"Liberal." Imagine everyday political discourse without recourse to this all-convenient label. You can’t!
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!…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Dr Dreadful
It's like saying that ordinary folks are honorable but they become dishonorable once they enter politics.
Party politics has a lot to answer for. I'll stick my neck out and say that the vast majority of politicians are principled, or at least start out that way. They go into politics out of a desire to make a difference, to make things better according to their own conception of what is right and good.
The sticking point is that they then have to suppress many of their personal opinions in deference to the official positions of the party they belong to, even if they vehemently disagree with them.
A party without a unified front is weakened and will be mercilessly attacked by its political opponents, yet it can't hope to espouse all of the often contradictory hopes and dreams of all its members. The larger the party, the stronger it is politically, but the less able it is to truly reflect and respond to the interests and wishes of the electorate.
It's bad enough in a three, four or five-party system like the ones in the UK and its constituent countries. In a place like the US, which despite its staggering size has managed to blunder into having just a two-party setup, it approaches the status of a joke.
The loss of personal integrity starts when a politician has to stand up and claim to be fully supportive of his party's platform, when he and everyone else knows damn well that's not even remotely possible.
27 - roger nowosielski
@25
Mine was a polite form of what you re-iterated in #24, Chris, that's all.
28 - roger nowosielski
@26
Yes, the party system is at least partly to blame. But to say this much still doesn't disprove the point I was trying to impress on Cannon about truncated ideologies which make it difficult if not impossible to articulate a comprehensive plan of action to embark upon -- which theme I'll develop in part III. And the argument to the effect that the existing political parties wouldn't pursue this course because it would dilute their power base doesn't wash. A new party could easily arise with some such agenda (remember Ross Perot?) My argument is -- there isn't any comprehensive political agenda in terms of which to mobilize a whole bunch of disenchanted citizens under one banner. All we have is highly-truncated, fragmented ideologies.
29 - handyguy
"Liberal" was successfully turned into an epithet by GOP politicians beginning in the 1970s and especially the 1980s.
It was defined by them as a set of "feminized" and "soft" beliefs about minority rights, poverty and the environment, with advocacy of big government spending to create and sustain federal programs intended to address those problems. In addition, they defined liberals as soft sissies on defense and crime.
And so many Democrats spent the 1980s and 90s trying to avoid the label. They spoke in a sort of code about 'helping the middle class.' They might throw in the word 'progressive' once in a while as a euphemism for the discredited L word.
A lot of this has stuck, as when Rick Perry said in a recent speech: "We do have a few unhappy people in Texas. We generally refer to them as liberals."
Liberals' self-images are usually about protecting the less privileged from the predations of the more privileged. It tends to get expressed politically as a fight against corporate interests on behalf of an economically stagnating middle class. The poor tend to get mentioned secondarily, because they tend not to vote and because thinking about them upsets many voters.
30 - handyguy
The attempts by the author of this article and others to turn Liberal into a new kind of epithet meaning 'defender of the established order' is quite wrongheaded and nonsensical.
Like the negative-image definition of Liberal offered by conservative politicians, it is more about making sure the reader/audience knows the speaker is not liberal. This is important, since on a number of issues, like taxing the rich and trimming the defense budget, these 'non-liberals' can sound an awful lot like uber-liberal Barney Frank.
31 - handyguy
#30, to be clear, refers to the comments sections of other articles. Who knows what surprises Roger may offer in part II? But I suspect his opinions haven't changed that much since this morning.
32 - El Bicho
Baronius is right. This article doesn't offer a portrait like it claims to in the title. It's the prologue or introduction to a portrait.
Also, I would like to know when Roger last spoke to an African-American, a farm worker, women, and gays and lesbians since he is speaking on their behalf.
33 - roger nowosielski
#29
"The poor tend to get mentioned secondarily, because they tend not to vote and because thinking about them upsets many voters."
Didn't expect that coming from you. How do you mean it now, as a statement of fact or as tongue in cheek? If the former, than I must conclude you're either registering a criticism or expressing one of the undesirable consequences of what passes as political reality.
Which is it?
34 - roger nowosielski
What hole did you crawl from under, LB. Lived in SF for over 30 years. Surely more gays and lesbians there and in the Bay Area than perhaps in the rest of the country. The same goes for Mexicans most likely.
As to African-Americans, is your environment so pristine that you have to scratch your head in wonder that some people might be in direct contact with other people day in and day out?
Your wondering makes me wonder.
