have either stopped defining themselves politically, straddled the question ("I'm a fiscal conservative but liberal on social issues"), claimed to be independent or pragmatic, looked for a "third way," moved to the center, or adopted the term "progressive."

The word "progressive" seems honorable enough, harkening back to the Progressive Era, 25 years of popular upheaval before World War I when anti-trust laws were passed, child labor was abolished, Teddy Roosevelt dedicated national parks, and government reforms were directed against the wealthy and the corrupt.

So, should we bury the word "liberal" and try to define ourselves along a continuum that we call progressive on the left side and conservative on the right?

No, for several good reasons.

First, such a shift would not be broadly accepted. As the lyrics from Gilbert and Sullivan's Iolanthe remind us, the liberal-conservative dichotomy has been rooted in Western culture for more than a century, on both sides of the Atlantic. Reporting on political candidates, groups, and events, the media will continue to apply those labels regardless of what the people involved may say. The press calls MoveOn.org "liberal," a word the group has never used to describe itself.

Second, liberalism has a proud history and deserves respect equal to that accorded to conservatism. The word has many positive associations: our cherished liberties as a free people, liberal arts and education, liberal democracy, the liberation of the enslaved and oppressed, and national liberators from Simon Bolivar to Daniel O'Connell to Lech Walesa.

Ducking for cover under a new name will only invite more ridicule. From the Goldwater defeat of 1964 to the Reagan victory of 1980, a sturdy band of Republicans worked to convert the conservative label into a badge of pride, and they succeeded.

Third, there is a growing intellectual movement to rehabilitate the liberal tradition in America, tracing its course from the founding fathers to the 20th century leaders who pulled the country out of depression, prevailed over fascism, fought racial discrimination, instituted a mixed economy, and crafted the détente that kept us out of nuclear war. Paul Starr's recent book Freedom's Power: The True Force of Liberalism, is one example. Another was the proclamation by Bruce Ackerman and Todd Gitlin, just before the November 2006 elections, published on the website of the American Prospect, "We Answer to the Name of Liberals," signed by thousands of professors and ordinary citizens.

Fourth and most importantly, simply replacing "liberal" with "progressive" robs us of the opportunity that progressivism could stand for something quite different. It could be a perspective on politics that is not a slot on the horizontal left-right spectrum of ideological views, but represents motion in a vertical direction, to advance the way we resolve problems in American public life to a higher plane.

This could be very promising. A progressive may be a reformer who looks into the future, who seeks to resolve the left-right debate on major public policy issues and move society to a better level of political function. Perhaps progressive political philosophy is not a brand of ideological orientation, but a transitional way of thinking and acting that occurs only when reform is badly needed, long overdue, and well-conceived by farsighted men and women.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: conservative, liberal, progressive

Greg Colvin and his family divide their time between home in Petaluma, Calif., and a log cabin in Bath, N.Y. Besides progressive political philosophy, Greg's other big project is a 12-year campaign to hike the 2,700-mile Pacific Crest Trail from Mexico to Canada with his two adult sons: 490 miles so far.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
In a free and liberal society...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Sep 21, 2007 12:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
no one should be "afraid" to embrace any ideology whatsoever--from the most fervent "fundy" to the most outspoken "lefty".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Embrace the ideology, yes, Posted by: vox persona
Liberal is dead
Posted by: vox persona on Sep 21, 2007 1:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I speak euphemistically, as I realize many still identify themselves as such. My yesterday's post was one day too early, as I explained how the word that has the same root as 'liberty' and 'liberate' has been so demonized that its very use can sometimes be counterproductive to an otherwise healthy debate. Once you use it, many will box you in, turn off their ears, and then the subliminal condescending and ridiculibg begins. The word carries a mine field of baggage, as I discovered last month when I got together with a friend who looked me up after 25 years, except he had 'grown' (devolved?) into a card carrying Rush-ite, and tried that boxing in technique with me so as to reduce my cogent arguments into a joke, no matter how I tried to clarify that if I were to identify myself, it would be 'moderate'. I'm a libertarian (small l), but not a libertine. Is believing in 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' a liberal or conservative doctrine? I'm tired of semantical word games that distract from serious topics that need to be discussed. We play right into 'their' game of divide and conquer, fractionalize and marginalize, unless we shed and reject those types of labels. At least the 'moderate' label doesn't get such a knee jerk reaction from the reactionaries, so that the well placed arguments of thinking people can be the more strongly heard. If we disgruntled citizens 'in the middle' formed our own party, we'd win in a landslide every time. Keep the name simple....The Moderate Party!....LONG LIVE THE MODERATE PARTY!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's the trouble with labels Posted by: vox persona
» say what? Posted by: Iconoclast421
» Now my brain hurts. Posted by: justaguy
» RE: Liberal is dead Posted by: Lauren
Generally I've disliked the word "liberal."
Posted by: darkenergy on Sep 21, 2007 1:38 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is not because I'm some kind of stealth rightist who wants to rag on the word. Instead, I dislike the laissez faire, free trade, progress=endless economic expansion denotations that the word has held. A liberal is one who believes in commerce, individualism, capitalism, industrialism, and consumption, as opposed to monarchy and a landed aristocracy. In this sense, the neocons are the ultimate liberals.

