I used to detest labels. Still do. They’re shortcut to thinking, given to stereotyping, and generally speaking, demeaning when referencing this individual or that. Some of them, however, I recently found out, are useful, alas, indispensable. One of them is the term “liberal.” Imagine everyday political discourse without recourse to this all-convenient label. You can’t!
Now, what do I mean by a liberal, or more generally, by a liberal mindset? Obviously, the term of old, as defined by John Stuart Mill and followers, no longer applies. One would have to be steeped in those writings in order to preserve a sense of continuity and the integrity of the original conception – a tall order indeed for today’s Everyman. Even a fairly recent usage is not only inaccurate but downright misleading. Our political landscape, if not evolving, is everchanging, which renders the term deliciously vague and ambiguous. What used to be a liberal policy, stance or administration only fifty years ago (Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, even Nixon), nowadays is deemed a conservative, if not ultraconservative, position. Which would seem like a desirable trend, the entire nation becoming as it were, increasingly progressive. Instead of rushing to judgment, however, let me state the obvious: for all these detours and obstacles along the way, liberalism has an uncanny ability of reinventing itself.
What else don’t I mean by it? For reasons which shall soon become apparent, I don’t associate it with the New Left, let alone with the Radical Left such as we’ve witnesssed in the sixties during the height of the antiwar protests, the civil rights struggles, the sit-ins, the flower generation, the counterculture revolution and Joan Baez. Nor do I associate it with the civil rights workers shot down in Mississipi for their valiant efforts to institute the voter-registration program on behalf of the NAACP in the segregated South, or the farmworkers’ movement led by César Chávez. Perhaps I’m wrong, but somehow none of these strike me as anything even remotely connected to, or reflective of, today’s liberal mindset. Indeed, I’d go as far as to say that the recent gains in the area of gay rights or sexual harrasment legislation have nothing to do with today’s liberals (or any other polical affiliation you may think of), though I’m certain they'd like to take credit. These gains were won as a result of a bitter struggle by the oppressed people against a presumably equitable system which denied them basic human rights.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ
FYI - It's Dennis Kucinich and Tom Harkin, not "Dennis Kusinich" and "Tom Harkins."
2 - roger nowosielski
Mea culpa. My spellchecker was disabled, but it's no excuse. I hope the editor will correct.
3 - RJ
No problem. I'm always here to help.
4 - Realist
Until a society rises above caste, some untouchable or unmentionable group will always exist.
5 - roger nowosielski
Well, RJ, I'm certain you'll enjoy part two. I wish I could say the same for some of my friends.
6 - roger nowosielski
That's the general idea, Realist. I'm afraid, however, even the most progressive elements of the Left don't make it their overriding agenda. They're more concerned with sounding right than in being right. But I don't want to get ahead of my thesis.
7 - Baronius
This article shouldn't be titled "The Modern-Day Liberal, A Portrait". How about "An Article About What Roger Thinks About A Word He Promises To Define In The Next Article"? Or how about "Turkey Sloppy Joes with Cheddar Biscuits"? I mean, this article doesn't have anything to do with sloppy joes, but it doesn't produce a portrait of the modern-day liberal either. It doesn't even try to.
8 - troll
'liberal'...I think that the word has been so completely buggered that it's pretty much useless
.....all part of The Plan I guess
I look forward to your def in part 2
9 - roger nowosielski
Why don't you venture your own definition or understanding of the term, Baronius? And BTW, I don't believe I as much even alluded to what I think the signification is. I've only hinted at, thus far, as to what I think it is not.
Kind of hostile reading coming from you, Baronius, don't you think?
10 - roger nowosielski
@8
I don't think so. There is a cluster of sorts, and it leads to interesting generalizations.
11 - troll
I do appreciate your point that liberalism of all colors originates as the ideology of a privileged class
12 - Baronius
"Why don't you venture your own definition or understanding of the term, Baronius?"
I didn't write an article proposing to.
I have my own understanding of the term, and reasons behind it. I read your article, and you made a couple of points that you thought didn't apply to the definition of liberalism, and didn't even explain the thinking behind them. I cannot imagine why you thought this was a complete article.
13 - roger nowosielski
It wouldn't be so bad if it were only for that. All intellectuals suffer from a basic disconnect. Ultimately, it's always the masses that do the heavy lifting. It's always been so and it always will. My diagnosis of the modern tines, however, is even less complimentary. It's almost as if today's progressive stances served as a kind of refuge, if not an excuse, for remaining detached. Whatever the relationship between the intellectual and the masses may have been in the past, or whatever the former's contribution to the struggle, it's no longer the same. The vital connection is missing.
Don't spell out my meaning, though, ahead of time and deprive me of my punchlines. But you can always speak in code.
14 - roger nowosielski
Wasn't a complete article, Baronius. Whatever gave you the idea that I thought that. I believe I made it clear that a definition/description will emerge after examining the cases.