35 - handyguy
I meant that political rhetoric is often based on code and euphemism. I understand why politicians [on both sides] would emphasize the self-interest of the middle class that decides most elections. I don't 100% approve, but I was being mildly sardonic, not condemning the practice. Actions count more than election rhetoric.
Many conservatives are openly disparaging of the poor, implying that it's their own fault, and that they get a free ride anyhow. This appeals to some very unappetizing, if unspoken, feelings that many voters may have.
36 - roger nowosielski
"crawl out from under" is the right construction, I think.
37 - roger nowosielski
Well, if that's what the conservatives do, don't you think it opens a viable area, and a window of opportunity, at the same time, for the Democratic Party, if it were to live up to its true name -- and "political realities" notwithstanding -- to radically redefine its platform and run with it? If it's not going to do so, it's going to remain increasingly irrelevant, as just another player in the good old game we call politics, not to mention miss its golden opportunity. For rest assured, some other party or movement will pick up the slack. Nature abhors vacuum.
In any case, you're beginning to get my drift and the direction I'm going.
38 - Arch Conservative
"No, Roger, it's not LIKE saying ordinary people become dishonourable when entering politics, it IS saying that!"
Christopher don't you feel that politics attracts those who already possess some level of inclination toward, narcissism, greed, and an unhealthy desire to obtain power for oneself at the expense of others?
39 - El Bicho
I'm wondering because you went into such a tizzy on another thread when Jordan was speaking for Stan, so I was curious why you were giving yourself a pass to speak on behalf on so many.
So when did you talk to everyone about what "liberal" means to them?
40 - Jordan Richardson
is your environment so pristine that you have to scratch your head in wonder that some people might be in direct contact with other people day in and day out?
The way you so frequently misinterpret and misunderstand even the simplest of statements does give cause to wonder, so I think EB's question is a fair one.
Why should we trust your interpretation when you're so frequently wrong?
41 - roger nowosielski
You're reaching, LB, really reaching. But do you disagree with my assessment, however, about what "liberal" means to other folk?
Live dangerously, LB. Yes or no?
42 - roger nowosielski
@40
Your contribution is welcome. Come again when you can.
43 - Jordan Richardson
I asked you a question, Roger, and I think it was a fair one.
Why should anyone trust your yet-to-be-made but much advertised assessment? Where does it come from? What value does it have when you're so frequently wrong about categorizing others?
All we have is highly-truncated, fragmented ideologies.
Agree 100 percent. The problem is that I see your position as just as fragmented and limiting, if not moreso than the "norm."
I've tried to address this in the past, but of course the conversation inevitably flows to my "emotions" or just dissipates altogether. This is what causes me to wonder how much actual PRACTICAL interest you have in the subject.
44 - El Bicho
I am reaching? Then what do you call speaking on behalf of millions as you have done here.
I honestly have no idea what "liberal" means to other folk and wouldn't presume to. You may well be right, but do have any proof as to your assessment from any of the groups you cite? Or is that too being saved for the next article?
Also, it would be news to quite a few of my fellow Southern Californians if there were more Mexicans in the Bay Area then down here.
45 - Glenn Contrarian
Arch -
Christopher don't you feel that politics attracts those who already possess some level of inclination toward, narcissism, greed, and an unhealthy desire to obtain power for oneself at the expense of others?
Just as the same kind of people are drawn to power and fame in every walk of life - military, business, entertainment - and not just politics.
Assuming that such people are the norm is every bit as mistaken as assuming that they aren't. You cannot make assumptions of someone based simply upon their chosen path.
For instance, generals are famously narcissistic - look at Patton, at Montgomery and MacArthur. But then look at Omar Bradley, who was anything but narcissistic.
Wouldn't you agree, Arch?
46 - roger nowosielski
I won't argue the last point, doesn't really matter. But am I really speaking on behalf of the groups and people you mentioned? I don't think I projected that kind of tone, and if I have, then I failed as a writer. What would count, though, in your own mind of course, to be speaking on behalf of anyone? Would I have to be an African-American in order to be able to speak on behalf of other African-Americans? Of course not. Even that fails the litmus test, because surely not every African-American thinks the same on any number of important or not important issues. What would qualify, then, speaking on behalf of any one group in your opinion?
Perhaps it's a red herring, LB, I don't know, haven't really thought about it. But you're not saying, I hope, that I can't express what I think about what other people think (as based on my experience, etcetera, etcetera) in a positive and forceful kind of way without the benefit of statistical studies at my command, do you now? Would you be more convinced if there were some such studies?