But the word, shittily enough, has come to mean "non-radical Left," to some degree or another. Too bad a better word didn't become the blanket term for moderate leftism. Personally, I tend toward Marxism and, more recently, anarcho-syndicalism, but I think the non-radical, mainstream/centrist Left still has a role to play in American society, if only to prevent loonie conservatives from gaining further political power. Say what you will, the Democrats are not as bad as the Republicans.

Thus I don't want the moderate Left to do poorly against the Republicans, even though I believe that in time the moderates will have to give way to radicals. One of the most pernicious tactics of the Right has been stealing the terminology of the Left, stigmatizing words and phrases like liberal, peace, equality, fair trade etc. as naive, un-American, and weak.

The only reason I agree the mainstream Left should hold onto its self-designation, "liberal," is to prevent the conservatives from stealing it, thereby winning yet another psychological battle and further confusing and demoralizing many of their opponents.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

reclaim "liberal"??
Posted by: skydog on Sep 21, 2007 3:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No! Hell no!

What are we doing, buying into the right wing kook jobs as they "play the refs"??

We aren't liberals. We aren't leftists. We are CENTRISTS.

When 70% of the public want the hell OUT of Iraq and yet the media says that the "leftists" are vying for control of the Democratic Party for insisting their candidates take a strong stand on getting us out, don't we see that they're lying to us?

Buoyed by big money poured into talk radio, the news media has been pushed so far to the right since Ronald Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine that even a 70% majority no longer constitutes the centrist position. Instead, they call right wing nut jobs like McCain centrists. They call Joe "Mossad Chickenhawk" a centrist because he used to be a Democrat but now reliably votes with the Republicans.

I say: a majority of people wanting a decent home, a secure job, a dignified retirement, affordable health care, affordable prescriptions, a safe and wholesome food supply, a good education for their kids...all the things that once made America great...all the values of the rapidly declining middle class...that WE ARE THE CENTRISTS.

Don't let these bastards tell you anything different.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» LONG LIVE THE CENTRISTS! Posted by: vox persona
» RE: reclaim "liberal"?? Posted by: ellie
» RE: reclaim "liberal"?? Posted by: Lauren
» RE: reclaim "liberal"?? Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Drop Liberal
Posted by: robchapman on Sep 21, 2007 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like the seven defining characteristics of a new left-oriented and progressive political philosophy.

But like Senator Clinton, I prefer not use the word "liberal" to label such a philosophy.

The history of liberalism on the municipal and state level is rich and complex and has both good and bad sides.

In the Northeast, the word liberal has good associations stemming from the FDR legacy that outlived him and had manifestations in public policy until the late 60s. This includes guaranteed work and earnings; public works that built parks, schools and roads; social security and income maintenance; good public schools from kindergarten thru the post grad levels; and medical insurance for the poor and elderly through
medicaid and medicare.

