A Liberal Laments the Bastardization of the Term "Liberal"

[Overpaid Slacker]

I'd said in a thread a couple of weeks ago something to the effect that I respect and admire Liberalism and what I consider to be true Liberals. The trouble, I said, was that people who now call themselves Liberals and try to usurp or co-opt the respectability of that tradition have so diluted and polluted the label that real, true Liberals are frequently treated as though they're one of the actually non-Liberal Leftie Moonbats.

The author of the following article, Joel Engel, is a lifelong Liberal and the kind of guy I'd split my last beer with. I know some of the self-gratifying pedants out there will have issue with one or two of his instances, but remove even a few examples and I believe the trend remains. I believe also that this trend is a key to Liberals' (and Democrats') loss of power in the US.

Take Back the Word
IN EDWARD ALBEE'S PLAY The American Dream, Mommy proudly delights in her new beige hat until the moment someone refers to it as wheat colored, at which point she hurries back to the store in a fit of pique. Albee, of course, was being ironical, ridiculing his character's weak-mindedness before an audience who would surely agree that roses smell good no matter what they're named, and that insisting the sky is green can't really change what the eye sees.

So what are we to make of the word "liberal," whose current meaning is likely beyond the ken of both Albee and Shakespeare? In the not-so-distant past, liberal FDR believed that the enemies of other democracies were, by extension, America's enemies--and liberals eagerly joined him in taking on the America Firsters here before fighting fascism over there. In his footsteps followed liberal Harry Truman, whose doctrine reflected the view that Soviet expansionism was insidiously anti-democratic and therefore innately illiberal. Then came JFK, the presidential avatar of modern liberalism, which he defined on his first day in office when he announced that America would "pay any price, bear any burden . . . in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." His statement seemed interwoven into the fabric of the burgeoning civil rights movement that was to become liberalism's high-water mark at home--the one issue that ipso facto determined whether you were indeed a liberal. And it was ennobling to be one, sharing Martin Luther King's dream that "all of God's children" would someday be free.


BUT ALAS, somewhere over the last two decades or so, liberalism lost its root as the word liberal was perverted to the point of Orwellian inversion--and therefore rendered meaningless.

For example, rooting against the United States and for "insurgents" who delight in slaughtering innocents is many things (stupid, for one, also sad, evil, and short-sighted), but it is assuredly not liberal.

Decrying the American "religious right" for advocating a "culture of life" while simultaneously praising the neck-slicing Islamofascists is many things (start with pathetic), but it is not liberal.

Calling 3,000 workers who died when the buildings fell "little Eichmanns" is many things (vile, as well as repulsive and morally repugnant), but it is not liberal.

Protesting the painless execution of a sadistic murderer while cheering the removal of a feeding tube from a brain-damaged woman whose parents very much want her alive even if her estranged husband doesn't, is many things (incomprehensible, indefensible, and unforgivably cruel), but it is not liberal.

Marching against war every time the United States is involved--in fact only when the United States is involved--regardless of the war's purpose, is many things (reactionary for sure), but it is not liberal.

Crying that you're being persecuted for exercising your right of free speech, when what happened was that other people less famous than you reacted to your ill-considered and offensive comments by exercising their own First Amendment rights, is many things (solipsistic comes to mind), but it is not liberal.

Pretending that the abuses committed by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison were on a par with the wholesale torture, rape, and murder committed there over decades is many things (overwrought, unenlightened, an insult to intelligence), but it is not liberal.

Depicting Condoleezza Rice in editorial cartoons as a big-lipped mammy who speaks Ebonics to her massa is many things (offensive, sickening), but it is not liberal.

Marching if you're gay in support of "Palestine"--from which gay Palestinians try to escape to Israel before they're tortured and murdered for their sexual orientation--is many things (nuts, as well as hilariously ill-informed), but it is far from liberal.

Advocating for murderous regimes such as Syria, Libya, and Saddam's Iraq to sit on the United Nations Human Right Commission is many things (start with annoyingly ironic), but it is not liberal.

Decrying the human-rights abuses of regimes like Saddam's Iraq and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, and then protesting against the wars that actually rid these countries of their murdering leaders, is many things (childish and willfully blind), but it is not liberal.

