Sunday Discussion Group

October 15, 2006

Earlier this week, University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey R. Stone noted what many of us have known for quite a while: the word “liberal” has taken such a beating for so long, people who consider themselves liberals “have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe.”

In that light, I thought it might be interesting to try to articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define “liberal” today. Undoubtedly, not all liberals embrace all of these propositions, and many conservatives embrace at least some of them.

Moreover, because 10 is a small number, the list is not exhaustive. And because these propositions will in some instances conflict, the “liberal” position on a specific issue may not always be predictable. My goal, however, is not to end discussion, but to invite debate.

Good idea; debate is what the Sunday Discussion Group is all about, particularly on a subject like this one. Stone’s “Top 10” list is quite good and as good a place to start as any. I’d encourage readers to click on the link to read how Stone fleshes out these points in more detail, but here’s a truncated version of his list:

1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others…. Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.

2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference.

3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate.

4. Liberals believe “we the people” are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind.

5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual.

6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate.

7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith.

8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties.

9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible.

10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values.

The list is not without flaw. While I can wholeheartedly agree with all of the tenets he mentioned, I suspect a whole lot of conservatives would find the points inoffensive as well. As Ezra mentioned, in noting his concerns about Stone’s piece, “The meaning of liberalism, at least so far as it seeks to separate from conservatism, needs to offer points of disagreement between the two. Stone’s piece doesn’t do much of that — it doesn’t create a liberalism most conservatives would reject.”

So, let’s take this for a whirl. What do you think of Stone’s list? What did he leave out? What would you include on the list to emphasize areas of fundamental, ideological disagreement with our friends on the right?

(Special thanks to Carpetbagger regular Beep52, who suggested today’s topic via email)

Liberals believe in treating the causes of disorder (lack of education, lack of basic services, etc). Conservatives believe in treating the results (more jails for more people for more time). In the long run, the liberal approach is both more healthy, and cheaper.

  • Liberals believe that the Free Market is not always correct and seek to protect the people from the EXTREMES or unlawful manipulations of the “Free” Market.

    Corollory to the above is this:
    Liberals believe that certain services (those that affect CERTAIN basic necessities such as electricity, water and healthcare) should not be left to solely to the whims of private industry and the Free Market and should be controlled thru either stringent regulations or thru government initiatives.

  • Let me use this forum to pass on some good news to my blogger friends.

    Out here in Colorado, Democrat, Angie Paccione, is trying to unseat Republican, Marilyn Musgrave (of the Marriage Amendment fame).

    Local billionaire, Pat Stryker, just gave $720,000 to a 527 to help defeat Musgrave. This donation was partly to offset the same amount of money that the DCCC just pulled out of the race.

    Musgrave still holds an edge because of a 45% Rep, 35% Ind, 25% Dem registration advantage, but Angie is within striking distance.

    Religious conservatives are very important here and turn out will be crucial. With Foley and David Kuo’s new book, this could hurt. (I hope.)

    In a completely unrelated vein , Republican Senator Allard and Musgrave announced two days ago that they were going to start congressional investigations of the Stryker family business. Some people might think the timing of this investigation is political, but that would be cynical.

    Here are the links:
    On October 4:

    “Stryker made the donation Oct. 4 to Coloradans for Life, a “527” organization…”

    http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061015/NEWS01/61014007/1002

    On October 13:

    “Republican Sen. Wayne Allard on Thursday requested an investigation into Stryker Corp.”

    http://cbs4denver.com/politics/local_story_286103219.html

  • I read somewhere, not long ago, the suggestion that “liberal” and “conservative” have lost all real meaning except as insults. Somehow, that resonates with me. Calling somebody a “damned liberal” seems, from a conservative viewpoint, to consolidate every possible undesirable quality about a human being into a single word (two, actually, if you include the adjective). Each party has lost whatever grip they ever had on the opposite party’s values and what they were supposed to stand for.

    This is more consequential than the bald statement of fact might indicate, because it spells the end of bipartisanship until some sort of balance can be regained. If the Democrats retake one or both houses, they’re going to be all about squashing every single Republican initiative. That’s no more a good deal for America than the current Republican policy of squashing every single Democratic initiative (unless it’s another spineless capitulation to the Great Deciderer). What the Democrats should be focusing on is impeaching that stammering retard who is no more suited to occupy the country’s highest office than a fruit bat would make an ideal chess coach. If they can’t do that, they’ve let down their supporters before they even get started.

