The Essence of Liberalism
One of the primary epithets in this and other recent election cycles is “Liberal”. I am an unabashed liberal, or “progressive” if one prefers. Moreover, I believe that most thinking Americans are basically “liberal” – even if the term has been vilified by the Right.
The traditional role of the conservative movement in the United States has been to put a brake on liberal-progressive proposals and action. At the start of the twentieth century, movements were promoted by liberal activists to grant suffrage to women, control business abuses, regulate various industries (food processors, drug manufacturers), eliminate laws and practices that perpetuated second class citizenship for blacks and the introduction of other programs that were considered at the time to be “radical”.
The conservatives constituted a “loyal opposition” and acted to delay implementation of some of these “reforms” until the people had had a chance to reflect. These delays allowed the reforms to moderate and avoid the radicalism found in other countries. It is the nation’s loss that the present conservative Republican Party has chosen to abdicate that role in favor negative obstructionism for its own sake.
Current Republican-conservatism has lost whatever relevancy it once enjoyed. Its remaining popularity is due to its ability to frame issues in such a way that slogans replace principles, sound bites take the place of reason. Liberals have allowed this to occur by not forcibly articulating their positions.
We live in a world of clichés, sound bites and catch phrases that threaten introspection and intelligent conversation. There are no calm, reasoned debates in our national discourse. The prevalent spate of negative campaigning is illustrative. Ask a conservative what the biggest problem in America is today, and the answer is likely to be taxation, a sexualized culture, lack of respect for authority, insufficient church-going or big government running amok. Moreover, the same conservative would state the cause of all of these problems could be summed up in one word: Liberalism.
Beginning in the early 1990s, Republicans attempted and, to a substantial degree have succeeded, to define “liberalism” in a distorted image. Instead of arguing against liberal beliefs, Republicans have adopted a policy of speaking only in sound bites, slogans, bumper sticker stuff: belief in equal rights for all Americans is redefined as “special rights for homosexuals”, a belief in the rights of those accused of crimes is now “soft on crime”, a belief in freedom of religion is portrayed as “hatred of Christians”, and questioning the success or failure of our foreign policy toward Iraq, Iran or North Korea is simplified as “cut and run”. If one supports providing adequate public services, he or she is a “tax and spend liberal”. This has the dual effect of making an opponent a cartoon-like character and, at the same time, avoids addressing difficult issues. Rather than state what the candidate will do or stands for, the opponent is accused of being a slave to “special interests” (whatever that means), or with a secret agenda to raise taxes, increase insurance premiums, double telephone and utility bills and kill puppies and kittens and Grandma.
Liberal-progressives have, for too long, allowed the Republican right to frame the issues in the debate. This put Liberals always on the defensive. It is time to re-assert all of the human values that are the cornerstone of liberalism and that, deep down, are the principles of America.
Liberalism begins with a view of the obligations of society and government, to address human and social needs. When we lived in small isolated communities, our neighbors and local churches pitched in to help; everyone knew each other. In today’s world, each individual is unable to address homelessness or child or elder abuse, or the unavailability of medical care as it may apply to a specific person. Government is the primary and necessary mechanism by which society fulfills its obligations. The needs are too great and wide-spread to be met by individuals, private non-governmental entities, such as church or secular charities and organizations.
Hubert Humphrey expressed his (and my) personal view of how governments are to be viewed and judged,
“The test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”
What does a Liberal believe in? That is a tough question, because every self-professed (self-confessed?) Liberal has individual and sometimes differing ideas of that which defines him or her. Moreover the inability of a Liberal to assert inflexible positions makes it difficult to characterize views.
I do not like to keep quoting others, but Garrison Keillor, expressed his views on the essence of liberalism:
“We don’t let people lie in the ditch and drive past and pretend not to see them dying. Here . . . if your neighbor’s car won’t start, you put on your parka and get the jumper cables out and deliver the Sacred Spark that starts their car. Everybody knows this. The logical extension of this spirit is social welfare and the myriad government programs with long dry names all very uninteresting to you until you suddenly need one and then you turn into a Democrat.”