Equating Israeli self-defense measures against bombers who hide among civilians to the murders committed by the bombers who intentionally target civilians is many things (foolish, and probably anti-Semitic), but it is not liberal.

Believing that ethnicity determines identity--and accusing anyone of being "a disgrace to his race" because his views fall outside what's considered orthodoxy--is many things (primarily racist), but it is definitely not liberal.

Invoking Nazis and/or the Taliban to describe duly-elected officeholders of another party is many things (tiresome, ridiculous), but it is not liberal.

Referring to illegals as "undocumented workers," and to those who'd like to enforce immigration laws as evil and racist, is many things (self-destructive, short-sighted), but it is not liberal.

Joking about Charlton Heston's Alzheimer's because you don't abide his politics is many things (cold-hearted, intolerant, sophomoric), but it is far from liberal.

Calling the then-recently departed Yasser Arafat a "wily" and "enigmatic" "statesman", as the New York Times did, is many things (nauseatingly PC, for one), but it is not liberal.

Regulating what children can and cannot eat at home so that they don't become obese, as Hawaiian legislators recently tried to do; or trying to pass legislation which would require that every home be retrofitted for wheelchair access, as Santa Monica legislators did, is many things (repressive, despotic), but it is not liberal.

Shouting down speakers in the name of free speech is many things (fascistic, tyrannical, churlish), but it is not liberal.

Excusing Kofi Annan and the United Nations for the worst palm-greasing scandal in history--one that lengthened the reign of a tyrant and led to the deaths of countless thousands--is many things (inexcusable, also shameful), but it is not liberal.

Sadly, the list goes on (and on and on and on). Which is why those of us who consider ourselves classical liberals--and believe that language has power--ought to take back the word "liberal" from those on the left who debase its meaning. Many of them, I suspect, are like the body surfer who's surprised to find that the ocean current has carried him half a mile from his towel on the beach. They would do well to get their bearings and gauge how far the political tide has removed them from their core beliefs.

Me, I know where my towel is--in the same place it's been for 40 years. If that makes me "conservative," well, a liberal by any other name . .

[widebody911]

Slow day at NeoCon Press Central?

[Jeff Higgins]

As a fairly recently converted conservative (in the last ten years) I agree whole heartedly with Mr. Engle. The loonies, not the true liberals, rule the roost over there. The Democratic party, and liberalism in general, needs to find a way to distance themselves from the loonies if they ever hope to attract working class America back into the fold.

[juanbenae]

i am not so much a liberal, a Democrat, or republican. i just despise W. is that so wrong?

[tabs]

On and On....I don't really care if the Liberals scream their heads off...all they are bcoming more shrill by th moment...As they are like children screaming with NO ONE LISTENING .....

You might say Liberalism is irevelant.......

[dd74]

Originally posted by tabs
You might say Liberalism is irevelant.......

Good point. I agree with you. And why I think it's irrelevant has to do with a shift in the economy to a more global nature. The pure liberal ideology isn't lost - not in a nostalgic way - but as far as being workable in today's economics, it definitely is not in vogue. That's one reason there's no such word as "neo-liberal."

[Overpaid Slacker]

Liberalism is in no way irrelevant, though I agree it is dormant in its purer, more useful form. Neoconservatism, which began primarily as an economic movement, has adopted many of the foreign policy principles of Liberalism (as alluded to in the 2nd. para of the piece I quoted).

I believe its decline is due in some small part to its elasticity, ironically enough. Moreso today than in recent periods, people equate adamancy, stridency and publicity with virtue. Liberalism was able to cope, coordinate and compromise with other tenets (maybe too much), and being reasonable is not going to get you very far nowadays.

I realize there are gross overstatements in the prior paragraph. It's not that the Civil Rights Movement (for example) was "reasonable" or "accommodating"; it was, however, just and therefore prevailed. In the absence of principled, just motive, you can't be reasonable. But you can be loud, wholly unconcerned with detail and aprosexic. Oh, and a victim.

JP

[dd74]

Plus some liberals grew up, grew wealthy and began having children which could have caused some erosion at its base.

[lendaddy]

I think the historical failure of their ideals makes it difficult to defend.

