COMMENTS: 47
Self-Declared Liberals Have Nothing to Be Afraid of
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
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, 2007It 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.
With the best kind of progressive change, there is no turning back. In the Progressive Era at the turn of the 20th century, those great reforms included women's right to vote, the direct election of U.S. senators, and the graduated federal income tax, all of which required constitutional amendments. Thereafter, the vast majority of both liberals and conservatives had to accept that a structural change had happened. The social contract in America had been remade. In many cities and states, there were new charters and constitutions in place with professional city managers, party primary elections and direct democracy through initiative, referendum and recall votes. The progressive reform movement restored faith in popular government and gave the country a new platform upon which the left-right debates of the future could proceed to other issues.
To see what the vertical motion of progressive reform might be, we need to look again at the horizontal spectrum of ideology, what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have come to mean today, what dynamics are at play and what choices we have.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of liberalism is "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties." Conservatism is defined as a political philosophy based on "tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change."
Two hundred years ago, classical definitions of political philosophy, contrasting progress with tradition, regarded both the democratic and republican views flowing from the Enlightenment and the American and French Revolutions as "liberal," while the "conservatives" were those favoring monarchy and aristocracy. In today's post-modern world, those defending the old order could be resisting the reform of Social Security, those favoring change could be promoting school vouchers. The distinction between change and stability is no longer much of a clue to the underlying ideologies involved.
On economic grounds, since the advent of Marxism, the left-right divide often has been portrayed as socialism and central planning versus capitalism and the free market. Again, history has taken us way past that dichotomy. Socialism in its purest totalitarian state form, Soviet communism, failed. Capitalism is the dominant system almost everywhere. Conservatism has become identified as a pro-business ideology, which is ironic because the free enterprise system is founded upon the liberal idea that anyone can own and exploit private property.
Some, using a linguistic or anthropological approach like George Lakoff, have characterized conservatism as personified by the "strict father" and liberalism by the "nurturing parent." Others, using a two-dimensional "political compass," suggest that there is another axis of philosophical orientation ranging from authoritarian to libertarian. The ironies abound. Liberals defend a woman's right to abortion but want the state to limit the individual's right to own a gun. Conservatives want a stronger military and lower taxes at the same time.
To add to the confusion, there is the dimension of nationalism, sovereignty, and globalization. During most of the 20th century, conservatives in America opposed foreign intervention and "nation building," while liberals such as FDR and LBJ plunged us into World War II and the Vietnam War. Now, so-called neoconservatives justify the Iraq war as a demonstration project for liberty in the Middle East.
Finally, we have seen election campaign efforts by partisan forces to define conservatism and liberalism using short-hand statements of "values." Our public life is spinning so fast that political philosophies have been compressed into sound bites or, at most, what can be said in an elevator ride. Thus, conservatives claim to stand for national defense, free enterprise, lower taxes, smaller government and family values, implying, of course, that liberals favor the opposite. Liberals, in various ways, have claimed their values as diversity, sustainability, peace, prosperity and justice. These marketing pitches do not help define the left-right continuum in the United States. Most Americans will say they believe in all of them.
Maybe there is a deeper principle at work here, something imbedded in our collective unconscious that causes each of us to gravitate instinctively toward the liberal or conservative side when we hear subjects discussed such as terrorism, healthcare, immigration, gay marriage, abortion or global warming. If we can discover what that principle is, perhaps we can see what it will take to get our country unstuck from all those political stalemates we have left over from the 20th century.
Philosophical observers from Saul Alinsky to Thomas Jefferson have noticed a theme that seems to resonate at the core of our attitudes toward the political life we see around us. In 1824, after more than 50 years in politics, Jefferson wrote:
"Men by their constitution are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests."
In other words, our political views may be shaped by many influences, but the most essential question is, "How much do you trust in the goodness of human nature?" Strangers, people you do not know personally. Neighbors you haven't met. People who are different from you. Who laugh and whisper in other languages. If you tend to believe that most people, when called upon, will act unselfishly, in consideration of others, you lean to the liberal side. If you are inclined to think that most people, most of the time, will act in their own self-interest, you will lean conservative.