    I’ve heard it said that Democrats don’t actually want to impeach Bush, because they can’t stomach Cheney as president. What kind of lame-ass excuse is that? Isn’t it just possible a chamber no longer constrained by absurd party-wide presidential secrecy might be able to find the odd reason to drive Cheney from office, too? What happens then?

    Anyway, back on point. Liberals and conservatives are never going to make peace with one another, and recall that BOTH have a responsibility to oversee the running of the country, rather than simply hacking at each other’s flanks, in the current environment. The two terms will continue to have no real meaning, other than insults, as long as Bush sits in the White House instead of the Big House.

  • Some liberals believe that the word liberal is smeared beyond saving.

    Some liberals believe that while wingnuts deliberately charted a course to recoin “the dirty L word,” the word itself was always fatally flawed because of its inherent dual use.
    [As in: “They spoiled their children rotten by rasing them way to liberally.”]

    Some liberals believe that the word ‘progressive’ is pristine and promisingly forward looking; and that because ‘progressive’ lacks an inherent dual use, it will prove more difficult to malign by wingnuts.

    Some progressives assert that the liberal use of the word liberal will ultimately result in liberals losing more elections…. most liberally.

  • Liberals, one hopes, believe the right of capital does not transcend all other rights.

    That all rights are Human Rights, not just those of the selected few.

    That taxes really are the dues you pay to belong to a civilized society.

  • “7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith.”

    Not what I think:

    Liberals realize that to base the acts of Government on sectarian faith is to invite religious conflict based on sectarian faith.

    “2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference.”

    Does anyone actually think we are that way? You put it in as an attempt to contrast us with conservatives, but really, we are a very intolerant bunch.

    You put 9 and 10 there like that? You need to meld these in a way that is not self-destructive.

  • Well, I don’t dispute the value of the first few in a general sense, the first 3 or so he mentions. But I’m not in agreement with their placement so prominently on the list.

    I think a lot of the problem with liberalism’s failure to do a lot better in this country is sort of from a post-adolescent or extended adolescence unwillingness to stand up for one’s beliefs and values with some certainty- rather it’s more of a “hey, anything could be right so what do I know! This is just my opinion!” attitude- or to believe or accept that there could be one best answer to a problem. This unwillingness of some people detracts from our ability to get things done. Obviously I believe that usually there is probably a best answer in each and every situation. I don’t think that, since we have shared goals we can tend to agree on (welfare of society, protection from crime), there is any problem with finding what you think is the best answer in terms of those goals, arguing that it is the best in terms of those goals, and stating that it is the best in terms of those goals. When a liberal doesn’t want to say that his or her answer is right or the best because they are wary of the arbitrariness with which someone can put that kind of a declaration on a basis that only a very few people believe in (i.e., Scientology,) they are ignoring that an argument like that has nothing to do with making an arguement based on shared values.

    Even if you feel you don’t know what the great meaning of life is you still can agree that you want what’s best for the country- and that’s why you’re interested in politics, that’s why you’re a liberal- so why not talk about your beliefs with some conviction.

  • Beyond that, I’d add these, which are what I usually associate liberalism and conservativism with.

    1) Liberals are more for distributing the goods of society, and conservatives are more for consolidating the goods of society, in the abstract.

    Liberals want to see the person who’s not getting some service or benefit of society to get it + not be denied it arbitrarily- they see that person and think of how can we get him that service.

    Conservatives always want these things consolidated. They want them in the hands of the people that they feel most deserve theme or won’t squander them. The problem is that other conservatives do not necessarily agree with you on how to define the class of people who deserve the benefit, and they may not even tell you who they really want to help.

    2) Psychologically liberals are more rational and conservatives are more emotional.

    A good example of this also shows how it works with the concept mentioned above. Rational people can see how a situation really is in its stark particulars and act based on what they see because that’s the undeniable truth. An emotional, irrational person is one who, for some reason, can’t think about a situation thoroughly or properly enough to find the rational answer. So they are motivated and stimulated by psychological gimmicks that are easy to understand on some level but are also demonstrable untruths, quite easily. Conservatives have a psychology that makes them susceptible to things like psychological ploys and very quick to dismiss the rest of the argument once they’ve heard a narrative that is psychologically satisfying.

    These aren’t necessarily the central, sole, defining points of liberalism and conservativism to me, but other points I may take so much for granted that these are only the few I usually think about.

  • Some liberals believe that the word liberal is smeared beyond saving. – Koreyel

    The same can now be said for the word conservative after the tainting by Bush and friends.