But it also has bad associations stemming from the liberals' ineffectiveness in dealing with street crime and drug abuse; and from liberal dominated municipal and state governments that literally bull dozed blue collar, ethnic neighborhoods to clear land for parking lots, highways and massive office complexes.

I think the accomplishments of liberalism far outweigh its failures, but the failures are a significant part of its legacy.

Further, I think that the big government, big program approach to public policy that the liberal mind-set epitomizes is poorly suited for the times.

Honor the tag liberal, it served well- but let it go, its time is past.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Labels, Labels.
Posted by: morningstar1972 on Sep 21, 2007 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was Liberal for a long time. nothing wrong with the word, unless you listened to the pompus ass Limbaugh between his snorts of coke....(the hypocrite rep scumbag!)
but, I realized that if I took a look at me, and what I truly believe? I am an Anarchist. I took some silly test, freaked, and then looked it up online. (ha ha!)I had thought that an Anarchist was some kind of troublemaker or something, come to find out they have Peaceful Anarchists as well, so I am one of those.
This Liberal thing came up several years ago on a radio station called Air America. Same topic. If you are a Liberal, be proud of who you are! know the word! sayit with dignity! Practice in the mirror every morning, I am a Liberal!
and, be thankful you don't have to say, I am an Anarchist!
because it is weird. very weird!
PS-VOTE FOR HILLARY!!! WOOHOO!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Proud Liberal
Posted by: soul13832 on Sep 21, 2007 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm proud to declare myself a liberal. I don't really feel that because conservative republicans talk about liberals as evil hedonists that I should feel anything but pride that one word could send them into a major tizzy...
peace,

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I resemble that remark Posted by: Libertine
Elitism
Posted by: olhsson on Sep 21, 2007 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don't we call conservatives out on the fact that their entire philosophy is based on elitism?

They misrepresent us as being EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: litism Posted by: darkenergy
Are Those Liberals Wearing Crosses?
Posted by: cognitorex on Sep 21, 2007 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine a handful of mostly older women handing out toothpaste, razors and toothbrushes at a homeless shelter.
Imagine a group of mostly older women in the basement kitchen of a church cooking up chicken, peas and mashed (lots of coffee) for their weekly soup kitchen for the poor.
Imagine thousands of mostly older women volunteering and performing acts of charity all across America.
Some of the ladies have crosses in their lapels; are they not liberals?
Some of their brethren are altruistic agnostic or atheist volunteers; are they not serving the morality engendered in the world's god based religions.
It may serve Karl Rove's vision of political dominance to set these kind faced Americans upon each other over implications of being a 'liberal' but it really isn't the American way.
And it's not a word that anyone should remotely shy away from.
Craig Johnson

Labels: Christian, Clinton, edwards, good works, Liberal, Progressive, Two Americas

# posted by cognitorex @ 7/26/2007

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Think for Yourself
Posted by: ecofriendlynet on Sep 21, 2007 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think for yourself -- after being well informed by sources with the least monetary gain.

No matter what side of the spectrum, don't be sheeple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Border crossing and a utopian vision
Posted by: peacelf on Sep 21, 2007 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Colvin has just described his utopian vision of democracy. That dialogue has taken place among liberals and progressives throughout american history. The founding Brothers (and sisters) were having this conversation when the Constitution was written. However, it seems there's two conversations going on today about two separate visions of the america/world, when there should be one conversation.

It has become cliche' to use the term divide and conquer, but we are truly divided and thus conquered by the wealthy and powerful. Politicians and media punditry perpetuate that division.

That's why it is so important, as Colvin argues, that we have a real conversation about what this world should look like, examine consequences of short-term thinking and develop plans for change that benefit everyone and the planet.

None of this can occur until liberals/progressives quit bashing their political counterparts and open up a dialogue across party lines. We can only do this through discourse and critical questioning.

Mostly, we have to critically examine the sources of our paranoia and fears. Both liberals and conservatives suffer from paranoia. I think the source of the fears are the same, but interpreted differently based on one's political bent. Nonetheless, we have fear in common and that shared sense of uncertainty is fertile ground for discussion.