Why do I break it into parts, then? Simply don't want to tax the reader's patience and short attention span. I think these are good enough reasons, unless you'd rather read a thirteen page article such as Cohen used to crank out.
15 - Christopher Rose
The term liberal is in fact misleading, so I think that undermines Roger's argument.
Indeed, in a contemporary US political party context, it is hard to discern or understand any meaning or relevance for the term at all.
What it used to mean in a political sense was as a code word for the prolonged drive by the authoritarian right to roll back any of the social and personal liberation that has been happening not only in the USA but all around the world for the last 50 or 60 years.
The reason the right chose that word is because what they really opposed was tolerance but to oppose tolerance was always going to be a hard sell, so they went with the weasel word of liberal.
Since then the word has become more diffuse, which probably suits the Right even more as they can use it to attack an ever wider group of people they want to control.
Control is now at the heart of political debate and unfortunately it has spread across the political spectrum; with precious few exceptions nobody is clamouring for less control and more freedom these days but that is exactly what is needed.
Personal freedom and a reduction of respect for traditional authority is one of the great themes of our times and a trend I both support and can't see diminishing for many years to come.
To my mind the other major flaw in Roger's argument is that he sees liberalism as disconnected from "the masses", which I totally disagree with.
The disconnect is between those who seek to impose control on people's freedom and choices, which is a feature of both sides of the political debate and those who want greater diversity, freedom and tolerance.
16 - Dr Dreadful
Chris's analysis is pretty much spot on. There's precious little genuine liberalism about these days.
Britain doesn't really have a "god of liberty" like Ron Paul but I suppose the closest equivalent would be David Davis, one of the few politicians to speak out against the erosion of civil liberties in the UK and a man of great integrity.
If he rather than Cameron had won the party leadership, I would quite possibly have voted Tory at the last election for the first time in many years.
17 - Christopher Rose
In fact, in terms of the problems with contemporary politics, I would go further and say that the crisis facing politics is one of integrity.
Almost all politicians are seen as dishonest and practically incapable of giving a straight answer to any question.
Contrast that with the increasingly common attitude that people are tolerant of who or what other people are or do, but that they don't pretend to be something they are not. You might call that integrity, the very quality most pols, of whatever colour, lack.
18 - Cannonshop
It's like asking what a "Conservative" is-neither modern Liberals, nor Modern Conservatives resemble the stereotypes they hold of themselves, much less the stereotypes they view one another through.
"Liberal" used to mean someone in favour of Liberty-for everyone, not just a select group.
it doesn't mean that anymore, any more than "Tolerance" means what the dictionary says it means, or Diversity, or Fiscal Responsibility, or any of the other constant-battering-buzz-words that have lost all meaning due to overuse and misuse.
After all, wherein does granting MORE power, more centralized, top-down power, over the affairs of others, (and yourself) to government become being in favour of Greater Freedom and Liberty? It's not. It's anti Liberal in the classical sense.
Statist, Royalist, Stalinist, but not Liberal in the classical sense...and the right is no better with its pandering to Evangelism and the Theocratic urges of Television Preachers and their born-again-followers.
19 - troll
just like the brain develops new neural pathways we need to think a way around the necrotic goo that is our political system
how about a focus on production and sharing?
20 - roger nowosielski
@17 "...the crisis facing politics is one of integrity."
It's like saying that ordinary folks are honorable but they become dishonorable once they enter politics.
I'd rather argue that the ideologies, both on the Right and on the Left, but more so on the Left, have become truncated, which makes it almost impossible, even for those who are well-meaning, to clearly articulate a comprehensive program/plan of action which, if implemented, could possibly preserve if not restore the highest values to which all liberal democracies presumably aspire.
21 - Cannonshop
#20 The big problem, is the obsession with accumulating more power, and retaining it once it has been accumulated.
22 - troll
accumulation - confiscation - redistribution does seem a long way around to get to from each according to his ability to each according to his need
23 - Glenn Contrarian
To me, "liberal" means one who adheres to the maxim that "your freedom ends where my freedom begins".
24 - roger nowosielski
I don't know, Cannon. I know it's a popular explanation, but it's all too easy, and too simplistic, IMO, to simply lay it down at the people's door by saying it's a defect in human nature. Even if there is some truth to that (about the nature of power, that is), yours is a conversation stopper. There's nowhere to go from thence.
Remember, in the Greek polis, the officials were elected by drawing of lots, usually for a period not exceeding a year. There was a tacit understanding that in matters pertaining to the affairs of body politic, one man's qualifications were as good as that of any other. I kind of like that idea, but I'm departing from the topic, I'm afraid.
25 - Christopher Rose
No, Roger, it's not LIKE saying ordinary people become dishonourable when entering politics, it IS saying that!