Liberalism in America
February 7, 2005
Liberal is not a dirty word. I blame Michael Dukakis for making it seem so. In 1988, George Bush, Sr. used the word liberal as an insult, telling the world that Dukakis fit that description and that it was a really bad thing. And Dukakis ran from it, damn him, effectively endorsing Bush, Sr.'s negative definition. And Democrats have been running from the label ever since. If you are a liberal, you are dead meat in an American election. It's time for that to change, I think.
Let's begin with a look at the term itself. The Oxford Reference Online gives the following definitions of "liberal":
• Respectful and accepting of behavior or opinions different from one's own. (of a society, law, etc.) favorable to individual rights and freedoms.
• Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas: liberal views towards divorce.
• Favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms: liberal citizenship laws given freely; ample; abundant.
• The values of a liberal society tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened.
I ask you, what is not to like about any of that? Respectful, tolerant, open to new ideas, favoring individual rights and freedoms, unprejudiced, unbigoted, etc. If you are not a liberal, does that make you disrespectful, intolerant, against individual rights, prejudiced, and bigoted? It would seem to. By definition. Oxford is an English publication, however, so let's see what an American dictionary has to say. This is from the American Heritage Dictionary Online (2000):
• Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
• Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
• Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
OK, I think I see the problem: although the general definition in both English and American dictionaries is full of things all Americans hold dear, like freedom of thought and freedom of action, the "give freely" part and the "benefactor" part smack of social programs and government give-aways. That's the part that rankles self-described conservatives. They don't want to be paying their taxes only to have the government give the money away to undeserving layabouts. Never mind that they themselves are the beneficiaries of government programs, like national security and defense, regulation for the safety of food and medications, oversight and maintenance of transportation—I could go on. It's the laying out of cash to people who don't have to work for it that makes conservatives mad.
A few days before I wrote this, a takeover was announced in the telecom industry, where SBC, the â"baby Bell" from San Antonio, was taking over the former "mother ship," AT&T. Business usually sees such mergers as good things, but about a day after the announcement, we heard that it would mean the loss of 12,000 jobs. Those people were not bad workers, but a merged company simply didn't need the redundancy of the work they were doing. So, it's great for the company: a leaner work force, consolidated administration, lower labor costs, higher profits, happier share-holders, bigger bonuses for the executives. Ooh, it gives me shivers just to think about it.
It's all legal, of course, unless the government decides that a merged entity consolidates too much of a single industry under one management, leaving that company able to set prices and gouge consumers without competition. But the 12,000 downsized workers go on the unemployment rolls, and become those non-working layabouts who are receiving cash from the government. You think they want to be there? You think the government should just let them fend for themselves? I'm betting there are some conservatives among the 12,000: stands to reason, since half the country voted to re-elect George W. Bush. I wonder how those conservatives feel about government safety net social programs now.
This is what being a liberal is all about. It's about recognizing that some people, through no fault of their own, simply need help to get—or get back—on their feet. Some come from disadvantaged backgrounds; some are simply the victims of circumstance. But a liberal society cares for those people and tries to help them become contributing members. If they can get education, training, re-education, jobs, then they can begin to pay taxes and help those still stuck in poverty or unexpectedly "cut loose" from a job they were doing well.
Being a liberal also means respecting other people and their opinions, being willing to consider other points of view, and being open to new ideas for solving problems. There is nothing insulting about those things either. One would hope that everyone in Congress was a liberal in that sense but, sadly, it doesn't seem to be the case anymore. What's their excuse, I wonder? That they are so sure they're right, they don't have to listen to anyone else? That their constituents don't want to pay taxes, so they don't want anymore giveaways? That they have a "mandate" with 51% of the vote (by 55% of the electorate, making a whopping 28% of the country behind them)? There are no excuses. They should all aspire to be liberal.
Recently, George W. Bush gave the first State-of-the-Union address of his second term. Like his Inaugural address, it was full of "spreading freedom and democracy around the world." Freedom, he says, is the essence of America. It's what the terrorists hate about us. "They hate our freedom," he says. Well, the word liberal comes from the Latin word, liberalis meaning "pertaining to a free man," and the root of liberalis is liber, meaning "free." If George Bush and other conservatives consider freedom to be the essence of America, they sure as hell ought to start rehabilitating liberal as an acceptable word in American political discourse. Liberalism, by definition, is the essence of a free society.
Comments