Liberals do not necessarily have a uniform set of beliefs suitable to be condensed into a ten-second sound bite. We do not go for slogans or categorical statements. Our weakness is the lack of absolute certainty that characterizes the far right. Essentially there are, however, core principles that are accepted.
Government has the obligation to preserve and protect an individual’s rights to speak freely, worship as he or she may wish or not to worship if that is the choice. There are limits to these rights where they might infringe on the equally protected rights or the safety of another but those limits are to be defined strictly. If my “choice” is to worship with deadly snakes that is my prerogative; if I insist that a child handle deadly snakes that is another story.
Rights of individuals should not be limited by the religious views of the majority. Every child is entitled to a public education in a public-funded school. Religious doctrine should not be taught and, certainly, not to the exclusion of secular instruction. If you insist your child be taught the Bible is literally true in all respects, then your child needs to attend a non-public school. If you want your child to be free to offer public prayers whenever the urge strikes, or if you wish the teacher or school official to publicly pray, your child belongs in a religious school. The prayer that is acceptable or commonplace to you may be offensive to another. For example, a Christian prays through and in the name of Jesus; to a Jew or Muslim, this is anathema.
Private behaviors should not be limited or denied based on others’ concepts of morality or religious precepts. For example, abortion is a personal decision to be made by a woman, with consultation if she so decides, with clergy, the father or anyone else she chooses. It is not to be determined by government or outside interest groups.
Government cannot be homophobic. An individual’s sexual orientation should not impact rights under the law. Should marriage or civil unions between those of the same gender be prohibited? If you remove the religious or biblical arguments that are suggested, it is difficult to argue against those rights. Is marriage solely for procreation? Then refuse a marriage license to women who have had a hysterectomy or who are in their 60’s. If the intent is to strengthen the principle of marriage, then how does one explain a 50% divorce rate? If we are that concerned about the importance and sanctity of marriage, stop glamorizing celebrities who have baby after baby sans marriage.
Having rights in a vacuum is interesting but worthless unless government enforces those rights. An individual has the right to equal treatment under the law regardless of race, color of skin, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference or any other characteristics. The people who need this protection, for the most part, are those in the minority, those whose beliefs or lawful behavior offend the majority. After all, the majority needs no special protection; the person who needs protection stands on the street corner spouting radical and unpopular views.
Each of us has an obligation to help the weak and oppressed. In a complex world, that obligation on individual members of society is undertaken by Government in our stead. The poor, homeless, weak, defenseless among us need protection and special care. Government, at its best, provides that care and protection. For example, laws prohibiting child labor, regulations for safety in nursing homes, prohibitions against child, spousal or elder abuse are all examples of society protecting those in need of such protection. Government should be there to alleviate loss caused by natural disasters, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes. A number of individuals cannot support themselves because of being unqualified for employment because of physical or mental infirmity. Government should protect those individuals by providing education, therapy, job training or sustenance.
Sometimes, government has no role and should butt out. Some choices made by individuals may not be consistent with the choices made by others. For example, I may choose to go to a strip bar or an “X-Rated” establishment. I may act in a manner others consider immoral. So long as my choices, as an adult, do not cause harm or take advantage of another, especially a person weaker than I or a child, I should not be restricted by Government. (There is a difference between government restrictions and those of a non-governmental entity; if my employer, private organization to which I belong or my wife objects to my behavior, action may be swift and unpleasant – but that is a private matter.) When government over-steps its role and interferes with personal decisions, chaos results.
Liberalism is not monolithic. We all have personal views on a number of topics. This lack of solidarity is a weakness in confronting the far-right conservative. The latter is so darn certain of everything.
What must liberals do?
First and foremost, we must stop being defensive. We must not allow conservatives to frame the debate. We must present our views forcibly and coherently in every forum possible. Our candidates should reject a negative view of liberalism and not allow conservative candidates to use slogans to avoid issues. We must challenge, challenge and challenge again efforts to demonize liberals. And we must keep our minds open to other views.
That’s what a liberal does.