In any case, it's still an opinion piece, so the story goes, and you're within perfect rights to dispute my opinion, just as I am within my rights to offer one. At this point, I don't know what else to say.
47 - Cannonshop
#23 And yet, you are still a Democrat, Glenn?
48 - Cannonshop
#29 yet the self-image has nothing to do with their actual ACTIONS, Handy, it is merely a means to justify buying the votes of people locked into permanent underclass status by paternalistic and patronizing Leftist policies. The Same "Liberal" that supports Unions, also supports causes that put Union workers out of a job and dismantles or destroys domestic industries for the benefit of foreign nations who do not have those policies, but do have MFN status often conferred by the same "Liberal" gentlemen.
"Liberals" claim to believe that my freedom ends where your nose begins, but then turn around and push for intrusions by OUR government into MY life-whether it's "For the Children" or "the War on Terror" doesn't matter-it's about accumulating power and enervating the populace.
49 - roger nowosielski
In fairness, Cannon, didn't he own up to this a comment or two down? Give the man credit.
50 - handyguy
#48: the usual conspiracy-theory blather. Lazy non-thinking. If villains control everything, it's easy to explain and impossible to change. Sitting on the sidelines repeatedly throwing the same stale tomatoes is not a very meaningful use of time.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of potential specific examples; some support your point and many refute it. Stop over-generalizing. Someone might come to the conclusion that you are uninformed and just like to spout off.
51 - cindy
30 - handyguy
The attempts by the author of this article and others to turn Liberal into a new kind of epithet meaning 'defender of the established order' is quite wrongheaded and nonsensical.
You are a good example of how liberals often attempt to help others by wrestling control of the established order and inflicting more rules for how to prevent bad things happening. They then defend that order.
52 - cindy
I can't count the number of excuses that you have made for Obama, for example. When the facts are are clear that it is not just some resistance that has made him do a turn-around on his promises, it is his own new presidential 'religion'.
How many in congress come close to expressing the values of a Kucinich or a Sanders? They are all too busy being conformists to the 'normative' values of the dominant culture. So are liberal teachers. Be good, obey the law. So do you handy.
53 - cindy
48 -
The minute I make ANY suggestion that I should have a right to participate in the decisions of gov't--handy or Jet comprehend me as a tea party type.
That tells me that they have something in common. They immediately comprehend direct democracy as being selfish. It is clear they expect that gov't should intervene and control. They are authoritarians.
54 - cindy
Participate directly, that is, in the political process.
55 - handyguy
Cindy, I just think you over-generalize. You ignore most or all nuance, everything is black-and-white, "you're for us or against us," and everything is expressed in ridiculously melodramatic rhetoric -- the kind that short-circuits a discussion fairly completely and quickly.
I don't think the president is perfect, but as Glenn has pointed out, criticism of him [especially the ferocious kind that appears on web sites] is so over the top and unfair that it's impossible not to respond.
If he were able to impose his campaign promises by royal fiat, I certainly believe he would. The fact that he has a brick-wall conservative opposition determined to deny him as much as possible is not irrelevant. But to you and Roger, this is me "making excuses" for "a traitor to the people."
There is not a lot to say to that except that I think you're full of beans. You show little interest in actual discussions, just silly one-sided shouting matches.
Glenn, in another recent article [about Ron Paul], linked to a June 2008 article by Dave Nalle. It drew 242 comments, a number of them by Dave, Clavos...and Cindy. All three of them seemed a lot more reasonable then. All three have become one form or another of extremist since then, with overheated [and sometimes warmed-over] rhetoric replacing logic.
We get it: you are so damn mad. But the anger does not help you have anything that could be called a discussion. Instead you employ the language of propaganda, which is all Dave Nalle speaks now as well.
56 - roger nowosielski
Handy, you're backsliding somewhat. Your #35 was a very forthright comment coming from you, I really mean it. Why don't you try to stay in that groove. Obama needs no defenders just because he's attacked by the conservative media. And why should you or Glenn take it upon yourself to defend him because of that? Don't you think your time would be better spend discussing issues and ideas, something you're accusing Cindy and me for not doing? Let's start seeing some independent thinking going on here for a change rather than political hackery from both sides. It would really be a most welcome development. You're capable of that, as evidenced by the comment I referenced. Chris is capable of it, as exhibited by a number of his remarks on the "London" thread, remarks which didn't altogether jibe with the views of Richardson, Dreadful, STM, and "the official line." We need to see more and more of this kind of independent thinking, instead of the usual party line. It's precisely because some of you keep on espousing the party line time and time again that you're evoking negative reactions from such as Cindy or myself. Not only is it annoying and frustrating, putting a stop to all conversations. More importantly, it does discredit to some of you as independent thinkers, thinkers in your own right.