    The politics of polarization has turned these identities into insults.
    The liberal/conservative paradigm is no longer useful in solving today’s problems of governing. Our political time is far to complex for blinders that only recognize two emotionally charged and inprecise options.
    We are evolving from tribalism to global citizenship in a race against self-destruction, so it’s in all our interests to be pragmatic grown-ups and focus on real solutions to the real problems that threaten our survival..

  • Well, for starters, I think everyone here has pretty much helped define a liberalism even real conservatives would have difficulty with, let alone what calls themselves “conservatives” nowadays.

    And that is what I want to comment on.

    The word “conservative” has been twisted beyond belief. As example, here is a quote from the Conservative icon, Blackstone, which today would pass as the wildest liberalism:

    ”To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his
    estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and
    notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm
    of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the
    person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings
    are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and
    therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.”

    What we need to do is take away the cover of the word “conservative” from the wild-eyed fascist radicals of the farfar right, who have created the movement over the past 40 years that seeks to overthrow the republic and replace it with an authoritarian dictatorship (whether sectarian or theocratic). Let us recall that the Nazis called themselves “conservative” until they got into office, and as every actual conservative in Germany soon realized, they were anything but. These people are far right radical revolutionaries, and until they are seen as such and dealt with accordingly, they are going to continue to win. I submit that appeasement of Hitler originally stemmed from a fundamental misreading of the true nature of his movement, which was only finally seen for what it was when it was close to too late to successfully oppose them.

    The “conservative movement” in America is analogous (Godwin and his idiot law be damned, facts are facts and the truth is the truth), and we have to act on that knowledge. Until that is accomplished, real conservatism, real liberalism, and every other “ism” that supports democracy and a democratic republic are in dire danger of a defeat that will mean the destruction of everything we hold valuable, in the same way that Germany was in 1939.

    Right now, I’ll define liberalism as Anything That Isn’t The Enemy.

  • Lance – Having been raised in an incredibly conservative and hyper-Christian area and then having intentionally moved to a very liberal area I can honestly say that liberals are unquestionably more tolerant of different cultures, ideals, etc.,
    However, in recent years we as a nation, have become less tolerant of the political opinions of others. The glaring difference is that we are more able to rationally discuss and support our opinions . . . while conservatives are, in logical discussion, forced to recognize that their views are not justifiable, even according to the rules of their own belief system, so they instead lash out, due to their inability to tolerate reality. Because of this conservative posture, it has become increasingly difficult to tolerate irrational, illogical and hypocritical thought.
    This is why they’ve felt the need to “create reality”. They even bragged about it at one point. A world view based on a fantasy will eventually collapse. The incongruence baffled us at first because we ARE the reality based community and asking anyone to buy fiction as fact would and should make them intolerant.

  • Liberals believe that it takes a village to raise a child, and endeavor to maintain adults in peak form so that they may continue to be happy and productive citizens throughout their lives. Liberals believe that laws and their enforcement must protect citizens from physical and economic predation. Conservatives believe that they’ve got theirs (or will in the next life), so they rest of us can keep the fuck away.

  • Re my comment at 8:

    I think what happens to a lot of liberals is sometimes “to each his own” is the best answer. As in circumstances of, should there be an official state religion? Well, we say, that something every person should decided for himself, so long as there is so much good reason on which to be able to disagree about the question. The same with a few other issues.

    Then some extrapolate this into a whole worldview, however, or even at least an unstated attitude, perhaps unarticulated even to one’s self. But that’s only intellectual laziness. One doesn’t want to think about complex issues, ever, or think about disagreeing with people, perhaps, so one believes that answers are so hard to find that he or she needn’t try looking for them all the time. It is a bad habit and it is a fallacy, so it’s worth avoiding.

  • Thanks CB and Beep52. This is a good opportunity for a self-defining moment.

    My first impression of the list is that it is “weak”. (Putting doubting beliefs in the first item?) It’s certainly not some sort of manifesto that would bring liberals to their feet cheering. At least to me. Perhaps part of the problem is a question of what we are defining. Are we defining a personal belief system or are we designing a set of political principles?

    1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others…. Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.

    Philosophically I guess there are multiple truths, but politically as enacted by government there can’t be conflicting truths. There are certain “truths” that we hold self-evident…” You don’t have to “doubt” your truths in order to be open to being convinced otherwise.

    I think Clinton is right. The Democrats are the liberal and conservative arm of government now. The Repubulicans are the extremist and extremely corrupt arm of government.

    2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference.

    This is a personal belief. In governing you can only enforce anti-discrimination. Tolerance and respect of personal feelings and actions are outside governmental perview.

    3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate.