Tags: conservatives, elections, far right, GOP, GOP policies, liberals
Copyright © 2012 Always Positive, Sometimes Right All rights reserved. Amazing Grace theme by
I understand that you and like me would like equal right for all man woman, and not based on color. Also to help people that can’t defend themselves. but it seems their is a movement that want to take right away and where does it end. Here is an example I have chosen to eat raw vegetables for breakfast but does that mean we should force every body to do the same thing. because they might get sick if they don’t. An what about the people that choose to site on the couch and get fat. people have responsibility to take care of themselves. in some case their are people that can not. and I think we should look after them. plus how far left do you have to go. I mean cap and trade would like to lock your thermostat in your own house. I mean should we ban salt because one guy got sick and could not keep his hands out of the cookie jar. And the oil spill shows exactly how regulation prevents cleanup because they have to do test. Do you think all people should make the same even if they only work 2 hours or not at all. I was born in Australia my father has a master 2 master degree and I could go and live over their not work a job and make almost the same. how does that work? well they taker most of his money in taxes and gives it away to everyone else. Is that fair? Why should I work at all if their is not way to make my life any better?
I say their is a line and I’ve never thought I was democrat or republican but hey I think people should read a bill before they pass it. why you know we have to pass the bill before we can find out what is in it.
Samuel
Let’s see. I believe I made it clear that I would oppose any law that requi red me to follow the personal choices of another. If you choose to eat healthy foods, gorge yourself on salted fries at a fast food establishment or eat high calorie unhealthy foods, whatever, that is none of my concern. However, there should be readily available information as to ingredients, fats and such so I can make a rational (for me) decision.
Government’s role is to make certain that information is provided and is truthful.
Your rights to be unhealthy, like all rights, end when they interfere with mine. Thus the law restricts smoking in an enclosed public place. I dispute your example of government regulation in connection with the BP oil leak. In a previous post, I stated that it was the absence of adequate regulation that allowed the spill to happen in the first place.
In any event, thank you for your taking the time to comment.
I just read the CNN headline regarding Obama’s blasting the Republican’s for blocking the Disclose Act, which interestingly enough is also opposed by the ACLU … think that might indicate a snake in the woodpile? This bill was blocked because it is not really about campaign contributions. They are just the camouflage of the current “progressive liberal” attack on small political action committees’ ability to get the voice of the Main Street, USA, heard. It is Mr. Obama’s deceitful attempt to keep rigging elections and keep the current liberal incumbents in office … like stacking the deck. It demolishes the First Amendment rights for all but the biggest of the big … like AARP, The NRA and Obama’s favorite henchmen, the labor unions. Why would the existing powers in office want to word a bill in such a way as to allow that to happen? Keep up the good work “Party of No”.
Actually I am still trying to figure out where I stand on a lot of the issues. I agree my rights end where your rights begin. I have a right to keep a firearm in my home but I do not have the right to discharge it in such a way as the bullet can enter your home (an extreme example), my music on my property should not be so loud as to make it difficult for you to hear your television, your public profanity has no right to make it into my hearing space. So we need regulations/laws to mediate these types of issues. It seems to me regulations/laws are more to protect me than to penalize you. This administration and Congress has added more levels of bureaucracy than FDR and The New Deal. Before we enact a bunch of new regulations, let’s enforce what is in place. The oil spill … regulations were overlooked by Mr. Obama’s choice of leader for MMS, a Harvard scholar. She inherited a sloppy system and did not know how to fix it; Harvard scholars should stay at Harvard. The regulations were there, just not enforced. Does that mean we need more regulation? Maybe we need to criminalize (for both corporate America and the government bureaucrat) the disregarding of regulations. Plus, according to one early on CNN observation there were 14 individual government agencies on the ground in LA during the crisis and any one had veto power that could bring clean up operations to a halt. It took the President about a month to get a real boss in action.
If I am in favor of reasonable business regulations and strict enforcement but also believe the limiting of business profits, executive income, product pricing and ownership return on their investment would have this country still living with 50’s technology … am I a liberal or a conservative? If I believe every individual is responsible for their own actions (within the regulations/laws of the land) and should live with the consequences of those actions … am I a liberal or conservative? If I believe an elected official should do their job with the good of the people being more important than the personal gain from the office … am I a liberal or conservative? If I happen to believe there is a God and no one has the right to force their belief in God (or science, same thing) upon me … am I a liberal or a conservative?