How do we reach out, across part lines? How do we circumvent the political discourse covered by the mainstream media? How do we reach people who have insulated themselves in their beliefs? We do as educational theorist and cultural critic Henry Giroux says: we "cross borders."

Personally speaking, I have joined a fundamentalist Baptist church. I have connected with people at a very fundamental (no pun intended) level of Jesus' message of love, compassion, justice and hope. I believe strongly in Jesus' revolutionary message of "love my neighbor as myself" and am "saved" by that message, thanks to "historical Jesus" scholar, John Dominic Crossan. I believe in God, as experienced BY Jesus, as Jesus scholar Marcus Borg puts it. God is the sacred, and everything in God's creation is sacred, thus the basis of my convictions and "faith." "God's Kingdom" is that utopian vision "on EARTH as it is in heaven." I believe Jesus (Dr. King, Malcolm X and Gandhi) died because of our sins, not for them.

We cannot meet difference with resistance. We must meet difference with deference, with love, compassion and a sense of justice and hope that will win the hearts and minds of the "different."

We must speak the language of the Jewish prophets. Just as the prophets of the Old Testament were anti-empire, Jesus actions and message was anti-empire, contra Rome. That message has been subverted and lost in... Empire, ironically.

If we progressives/liberals are so interested in "saving the world" then we must humble ourselves and look for common ground. There's plenty of it, if we just open your eyes.

peace is only a mind away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This I Don't Buy
Posted by: pdxstudent on Sep 21, 2007 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...our political persuasion is more intuitive than ideological."

This in particular. There is a lot of interesting stuff going on in this article, but this stuck out as ideological par excellance.

What else is ideology but that which obscures itself from being seen as ideology, or in this case claims that it is not what it is? Intuition, as evoked in this short quotation, is a fine example of the ideological thinking this author would like us to think it is not; would like us to think is not really the way we think.

This is because ideological thinking is precisely that kind of under-the-radar thinking, dare I say feeling, that does not admit itself directly to our conscious thinking. Saying this admits a less clear boundary between affect and thought, which has been a standard American dichotomy, indeed, a standard Western dichotomy since Plato.

Replacing ideological thinking with "intuition," while disavowing that replacement, is the same ideological gesture as calling economics or "the free market" as beyond or otherwise not the purview of the political. It is, in otherwords, an attempt to de-politicize political-thinking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Liberal Label? Keep it!
Posted by: vasumurti on Sep 21, 2007 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author concisely describes the reasons we liberals should stick to the liberal label rather than call ourselves progressives:

"First, such a shift would not be broadly accepted. As the lyrics from Gilbert and Sullivan's Iolanthe remind us, the liberal-conservative dichotomy has been rooted in Western culture for more than a century, on both sides of the Atlantic. Reporting on political candidates, groups, and events, the media will continue to apply those labels regardless of what the people involved may say. The press calls MoveOn.org 'liberal,' a word the group has never used to describe itself.

"Second, liberalism has a proud history and deserves respect equal to that accorded to conservatism. The word has many positive associations: our cherished liberties as a free people, liberal arts and education, liberal democracy, the liberation of the enslaved and oppressed, and national liberators from Simon Bolivar to Daniel O'Connell to Lech Walesa.

"Ducking for cover under a new name will only invite more ridicule. From the Goldwater defeat of 1964 to the Reagan victory of 1980, a sturdy band of Republicans worked to convert the conservative label into a badge of pride, and they succeeded."

"Ducking for cover" is, in fact, one of the things that hurt Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election, when Bush Sr. labeled him a "liberal." It wasn't that Dukakis' views were so far removed from the mainstream, but rather that he was slow and ineffective at responding to Bush Sr.'s demonizing of liberals and distorting of his actual political positions and record.

The liberal label? Keep it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

abused English
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Sep 21, 2007 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People misuse so many words today it's no wonder there's so much misunderstanding, like the words "incredible" and "unbelievable" have come to mean almost the opposite of their dictionary definition.

