Can “Liberalism” only be a four-letter word?
Published by Quin October 4th, 2008 in Filtered Propaganda, Liberal Democrats
In a response to non-liberal visitor Factory, I wrote:
Factory, you’re not a Liberal, or a Communist, or a Socialist. I get that. Maybe my use of the word “Liberal” is sloppy, since there are a lot of things associated with traditional ideas of Liberalism that I’m not on board with either. That’s why I was advocating the idea of re-branding Liberalism… it’s time not just to give it a makeover, but to also to seek to redefine it more narrowly.
Maybe it’s a bad strategy. Maybe it’s too late to redefine it. Maybe there’s just too many people out there, like you, who instantly see bright red the instant anyone uses the word “Liberal”. Because even though I’m sure I don’t agree with you on many issues, the fact is that you and I could be fighting for a lot of the same things. I don’t want to alienate you, I want to work with you. If one stupid word gets in the way of this, let’s chuck out the word.
So you’re not a Liberal. Are you a Lefty?
So, let’s say, hypothetically, that we were trying to build a national non-partisan movement to promote those leftist goals which even social conservatives could agree with. (Of which, if you actually follow the “Are you a Lefty?” link [which, by the way, is a sub-page of here], there are probably more than you’d realize if you hadn’t thought about it before.) What could we possibly ever label the movement’s ideology such that social conservatives, pre-programmed by years of right-wing talk radio and the like, wouldn’t automatically be predisposed to disagree without even thinking?
Despite it being an honest descriptor, I’m not sure that “Lefty” or “Leftist” is any better in this regard.
Perhaps the solution is to avoid naming an overall ideology at all; and just name the individual policy goals in a way that social liberals, social conservatives, social libertarians, and socialists could ALL get on board with (”energy independence”, “government transparency”, “affordable health care for all”, etc.).
Or perhaps there’s no solution at all, at least until such time as the current form of the American conservative movement crumbles apart.
Opinions? (And I don’t suppose there might even be anyone out there wanting to share who doesn’t think of themselves as “liberal”?)
Not to put too fine a point on it, you sort of just illustrated what I believe is American politics’ biggest problem. To wit:
“What could we possibly ever label the movement’s ideology such that social conservatives, pre-programmed by years of right-wing talk radio and the like, wouldn’t automatically be predisposed to disagree without even thinking?”
What you are doing here is suggesting the “problem” social conservatives have is the packaging, or presentation, of a take on an issue. As well, the insinuation is that Liberal views are right, and how do we “convince” the conservatives.
I submit a better approach is to say to the conservative “These things are problems, we both agree. Let’s start with WHY they are a problem (until we agree), then move on to possible solutions, and find them together”.
I find the social and political left to be smug and self righteous to the point of outright totalitarian behaviour (no Christmas in schools anymore? Are you friggin KIDDING me?). I also find them curiously blind to simple truths about human nature (ie. people with bad credit, have bad credit for a reason….one which leads to higher default rates.. Ergo, while it’s nice to get some homes to people who otherwise couldn’t do it, when things go south it kills a World Economy. And the left won’t talk about those things.
Political Correctness, aside from feminism itself, is the worst blight the left has foisted upon society, in my opinion. A shame, because the political left tends to be where the idealists hang out.
The cynical bastards (aka, the political right) are no better. They don’t understand the mindset of the lefties (”someone should do something”) because they tend to be people who believe in self-sufficiency, but aren’t always bastards…so they try to do things to “help” the lefty causes, and wonder why no one appreciates their collossal fuck-up (are there language rules here by the way?).
The absolute biggest problem I have with American society (via the television and online) is the extreme “us vs. them”-ism you seem to have in Everything! The Right aren’t all rich pricks out to steal your grandmothers retirement. The Left aren’t all closet Marxists that want nothing more than State-run everything (which I can definitely tell you KILLS an economy…seriously, ask me about it sometime).
Same goes for my own hobby activism. Women do not own the Gender debate anymore. It’s time people stopped hiding behind their prejudices and actually MINGLED again.
I think Factory has a point when he talks about first having to agree what the problems are–a huge part of the right/left divide is already a total disagreement about what the problems themselves are. Even the most basic and vague statement of a problem, for instance:
Children are living in poverty.
Already problems spring up. The right and left don’t even define poverty the same way. So, if we said:
Children aren’t getting enough nutritious food to eat to the point where they are malnourished.
Maybe we could get both sides to agree that this is a problem, though again, there’d be a big fight about the definition of malnourished, with for example the left wanting to include obese children on a diet of McDonald’s and the right not wanting to include it. But even if you could get a problem boiled down to some definition that both sides finally agreed on, the causes of the problem are even more wildly divergent between the two sides than the identification of the problems themselves.
What you have to find are people who are willing to set aside their pre-concieved ideological notions and look at nothing but raw data and cause-and-effect trees and that is remarkably rare and hard to find. Most people just aren’t like that. Period.
Now I’m the Voice of Doom, sorry…(sigh)
Ideology IS the problem. On both sides.
Factory: What you are doing here is suggesting the “problem” social conservatives have is the packaging, or presentation, of a take on an issue. As well, the insinuation is that Liberal views are right, and how do we “convince” the conservatives.
I submit a better approach is to say to the conservative “These things are problems, we both agree. Let’s start with WHY they are a problem (until we agree), then move on to possible solutions, and find them together”.
You make a good point there, Factory. However, again, there’s a big possibility that we’re miscommunicating right now because you are identifying me as “Liberal” whereas I am taking pains now to identify myself as “Left”, and you are conflating the two as equal. I am using MJ Smith’s definition of “Left” simply as not supporting Wall Street and the rich elites to the exclusion of people in the more populated income brackets.
Lisa, I understand your viewpoint but I still think it’s worth a try to see if there’s any honest-to-goodness common ground that all us Lefties (including Factory, although he’ll never admit it, which is why I want to find a different word if at all possible), both liberal and conservative, can agree on.
Alas, in my country it’s 4:30 in the morning now. And I’m afraid I can’t engage you guys properly for another 36 hours or so, either. Please talk amongst yourselves.
Quin, I see what you’re getting at. In fact, it’s quite likely I would be a “lefty” by your (or his) measure.
But that doesn’t mean there is ANY way in hell I would go along with the “progressive” agenda (down that road, darkness lies).
I think for myself. I have a sense of social justice.
And I HATE being told I don’t have the “correct” opinion (whatever the hell that’s supposed to be).
And the political left is BY FAR the worst offender in that regard.
That, and Obama scares the shit out of me.
Ok, according to Lisa, you want a little action on this type of topic.
Come at me, I’m your man.