[Overpaid Slacker]

dd -- a good point as well. And it may get to the theory that "Liberalism" was a great idea ... for its time. Time moved on, and left Liberalism it in its wake, so to speak.

There's also the Roe Effect, which I believe has an influence, but that's just ol' cranky neocon me.

Joel -- I'm not sure what you mean by that. There have been failures in any political theory that's been put to practice. There were some successes, though not all of them total successes or without unintended (presumably) consequences.

JP

[lendaddy]

JP, I guess I was referring more to the socialist ideology (which I consider the soul of the liberal movement). I did not mean for it to come accross as an absolute.

[CamB]

That article really, really twists most of the examples. Just one (of many) examples:

Equating Israeli self-defense measures against bombers who hide among civilians to the murders committed by the bombers who intentionally target civilians is many things (foolish, and probably anti-Semitic), but it is not liberal.

I'd say a true minority of liberals feel this way - I'd imagine that most, like me, believe that the self defence (offence?) measures are too heavy handed and coloured by factors other than just defence against bombers.

And to take this view is no more anti-Semitic than being against the Palestinian bombers is anti-Arab.

[RoninLB]

King and Kennedy was the last great expression of the liberal affect on our culture. Johnson was the great mechanic who built the machine imo. I don't believe that Kennedy could have accomplished so much.

"In his footsteps followed liberal Harry Truman, whose doctrine reflected the view that Soviet expansionism was insidiously anti-democratic and therefore innately illiberal."
The beginning of the end started when those ideals were turned 180. 'Nam was this vehicle. The new justification for the 180 became an attack upon itself. The climax to all this was the portrail and worship of a traitor as a heroine. A now morally bankrupt group evolving into consistent failure of policy that depends upon the latest "judge of issue" must constantly search for a new belief in order to be dynamically relevant. The lack of a new so called "liberal" leadership led to the timeless grouping thru fear and hate. The common enemy think constrained development.

[tabs]

Liberalism is self reflective....Liberals examine their motives and methods of operation... This is the America is always wrong crowd...unfortunately they have stopped looking at the good America does as well and fails to look att the motives and methods of the other players..

Liberals are Progressive...they are willing to think in new ways and try new things..are open for change. Unfortunately they have become zealots for the changes they want to impose...

Liberals are tolerant of others...they accept the differences in other peoples methods of operation with a live and let live attitude...Hah!!!! It's our way or the highway...they have become self rightous and arrogant.

[Mule]

most of today's "liberals" could substitute socialist or anti-American if they are uncomfortable with liberal.

[lendaddy]

I submit the literal Websters definitions simply don't fit anymore. Maybe they never did? I know what the core of my party stands for, and it is NOT simply the status quo. Opportunity, small government, personal responsibility, strong military, capitalism, etc.. These will always be our beliefs, whether our leaders adhere to them or not, whether they are reflected in the status quo or not.

[CamB]

Len - I'd put it to you that they only don't apply any more in the US.

You guys are galloping to the right as a populace, compared to much of the rest of the world.

Mule, thanks for your reasoned opinion. About as useful as me saying that most of today's conservatives could substitute fascit and zenophobic in uncomfortable with conservative

[onewhippedpuppy]

What bothers me is that I can't see any cohesive point of view of many modern "liberals", it just appears that whatever the conservatives believe, or is status quo , they just turn it 180 degrees. They take any opportunity to incite change and make noise (and news), without stopping to ask if it's a change that should be made.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by onewhippedpuppy
I can't see any cohesive point of view of many modern "liberals",

They take any opportunity to incite change and make noise

Since Clinton left office the DNC has no unifying force. Worse is that they can't develop constructive policy that would offer a real choice to voters. It seems that the choice of Dean in the DNC was for his skill as a fund raiser. imho Joe Liberman's Dem followers are the remnants of what the party used to look like. The danger of their defection could be a mortal blow to the future of the Dem's influence for the next 20yrs. I use Liberman as an insight into the condition of the party. Liberman should be the next Pres contender.

[Overpaid Slacker]

I would have to seriously consider voting for Lieberman. No joke.

I doubt I would, but I'd have to noodle it for a while. Horrifying some of the Right Wing elements that disgust me would be a motivation.

JP