Self-Declared Liberals Have Nothing to Be Afraid of

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

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.