I Am A Liberal, Really!

Posted on March 10, 2007
| buzz-it! | Huff it!

I expect that among my 2 or 3 readers I will confuse some people, trying to figure out where I’m coming from. I supprise myself with my own moderation. It’s funny, I listen almost exclusively (actually embarrassed to say) to liberal and progressive voices. I have so little patience for the O’Reillys and Coulters of the world, that I tend to listen to them only through the filter of third-party sources. I think I could spit actual nails if I had to sit through an hour of Limbaugh or Hannity.

Still my own writing tends to give the benefit of the doubt to my human subjects. I don’t run in the circles of the powerful and don’t care much for pretense. I can say how the notable and notorious affect me, but have no illusions of affecting them. I’m careful with direct attacks, even when I feel they’re deserved, because I know I only see their public personas and in many cases, see them through others’ eyes. If I say something direct and unflattering I try to make sure I have the direct quote or have seen it delivered myself.

In my college music program I was a strong, clear voice in the chorus, usually on-pitch, and sometimes able to affect positively the singing of those around me. It wasn’t only about the pitch, but also about when to breath, when to push the volume or tempo and when to pull back. The conductor can’t give you the emphasis for every note, you have to hear it in your head and feel it in your gut.

So I hope it is with my writing. I don’t expect to write anything that could change the course of history. I don’t have that kind of voice. My fondest ambition would be to change just a few minds.

It’s fun to vent among those with whom I largely agree. I get much desired positive feedback when I do that. Sometimes I simply have to do that for having so much to vent. In the end, I like to delude myself that I could sometime speak with the kind of voice that manages to cut through and reaches people who are, so far, disengaged, or even change minds.

I don’t think I’m dishonest to refrain from calling the people who offend me the most unkind names. Some choice ones came to mind this week when processing how I felt about Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a “faggot.” I certainly read some interesting comparisons of her to various body parts as well as ripe assesments of her character, looks, tastes, smell, habits, and especially language in comments around the net. I’ll admit I thought of a few myself, but with far less imagination than I found at large. I’m not saying I’m above that; I just don’t want to be about that. I suspect I would be more about that, were such language not already in good supply.

A Liberal World View

Our political system is out of balance. I see a moderate liberal democracy as the governmental and social norm. That means that there’s room for expression of ideas from the left and right of that position, and that ideas not in the mainstream have the opportunity to either move into the mainstream or be practiced in subcultures with little interference. Even then, there would be LOTS of room for public discourse and even activism on behalf of issues and ideas that people feel are not getting the deserved attention. Still, a stasis position would be one where there is a robust social welfare system and broad civil freedoms.

I’m a strong advocate of civil rights for minorities, women, and all types of sexual minorities. I believe in religious freedom including strong support for the non-establishment clause. I believe we all have basic human rights, including adequate shelter, food, healthcare and education. Education, especially should be offered equally to all. We’re created equal, and through education we realize our best potentials. Women should have a right to choose; GLBT folks should have the equal protection of marriage. Folks should not be penalized for remaining single.

Where Liberalism Fails

It’s not actually liberalism that fails; It’s humans that fail. We certainly must share some genes with our Border Collie friends. We can be as dogmatic as they can be dogged. Once we settle on an idea as defining liberalism, we are loath to give it up. But to be a liberal is to be open to new ideas.

Liberalism favors equality and freedom and civil rights. An overarching implication of liberalism is civility or something deriving from the French revolutionaries’ fraternitie. The idea that we share a common brother- and sisterhood. The sense that we all prosper or fail organically, that while individuals, we each contribute to the common good and each benefit when we all prosper. This may be economic; it’s definitely spiritual; but, it is not “trickle down econimics.” That some have to become filthy rich so that there are more crumbs for the poor is not a liberal idea.

Liberalism needs to know when to dig in, and when to be open to change. Not only do we need to hold onto our core values, but we need to constantly reassess whether our policies continue to support those values. If social support systems perpetuate need, we must be able to see and adjust those policies. What we musn’t do is abandon the basic good of a policy in making adjustments. What separates us from conservatives and libertarians is that we move the safety net, enlarge it, contract it, change it’s fabric, whatever, but we do not remove it.

Liberalism, open to new ideas, can embrace sound fiscal policy. We don’t have to paint fiscal “conservatives” amongst us as centrists or as somehow betraying their liberal allies. To be liberal, such policies would have to be fair, meaning you don’t create systems where measurable numbers of people slip through the cracks. There would be the opportunity for wealth, maybe even vast wealth, but the wealthy would be taxed to support the common good. All who can afford to pay taxes would pay, recognizing that there are common goods to be achieved. You could say the common good is not supported by government bloat, by earmarks, by pet projects that serve only a few. It’s easy to argue we serve no one by spending our progeny into deep debt.

Ideological Purity Also Fails

Ideological purity is an exercise for liberals to study amongst ourselves, but it is a blunt instrument when used in practice. Through ideological speech, we inform our values and persuade others with the brilliance of our ideas. We celebrate individuals like the late Paul Simon, candidate Dennis Kucinich, future Sen. Al Frankin, and Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold for “walking the walk” and being our liberal standard bearers and our consciences. We get misty-eyed, or militant in their support (militancy being counter-intuitive, to say the least). We long for the day when such persons can lead the whole nation.

I am dismayed, though, when the specter of selling out is raised when we support candidates who can govern the nation as a whole. I know I was ill-prepared for Bill Clinton’s presidency, though I voted for him in the general election. I’d never seen him as my kind of liberal, but I learned to appreciate and admire him during his embattled two terms. These days when I insert his name in my text I tend to write, “Bill Clinton, the best president of a generation.” I write that phrase without a touch of irony (most of the time). Few could have done what he did, just 4 years after the end of the Reagan years. Ronald Reagan would not utter the word “AIDS” in the 8 years of his presidency, the same period win which the plague spread out of control. Bill Clinton had Bob Hattoy, a person with AIDS who died last week, speak at the Democratic National Convention—as a person with AIDS.

If we could make as much progress in the next administration as we made in Clinton’s, I might find myself, often, momentarily dissatisfied, but in total, a happy man.