In the conservative worldview, at the ultimate extreme, you can trust only yourself and those you personally know to be trustworthy. Outside of that circle, it is every man for himself. Having a weapon to defend yourself and your family is imperative.
Liberals tend to believe that most people, most of the time, liberated from the compulsory authority of others over their lives, will behave themselves. Misbehavior can be understood, corrected, even forgiven. Conservatives are tougher on crime, trust less in rehabilitation.
The liberal impulse is to believe not only in basic individual goodness and individual liberty, but also that people are capable of joining together in collective efforts for the common good. Liberals use slogans like "We are all in this together." They favor government action to address public needs and believe that the unselfish payment of taxes is worthwhile if the programs are administered well. Conservatives tend to distrust collective solutions and believe that the competitive business model, in which the managers, employees, shareholders, and the enterprise itself all seek to maximize their financial self-interests, will somehow better serve the common good.
Conservatives like the rugged individual who earns his keep, pays his own way, pulls himself up by his own bootstraps, and doesn't need government help. Liberals see suffering and oppression and believe that government should take the side of the weak against the strong. To conservatives, liberals are naïve. To liberals, conservatives lack compassion.
It may no longer be part of the conservative instinct to believe in monarchy or aristocracy, but distrusting the majority of people does lead to a preference for a wise and powerful establishment to rule the unwashed masses. This may explain why some conservatives, despite what they say about wanting to shrink the size of government, do end up supporting the extension of government power over our lives (often producing budget deficits), and liberals are more likely to challenge authority and favor participatory forms of democracy.
Few of us are purely liberal or conservative. We want to trust, but we have strong doubts about many of our fellow human beings. As Ronald Reagan famously said, "Trust, but verify." Our inclinations to be liberal or conservative are always relative. How we lean is not genetically determined, but is a product of personality, upbringing, peer influences, and critical life experiences. We define ourselves as to the right or left of George W. Bush or Nancy Pelosi or Attila the Hun -- as well as we may comprehend where they stand. We may find ourselves to be liberal in relation to the prevailing views in one community, state, country or decade, and conservative in another. We may shift our relative stance when we perceive that the party in power has moved too far in the wrong direction.
Without doubt, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, left many Americans more fearful, less likely to trust human nature, and more conservative than they were on Sept. 10.
After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, there was a noticeable shift in the public mood to the liberal side. "Sink or swim" is not our creed, the class and racial divide in America is shameful, the government should do a better job. The Army Corps of Engineers failed to build strong enough levies. FEMA has no "first-responders" when local public safety officials are overwhelmed. It is time to take global warming seriously.
This is not to argue that all liberal or conservative political philosophies can be reduced to a single dimension of trust or lack of trust in the great mass of humanity. From the Federalist Papers, to Emerson and Thoreau, to Ayn Rand, to Martin Luther King, we have inspiring articulations of conservative and liberal ideologies that detail the implications for how we organize politics and government in our society.
Rather, it is to accept that for most of us, our political persuasion is more intuitive than ideological. We will not be saved or destroyed by having the right or wrong political theory. We need to relax and understand that the tension we feel in America and in ourselves, between trusting and not trusting human nature, can be a constructive dynamic between valid concerns.
The revival of liberalism will not, alone, unlock the solutions to our most pressing political problems. It will surely help when more public figures stop being defensive, come out of the closet, and answer to the name of liberal. However, the push and pull of our left-right debates has become too partisan, too piecemeal, too timid, too poll-driven, too wrapped in euphemism, to rise above the morass that politics has become in the United States. Too many assumptions go unchallenged. Too many untruths are accepted as truths. The bandwidth of conventional wisdom is too narrow.
We need a transformational political philosophy that is not incremental but bold, that is honest rather than manipulative, that admits the possible truth of the other side's arguments, that is willing to let go of old assumptions, to break the mold. That is willing to advance some unpopular ideas because they are right, that looks beyond the next election. To be a progressive is to be called to participate in a high-intensity, temporary period of reform aimed at long-term, structural change rather than the tactical victories of the day.