    Okay a right the government can enforce, a responsibility has to be converted into a law and THAT is against liberal ideals in this case .Enforced participation in public debate would be like required courses in school. Yawntistic as Shakespeare’s Sister might say.

    4. Liberals believe “we the people” are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind.

    This one is good, but only achievable through laws that don’t depend on something being kept “in mind”.

    5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual.

    This one is good but stated wrong in my opinion. The government can require dignified treatment of individuals by its agents, but in society people will treat other people always as the treater is and only sometimes as the individual deserves. And there are people who don’t embrace their own dignity.

    6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate.

    That’s awfully broad. Less fortunate then who? I believe more in the safety net and in the emergency interventions. Is a Buddhist monk less fortunate than a guy who owns a Ford on a street full of Beemers?

    7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith.

    How about never acting on faith itself. No special laws for religion at all whether it is sectarian or simply “faith”.

    8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties.

    Yes, and in an ideal world the prosecutor would be looking for truth rather than just a conviction, since that’s what we pay him for as a public servant.

    9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible.

    Yes, except that it is not for the protection of liberalism that we believe this. It’s the proper function of government and it protects people on both sides of the line.

    10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values.

    This is true but a bit limited. I think we liberals think that we are still in the phase of actually making sure all people are governed by constitutional values. To eliminate institutional rascism, lack of equality in the courts, etc. is the act of just now realizing constitutional values in many areas. And I think the Consititution is designed to protect individuals from the government not to be used to expand governmental power.

    Ah that was a good little mental workout. A very catalytic discussion item.

    It’s a bit overcast here this morning. One of those brutally cold SoCal mornings at 63 degress. Brrr. 🙂

  • Ah yes, the liberal version of the “I’m not a feminist, but…” apologia. Yeesh.

    I don’t see this list as a synopsis of “What liberals believe” v. “What conservatives believe.” I see it as a synopsis of “What Non-authoritarian people believe” v. “What dicatorial people believe.”

    It sounds true conservative (New England style), with 6 as a possible exception. As Kali said, ShrubCo ruined the “C” word. The most vocal “conservatives” these days aren’t conservative, they’re plain old radicals. Don’t let the fact they aren’t long haired hippy types fool you. (Anyway, MonkeyShines as enough chemicals in his system to make Abbie Hoffman dizzy.) This particular set is so dangerous because they are in charge. This is a first for the US (I think) and we see the results: It don’t work.

    The true radical, regardless of what they are for or against is not meant to be the top of a power structure. They should be out on the sides (the fringe) serving as a catalsyt for debate, making people say “hold on now, let’s not go that far. Now we see that once in charge radicals are a botulism & plutonium cocktail with a twist of ebola to a working society. Their focus is too narrow, their idea of good only applies to a sliver of society and they are intolerant of different opinions. They can’t help but kill the society as they attempt to mold it to their Draconian ideals.

    I’ve seen this within left identified radical groups and the whole world is seeing how right identified radical groups work. The only difference I can see is left fringe radicals get caught up in bickering and bullying amongst themselves. The right fringe marches in step, squashing those who get in the way, and this time they got to the top. (Would I trade ShrubCo for a left identified group of the same mentality? Sure, right after I stick my arse in a wringer.)

  • As usual, the ever-good Glenn Greenwald has a post today that is a powerful comment on what we’re talking about here. Go there to read the whole thing, but here’s the heart of it:

    The David Broders, Richard Cohens, Joe Kleins and New Republic editors and the consultants molded in their blurry, murky, shapeless image have truly come to believe that Democrats can win only by hiding and diluting their real views and especially by running away from any real challenge to the extremist Bush movement. As a result, the Beltway Democratic political class has transformed itself into amorphous, apologetic, defensive symbols of nothing.

    But numerous candidates like Joe Sestak, Jon “Repeal-the-Patriot-Act-now” Tester, and scores of candidates running on an aggressive anti-Bush platform are succeeding because they are galvanizing — rather than trying to suppress — the passion and anger of Americans over how our country has been run. Democrats are poised to win their first national election in what seems like an eternity for one principal reason — the electorate is angry at what is going on in our country and is moved by passion and anger to change it.

    Every poll, and the consensus of political analysts, is revealing that at the heart of the Democratic political advantage are extreme emotions and passions, not muted technocratic preferences or some yearning for a plodding, GOP-accommodating centrism. It is self-evident that people who are dissatisfied with Republican rule — which is a solid majority of the country — want a political movement that is different than the Bush-led political movement in clear and unapologetic ways and will oppose and battle it, not try to copy it.