Cindy had posted a lengthy remark to Glenn on another thread, suggesting an alternative action. It was more of a plea, if you ask me, not an attack of any kind. Well, Glenn hasn't as much as lifted a finger to honor it even with one-line reply, for courtesy's sake even. Shame. Sometimes it makes me wonder that the only reason why some of you are in this attack-defense mode, Reps vs. Dems, that is, because that's all you know and it makes you feel good. Now, I know youcan do better.
And where is your response to my #37, by the way?
57 - Baronius
"But am I really speaking on behalf of the groups and people you mentioned? I don't think I projected that kind of tone, and if I have, then I failed as a writer."
It really did come off that way.
58 - Baronius
Also, Roger, your comment #56 came off as condescending and snotty. And not particularly accurate, either. Your list of the "party line" people appears to be very different from mine.
59 - handyguy
Honestly, Roger, your #37 is not something I can "answer," because I don't agree with the premise. Many Democrats, including dozens of senators and representatives, as well as Glenn, zing and myself in this forum, have pointed out that the GOP and its supporters have employed anti-poor-people rhetoric.
If a party doesn't win an election, it can't do much of anything. So the rhetoric employed in national election campaigns may not mention poor people much. I don't see this as making a party "irrelevant."
I don't see my two sets of observations as inconsistent in the least. You may agree with one and not the other. Fine.
60 - roger nowosielski
In the ear of the hearer, Baronius. Sorry 'bout that.
61 - roger nowosielski
Handy, it makes the party irrelevant because it ignores the ever-growing number of the "underclass" and fails to address their needs and concerns. So even for pragmatic reasons, this should be given consideration.
But even apart from that, what are your own feelings on the subject? Do you think the poor and thus-far the invisible should be represented? If not not by the Democrats, then by whom? Saying that the GOP employed anti-poor rhetoric which still -- one wonders for how long? -- reverberates with many Americans who aren't in that exact same position just yet is not the same as saying about how Handy the person relates to this subject.
62 - Glenn Contrarian
Cannonshop -
I'm still a Democrat because I do lean more towards realpolitik, more towards doing what works best for the people and the nation (and the world) as a whole rather than adhering strictly to some ideology that sounds really good and patriotic in theory but is disastrous in practice.
To be sure, there are things I won't compromise - equal rights for all first and foremost.
The GOP, on the other hand, has gone so far over to strictly dogmatic positions. Reagan and Bush Sr. were never, ever this dogmatic! When it comes to Reagan, in some respects he was to the LEFT of Obama, particularly on trade!
I'd love to see the Democrats go further to the left - I'm Progressive, remember - but just as Dave Nalle stays in the Republican party in the hopes that he can get them to go in the direction that he thinks is sensible, so it goes for my decision to stick with the Democratic party.
63 - roger nowosielski
@57
Actually, you're right, Baronius. I was speaking on behalf of those groups, and I see nothing wrong with that. As far as I'm concerned, somebody's got to.
Have I been elected to do so? Of course, not, but why should that matter? Do I correctly represent their views (which is the kind of question LB posed)? Of that I can't be certain either, but I certainly hope so.
So we may argue, I suppose, over whether the manner of my speaking on behalf of all such is more or less accurate or representative of the actual reality, and I grant you that. On the other hand, Baronius, let me ask you this:
Why should I consider your opinion on the subject matter if you're of the mind that these people don't need any kind of representation or advocacy?
64 - Baronius
At what point did I say that "these people" don't need representation? I typically don't believe that groups need representation, because I think of people as people, not groups. In fact, it seems that people who lump people into groups care very little about the actual people, and even moreso those who claim to speak for groups. On top of that is the presumption required to speak for groups. On top of *that* is the fact that you haven't said anything on their behalf except given a couple of definitions of the word "liberal" that you don't think are any good. So I'll reserve judgement.
65 - Cannonshop
#62 Words have meaning. IS that "equal Rights" for Groups, or Individiuals? Is it "equal Opportunities" or "Equal OUTCOMES?" If everyone has the equal outcome of being a slave to the state, that's not freedom...but it IS equal.