Progressive reform might sometimes take the centrist course of moderation and compromise. In immigration reform, for example, we need a humane path to legal status for those who are here, a guest worker program and better border security. In other cases, there may be no middle road, and we will need to jump forward in the more unselfish direction of trusting and serving humanity: a new international treaty to address global warming, universal single-payer healthcare, election of the president and vice president by direct popular vote, and use of the United Nations to control rogue nations rather than unilateral American military action. Where conservatives cannot be won over to the high road, progressives will need to take them on at the polls in their home districts.
A progressive philosophy can transcend the liberal-conservative divide if it is:
1. Transitional. There are key moments in history when a quantum leap can take place, when our social contract can be remade. The wide-open election of 2008 is our opportunity to begin. Like the Progressive Era of a hundred years ago, it may take two decades. But it can be done in our lifetimes.
2. Deep. This is a time for more than topical applications of sentiment. We must re-examine our history, social institutions and philosophical traditions, and grasp our deepest moral purpose as a polity and society, such as "the greatest good for the greatest number with dignity for all." We must look beyond government and determine whether our main forms of social organization-family, business, and public service-need to be in better balance. How we articulate our philosophy of reform will be unique to our time and place in history.
3. Comprehensive. When we consider reforms, the whole subject must be put on the table. We may have to detach from vested interests whether they may be business, labor, religious, or regional, and pursue the best interests of all the people. For instance, in educational reform, we need to consider everything from racial integration, to lengthening the school day and year, to merit pay for teachers, to school vouchers, to language, to moral teaching, to technology, to how we are going to pay for all this. All questions must be asked and answered, all consequences taken into account.
4. Objective. To be competent about reform, there must be genuine respect for truth, for known facts, for evaluating the results of past policies and experiments conducted in cities, states and other nations. Where we can't know in advance what will happen, we have to be guided by a sober estimate of the probability of good and bad results. We did not do this before invading and occupying Iraq. Bipartisan study and action, where possible, will yield the best outcomes. We must harness the creative energy of both sides of human nature. Trust, but verify.
5. Broad. The progressive movement must pursue simultaneous, mutually reinforcing reforms throughout government and society, on all significant foreign and domestic public policy questions, from abortion and Afghanistan to zoning and Zionism.
6. Farsighted. We must anticipate and prepare for the difficulties that the human race will have, surviving on this planet. We should not choose strategies, or fail to act boldly, where we are likely to cause huge financial, environmental, or military burdens to fall on future administrations and generations. Many problems invite us to place ourselves in the future and think back to the reforms we need now. The pace of fossil fuel extraction. How to avoid both religious wars and religious intolerance. Paying for what we need government to do without deficit financing. The melting of the polar ice caps.
7. Global. Every question must be addressed twice: What is best for America? And what is best for the world? During the last Progressive Era, Teddy Roosevelt was a nationalist who promoted the Spanish-American War and seized the Panama Canal. Wilson's dream for the League of Nations was blocked by a conservative Congress. This time, we must be internationalists. If we disregard the impact of American decisions upon the peoples of other nations, we do so at our own extreme peril. In the words of Martin Luther King, "We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools."
Let's begin by recognizing that both liberalism and conservatism are, in the 21st century, valid human impulses, and that a philosophy of reform is what we need most of all.
Of necessity, progressive reform will require a higher level of trust in the essential goodness of humanity, because the only path to security and prosperity in a globalized, interdependent world lies in finding new ways to cooperate. As Robert Wright has so brilliantly illustrated in Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, this has always been the main feature of progress in human history. But we need conservatives to remind us where we should be careful not to trust too much.
The vertical course of progressive reform is open to conservatives as well as liberals. Many conservatives, despite their views on other matters, are ready to trust enough in mankind to take some big, unselfish steps toward the future. To sacrifice the advantages of a high-energy lifestyle and have a lighter impact on the world so that we avoid a global environmental catastrophe. To treat same-sex couples like the rest of us. To drive big money out of politics completely. To guarantee every American the dignity of access to affordable health care.
Progressive reform could yet be the greatest achievement of the generation that first voted in the 1960s, fulfilling the promises and dreams of its idealism, linked arm-in-arm with the generation of its children. We had better get started. The time is right.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Sep 21, 2007 12:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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 not necessarily progressive
Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Liberal not necessarily progressive
Posted by: Xynyx
» Labels are inadequate, yet they are so important
Posted by: Artkansas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vox persona on Sep 21, 2007 1:09 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» How can you be a libertarian yet claim to be a moderate?