Even worse is the complete twisting of the word "conservative". The only thing the so-called conservatives are trying to conserve is the wealth and power of rich people. Everything else is expendable for that purpose. On the other hand, their political opponents, the so called "liberals", who are not so liberal when faced with robber baron capitalism, are actually trying to conserve the environment, the Constitution, American democracy, the security of working families, the legal rights of minorities, etc., etc.

And is the word "progressive" really appropriate when any businessman can brag about the progress of his corporate agenda, and Bush can boast about the progress of his war in Iraq? Such a word has no specific meaning.

So who and what are we on the so-called "Left"? We are social democrats. So, why don't we say so instead of hawking a lot of nonsensical verbiage that only confuses the people who are looking for some rational leadership?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: abused English Posted by: wolfepack64
Avoid Wedgies
Posted by: punabear on Sep 21, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The more we drive the wedge that divides our country the more delighted the real evildoers are. Keeping people divided is an old and very effective tactic for maintaining power. Forget about Republicans versus Democrats. Watch "America:Freedom to Fascism". It peels back the curtain to expose the real culprits that are bringing us down. Hug a conservative. If we don't team up we're doomed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It doesn't matter.
Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo on Sep 21, 2007 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It matters almost nothing what you call yourself and everything what you DO about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Distraction
Posted by: PhantomOfLiberty on Sep 21, 2007 11:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who gives a S**t? Why do we let the hissing and spitting of the right affect what we call ourselves? Why should we scramble and find something new and fresh to call attire. Make them change their name. Or better yet just ignore them. Don't let them brainwash you. When we get upset about trivial stuff like this it distracts from the more important topics of discussion. We all know the two party system is a load a bulls**t anyway. Politicians are all pandering, ignorant, wealthy, liars. it's just a matter of who is slightly more human than the next.

Three things should happen in this country: Free health care for ALL , whether you have a job or (more importantly) not. This includes, mental health, dental, eye are, surgery etc. Education reform. We need to overhaul this disgusting system. Put caps on how much money rich people have. Not just raised taxes, but mandatory contributions to the previously mentioned. Greed should be criminalized.

Wouldn't this be a much better country if everyone were healthy, educated and not hungry?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberal from liberate. Conservative from conservation.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 21, 2007 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The words have been twisted and their original meanings have been distorted.

For example, a liberal eduation is one designed to introduce the student to a wide number of topics that will liberate the student's mind from the chains of habit and culture. The student then might realize that the traditional practice of female genital mutilation is really backwards and should be done away with. The liberated mind is aware and clear and can adapt to new circumstances.

The PR industry, from advertisers to military psyops experts (I call them all Mindf*ckers Incorporated) don't like liberal education because people with liberated minds are far less vulnerable to their psychological manipulation tricks.

Conservative comes from conservation, which is the notion that often the elders do have real wisdom that come from their experience. For example, if you use your water well as a toilet, everyone in the village gets sick. Therefore, the elders tell the children not to use the well as a toilet. It also applies to nature and economy - conservation of natural resources means you only use what you need, no more. You save up for a rainy day. However, when the world changes, conservative values need to be modified to adapt to new circumstances. Conservative minds are also easily manipulated by Mindf*ckers Inc, who attempt to portray themselves as wise elders (classic example: the "Wise Use Movement", the anti-environmentalist corporate PR front group).

Why doesn't the author instead consider the "populist" vs. "elite" theme instead of the "left" vs. "right" theme? That one has some nasty history, though, doesn't it? Hitler was a populist who rode to power on the backs of his condemnations of 'elitist Jews' and 'the international financiers who bankrupted the German People' - the Volkwagen was the "People's car". Stalin was "the People's leader'. Hitler was a right wing leader. Stalin was a left wing leader. Hitler and Stalin signed a secret nonagression pact prior to WWII, which Hitler eventually betrayed.