I can just see us all trying to maneuver around town, each in our own private “rights bubble”. We could have red tinted bubbles for liberals and blue tinted bubbles for conservatives.
The campaign financing Bill is an excellent example of GOP obstructionist attitude. The point is not only to regulate corporate (and union) contributions; I, personally, have no problem with the spending. . . BUT there should be full and open disclosure of who is paying for the advertisements. The “c(3)” or “529” A organizations with their fancy and patriotic names come out with negative advertisements and TV spots calling a particular candidate a thief. There should be full disclosure that the item was paid for by the opposing candidate and not something called, “Americans for Fair Elections, Mom and Apple Pie”.
The disclose act has one objective and one objective only … to silence opposition of the existing administration. The Dems tried to sneak it past and got caught. That is why the ACLU opposes the legislation … it violates our first admendment rights. Disclosure should be available for all ads but a list of 550 individuals should not have to be read during a 30 second spot nor should big labor be exempted from the law. Obama’s 2008 foreign campaign contributors should be disclosed also but he has been able to avoid doing it. The GOP fulfilled its obligation to America in blocking this very one sided attempt to muffle the incumbents’ critics. Face it Jim, the Dems just want to get the TEA Party off the air anyway they can. That is where this bill was directed. I do not necessarily agree with all the TEA Partiers advocate but I support their right to speak their mind.
Write a bill that is fair to all and I will jump in your corner to help support it.
I just saw the vote on The Disclose Act cloture … 57 to 41 against … looks like about a third of the Senate Democrats did not think much of this bill either. Nice job Blue Dogs.
I think that you are going to be deeply conflicted if you are intellectually honest. On one hand you seem to be all in favor of “wouldn’t it be nice if . . .” laws of Mommy government, but at the same time you want govenment to leave you alone. You can’t have it both ways.
The evil Gingrich has the perfect idea–fund-raising should be limited to the district being represented by the member of Congress or Senate. No more fundraisers in DC! I must say that the most jumping-up-and-down-Yellow-Dawg-Democrats I have met agree with the idea (so long as you don’t mention Gingrich.) The people who most disagree with that idea have an agenda which has nothing to do with healthy representative gov’t.
The weird shadowed text you have on this site is very difficult to read.
I know that we disagree on the very principals of governance. I believe that the Federal government is responsible for the economic environment in which all business and individual interaction takes place. That the laws should define appropriate behavior and be applied to all economic entities equally. There should be no attempts of social engineering what-so-ever as that is exactly what causes mega-corps like: Archer-Daniels, Con-Agra, BP, Exxon and other similar companies. Thick unread bills most often include protection for large campaign contributors–they hide the graft and monetary demands of those in power.
I am pretty sure that you are a believer in a “living document”–which would lead us to kill one another.
First of all, I have changed the site’s theme; I hope it is more reader-friendly. As to whether I am “conflicted”, I plead guilty (with an explanation). Most important issues regarding the role of government are not easily resolved. There is a delicate balancing and I confess to sometimes inconsistent! Generally, I believe the role of government is to safeguard individual liberties and to make certain that no one goes hungry, has inadequate medical services and has basic needs met — if the individual is unable to provide for such needs due to incapacity. I do not want government to impose rules based on the moral judgments or religious principles of government agencies or representatives.
As I said, one political weakness of Liberals is that we tend to see too many sides of an issue!
I see there are TWO liberals out there. One is the common man who believes he is a liberal because he is compasionate, understanding and believes Government should “take care” of things. The other liberal is the one elected to office. These elected officials believe in big government and big spending (it isn’t their money anyway). They believe it’s ok for them to have wealth, but not other folks. Why, some of these elected and appointed liberals don’t even pay their own taxes, yet they provide rule of law for those other folks who do not pay taxes.
As a recovering Liberal I see these issues. It wasn’t until I became a small business owner that I realized how I was more aligned with Republicans….smaller government, reduce spending, don’t spend it if you don’t have it.
There was a time when the rich were Patrons of Art, donators to the poor, infirm, and needy. Check the “giving” record of these powerful liberal/progressives and compare to republicans. That should be a wake up call for compasion. Liberals are generous if it’s really not their money, and they act as if there’s a never ending supply.