Posted by: justaguy
» That's the trouble with labels
Posted by: vox persona
» say what?
Posted by: Iconoclast421
» Now my brain hurts.
Posted by: justaguy
» RE: How can you be a libertarian yet claim to be a moderate?
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» Rubbish. There is nothing conservative about laissez-faire capitalism.
Posted by: justaguy
» RE: Liberal is dead
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: darkenergy on Sep 21, 2007 1:38 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: skydog on Sep 21, 2007 3:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: robchapman on Sep 21, 2007 4:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: morningstar1972 on Sep 21, 2007 4:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: soul13832 on Sep 21, 2007 6:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
peace,
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I resemble that remark
Posted by: Libertine
Comments are closed-
Posted by: olhsson on Sep 21, 2007 7:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: their entire philosophy is based on elitism
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: litism
Posted by: darkenergy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cognitorex on Sep 21, 2007 7:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ecofriendlynet on Sep 21, 2007 7:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peacelf on Sep 21, 2007 7:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pdxstudent on Sep 21, 2007 7:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Sep 21, 2007 9:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"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]
» Let the liberal label shrivel up and die.
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Let the liberal label shrivel up and die.
Posted by: darkenergy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Sep 21, 2007 9:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: punabear on Sep 21, 2007 10:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo on Sep 21, 2007 10:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PhantomOfLiberty on Sep 21, 2007 11:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 21, 2007 12:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gcolvin on Sep 21, 2007 1:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: polyquat50 on Sep 21, 2007 3:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 21, 2007 7:18 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Libertine on Sep 21, 2007 8:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Another Proud Liberal
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wolfepack64 on Sep 21, 2007 11:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SALLY EVANS on Sep 22, 2007 2:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: John Bryans Fontaine on Sep 28, 2007 10:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Sep 21, 2007 12:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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 not necessarily progressive
Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Liberal not necessarily progressive
Posted by: Xynyx
» Labels are inadequate, yet they are so important
Posted by: Artkansas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vox persona on Sep 21, 2007 1:09 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» How can you be a libertarian yet claim to be a moderate?
Posted by: justaguy
» That's the trouble with labels
Posted by: vox persona
» say what?
Posted by: Iconoclast421
» Now my brain hurts.
Posted by: justaguy
» RE: How can you be a libertarian yet claim to be a moderate?
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» Rubbish. There is nothing conservative about laissez-faire capitalism.
Posted by: justaguy
» RE: Liberal is dead
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: darkenergy on Sep 21, 2007 1:38 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: skydog on Sep 21, 2007 3:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: robchapman on Sep 21, 2007 4:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: morningstar1972 on Sep 21, 2007 4:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: soul13832 on Sep 21, 2007 6:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
peace,
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I resemble that remark
Posted by: Libertine
Comments are closed-
Posted by: olhsson on Sep 21, 2007 7:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: their entire philosophy is based on elitism
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: litism
Posted by: darkenergy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cognitorex on Sep 21, 2007 7:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ecofriendlynet on Sep 21, 2007 7:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peacelf on Sep 21, 2007 7:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pdxstudent on Sep 21, 2007 7:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Sep 21, 2007 9:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"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]
» Let the liberal label shrivel up and die.
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Let the liberal label shrivel up and die.
Posted by: darkenergy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Sep 21, 2007 9:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: punabear on Sep 21, 2007 10:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo on Sep 21, 2007 10:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PhantomOfLiberty on Sep 21, 2007 11:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 21, 2007 12:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gcolvin on Sep 21, 2007 1:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: polyquat50 on Sep 21, 2007 3:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 21, 2007 7:18 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Libertine on Sep 21, 2007 8:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Another Proud Liberal
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wolfepack64 on Sep 21, 2007 11:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SALLY EVANS on Sep 22, 2007 2:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: John Bryans Fontaine on Sep 28, 2007 10:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Massa Ruins Glenn Beck's Day; Admits to Groping "Tickle Fight" with Staffer
Lessons from a Revolutionary's Lifetime Crusade for Justice
Is There Really a Backlash Against Casual Sex?