Except, of course, for the people RUNNING the state. They're more equal than the rest.
And that's your "Realpolitik" taken out of the Theoretical.
Taken out of the Theoretical, much of the "Help" offered by government is more akin to the "help" a drug-dealer gives to hook new junkies.
Helping people to be more dependent, less capable, and easier to control. This is not "Liberal" in the sense of favouring freedom, it is the equality of Authoritarianism.
"In Soviet Russia, Everyone is equal, which is why Party Members have Dachas and other citizens stand in line for bread."
66 - roger nowosielski
I put it as a conditional, Baronius, not assuming anything. Handy refuses to commit on this question. Some elements of the GOP employ anti-poor-people rhetoric, Handy says, and no doubt there's some truth to that. Even the Democratic Party, by his own admission, skirt the issue.
You tell me what am I to think?
67 - roger nowosielski
And BTW, Baronius, Romans thought otherwise and in one their better moments instituted the office of the Tribune to represent and speak for the plebs.
68 - roger nowosielski
What's your view of the Labor Party, then, which supposedly had arisen to represent the interests of labor? Good, bad, indifferent?
69 - roger nowosielski
I don't think at all you're being doctrinaire, Cannon, and in spite of our disagreement on some of the fundamental principles of political philosophy, I know one thing, I can reason with you (which is more so than I can say for some on presumably my side of the political divide).
Not to get too far ahead of my "thesis," I view the liberal position (as based on this, however small and perhaps not altogether representative sample) as essentially a default position centered and united mostly if not exclusively in terms of issues (call it "position papers" on a number of select issues). The talk of "equal rights" is perhaps the central feature uniting the liberals (for so doing, they're espousing one of the chief values of liberal democracies). The other uniting feature is their view of government as representing the ultimate solution. As far as I'm concerned, it's a bankrupt political philosophy, if you can call it such - strictly issues-centered and issues-oriented. It's for that reason that I spoke of it as truncated, highly fragmented, and far from being comprehensive.
70 - handyguy
Government as the "ultimate solution"? No. Not myself, not Nancy Pelosi, certainly not Barack Obama [to name three]. We believe in the usefulness of government, and don't see it as a necessary evil or something to be minimized because it is harmful, which is the default ideological position of conservatives.
71 - roger nowosielski
In that case, I think it behooves you to spell out which areas in which you'd discourage government intervention.
And BTW, I have no idea what Barack Obama thinks. I know what he says.
72 - Glenn Contrarian
Cannonshop -
You're referring to equal OUTCOMES. I'm not.
That's why I made the determination long ago that if I ever became filthy rich, I'd never just 'give' money to my family. I might loan them money so that they could earn their own prosperity, but giving someone a lot of money is every bit as bad as ensuring they have no money at all.
If we were to become rich, my wife and I long ago decided that we'd probably open up an orphanage, or a shelter for abused women. These are efforts towards equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.
Equal OPPORTUNITY, on the other hand, ensures - or should ensure - that kids who grow up in poor areas should have the RIGHT to have just as good an education (and thus the opportunity) as those who live in prosperous areas. Teach a man to fish, and so forth.
And this whole discussion is where conservatives completely misunderstand what liberals want. Most liberals don't want to just GIVE people money for the heck of it. We DO believe in giving people a helping hand when they've hit a bad spot, and we do this to help them avoid having to go into outright bankruptcy, foreclosure, homelessness, and crime.
But for some reason, among the Right such concepts are almost considered blasphemy.
Give a man a fish, you only feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, you feed him for life. But if you tell him 'tough titty, go and find your own fish you lazy bum' you go a long way towards condemning him to a life on the streets...and the business-destroying crime that goes with it.
73 - Cannonshop
#72 Here's the problem: we don't disagree on goals, but our approaches to solving the problems (or, even evaluating their causes) are so different that we might as well not be speaking the same language.
74 - Cannonshop
Going back to a discussion you opened with a recent article; Why do Liberal Politicians send their kids to exclusive private schools?
Answer: because they love their children, want those children to get a good education that will help them succeed-an education that those children would not recieve in Liberal-run, government-run, Public Schools.
75 - zingzing
"Why do Liberal Politicians send their kids to exclusive private schools?"
because they can afford to. yes, those schools are very good. but they cost thousands of dollars that the average american does not have.
you seem to have forgotten that part.