I put it this way: the left wing and the right wing are the two wings of the same Totalitarian Beast - and the Beast can't fly without both of its wings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and we should proudly declare ourselves progressives, too
Posted by: gcolvin on Sep 21, 2007 1:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article is intended not only to bolster the reputation of liberals, but also to offer a distinctive meaning for the term "progressive." Read the whole piece. For more, find my longer essay on the Washington Monthly website, June 2006, by Goggling "progressive trinity." We shall overcome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You think you've got problems with the word 'liberal'?
Posted by: polyquat50 on Sep 21, 2007 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in Australia, we have a party of conservatives, called the "Liberal Party"; and a party of liberals, called the "Labor Party". Of course, it is possible to find people of liberal leanings in the Liberal Party. We call these people "small L liberals". And there is still a remnant group of old lefties remaining in the Labor Party, and we call these people tautologically the "Labor Left". Are there any real social democrats left any where? As the "Australian Democrats" head for oblivion at the up-coming poll, you might have to look to the Greens for social democracy.

Our current Prime Minister, the very conservative leader of the Liberal Party, facing defeat in the next election, is trying to steal left issues like climate change, not from the Labor Party, but from the Greens. And the leader of the Labor Party, looking to take back government of 10 years on the opposition benches, proudly proclaims himself Christian, moral, and a 'fiscal conservative'.

Yep, we Aussies know exactly what 'liberal' means. At least it's not a dirty word here. Maybe someone over there should remind BushCo that their great mate, John Howard, is a Liberal (that's Liberal, with a big L).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't need no stinkink political philosophy.
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 21, 2007 7:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please. Talk programs. Let the labels and the philosophy catch up with pragmatic plans for practical accomplishment.

We need a philosophy only when it isn't clear what needs to be done next. Our needs are so immense and so obvious that we need specific strategies.

The US is falling apart. Our Earth needs saving. The world needs pragmatic internationalism. We need fewer weapons and more wisdom. Give us back our future of hope and promise. Then you can call it whatever name suits your fancy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Proud Liberal
Posted by: Libertine on Sep 21, 2007 8:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll call myself a "progressive" when we can start calling conservatives "regressives".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another Proud Liberal Posted by: Lauren
by all means change the label
Posted by: wolfepack64 on Sep 21, 2007 11:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is extremely interesting to me that liberal lions and icons are now so ashamed of what that word represents, that rather than attempting clear headed thinking some trust fund liberal, mental midget has come up with the strategy of changing what they call themselves. I have a newsflash for you folks, calling an imbecile a protege doesn't change the fact that said protege is still an idiot devoid of of any ideas or thoughts that go beyond "your idea sucks, let's quit/" One need look no further than the spineless acquiesence of the newly dem controlled house and senate. As soon as it became clear to these spineless and shameless hacks that to do what they promised might mean getting down and dirty and actually standing up for the alleged principles they claim to hold sacrosanct, they immediately rolled over and caved. It should be no surprise to anyone. There hasn't been a Democrat with the spine to make a tough decision and then actually stand by it it since JFK. By today's standards he would be called a neo-con by the lunatic, limp wristed left. The left has never seen a battle that they considered worth actually fighting for. A national and international disgrace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

L-I-B-E-R-A-L IS MUSIC TO MY EARS!
Posted by: SALLY EVANS on Sep 22, 2007 2:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
TO ME, LIBERAL MEANS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE BUSH FAMILY. THE PITS OF HELL HAVE TO BE REDUG TO ACCOMADATE THEM. INVESTIGATE THE BUSH FAMILY; THEY ARE RAW WHITE TRASH. LIBERAL IS EQUIVALENT TO LIBERTY. CHECK OUT WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberalism: The ( often challenging ) belief that there is more Good than Bad in Human Nature
Posted by: John Bryans Fontaine on Sep 28, 2007 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Liberalism is the ( often challenging ) belief that there is more Good than Bad in Human Nature.

I believe in a Viable Liberalism in which there few primary goals. These include:

- Re-vitalizing Labor Unions
- Re-abolishing the Death Penalty
- Keeping choice legal
- Furthering the One Laptop Per Child program, and expanding it to American kids
- Supporting nationalized Health Care.
- Supporting affordable housing

Viable Liberalism avoids supporting ‘boutique’ political causes that have little value in furthering the larger progressive ideology. These include:

- Taking ‘under God’ out of the Pledge of Allegiance
- Removing ‘In God We Trust’ from the money supply
- Gay Marriage

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]