    Anger and passion are indispensable weapons for overcoming indifference and motivating political action. Particularly in a non-presidential election — but, really, always — people need a reason to care about the outcome. If a political party can’t even muster enough conviction in its own views to articulate clear ideas — if candidates like Joe Sestak had listened to the listless, fear-based advice from consultants “not to talk about pulling troops out of Iraq, arguing it would only encourage the image of Democrats as weak on national security” — then Democrats are not going to motivate anyone to even care enough if they succeed, let alone take action to promote that outcome. Why would anyone?

  • Strictly in the interest of furthering stereotypes of course:

    In the US, liberals tend to admire and trust people as groups and in the abstract rather more than they like and admire actual indviduals, whereas conservatives tend to exalt individuals while distrusting groups.

    In other words, liberals can wax poetic about empowerment by black power movements, or the plight of illegal Mexicans, or nobility or suffering of “the poor”, or the wisdom of the “average voter” without them actually wanting to know any members of those groups. In contrast, you can get conservatives who will be genuinely friendly toward individuals who are quite unlike them, but who fear the groups they belong to.

  • I’m only now watching “Six Feet Under” on Bravo, having missed it on HBO (allow me to say if you too missed it, watch it – it’s great!), and in Episode 3, Dave (the closeted homosexual brother) gets lectured by a dead homie about “standing up for yourself.” Dave and his lover have been called out as “fags” in a parking lot, and while Dave wanted to just leave things alone and ignore it, his lover (a cop) went over and scared the daylights of the moron. The homie got killed when other gangbangers came up and asked “where you from?” and he told them, knowing the answer would get him killed. As he says to Dave “if you don’t believe it, why should I respect you for it, bro?” And in the end of the episode, Dave starts taking his first halting steps toward “this is who I am and I don’t care what you think,” to which his mother and the others who hear that respond with respect for the statement.

    There’s a lesson in that episode for liberals and progressives, as well as closeted gays. As Glenn Greenwald says in his full post today, we need to stop letting the Republicans define what is “acceptable” for us since it is always things that help Republicans.

    Every political movement that has ever been successful has become successful after it stopped letting the enemy define for it what was “acceptable.” The labor movement, the civil rights movement, the antiwar movement in the Vietnam War, the feminist movement, the environmental movement, the animal rights movement, you name it. Success comes from defining yourself, not from accepting the definitions imposed by The Enemy.

    For me, re-reading that list of 10 things and thinking further on it, whatever else you can call it, it is mealy-mouthed crap that black people in the civil rights movement would have called “Uncle Tom-ism.” But the comments, as I said earlier, are a lot better.

  • If this isn’t at the top of the list —

    “Liberals believe they should be responsible for the defense and security of the nation.”

    — then the rest of it is just noise.

  • And one final point about Episode 4 of that show: when Dave takes the Homie’s advice to be willing to die for what he believes, he also defeats the enemy who is trying to destroy his company and family, by deflating the pig to the little piece of Republican scum that he is. That’s how it works when you have guts and determination – which none of the pinstriped Democratic pimps in DC would know anything about.

  • “I can honestly say that liberals are unquestionably more tolerant of different cultures, ideals, etc.,
    However, in recent years we as a nation, have become less tolerant of the political opinions of others.” – on Principle

    Liberals, or leftists at least, have a great intolerance of disagreement within their own ranks and a great intolerance of what they preceive as ‘evils’, homophobia for instance. The root of the word homophobia, phobia, means fear, unreasoning fear. Those who suffer unreasoning fear need to be enlightened from them. Gay-bashing, which is apparantly what the Republican’t house caucus does, is an evil because the politicians who practice it know perfectly well that homosexuals as a group are not responsible for what ails Hetrosexual marriages or any of the other lies they spout to gain the theocratic reactionary vote.

    “The glaring difference is that we are more able to rationally discuss and support our opinions . . . while conservatives are, in logical discussion, forced to recognize that their views are not justifiable, even according to the rules of their own belief system, so they instead lash out, due to their inability to tolerate reality.” – on Principle

    I can accept that tenatively. In the end, however, we really can’t claim to be so tolerant that it is a clear deliniation between the right and left.

  • What a pathetic vague, safe list. If that’s what a liberal is I’m going with the lunatic fringe. Any politician who campaigns using that list might beat a thoroughly discredited Bushco thug , but wouldnt have a chance against a strong true conservative. Did this guy advise Gore in 2000?(certainly not implying Bush was strong true conservative).

    Government is not the problem. Bad government is A problem. Many issues we face today scream for federal leadership: education, health care, corporate corruption, fair trade, election and campaign reform, security,… Only government has the ability to organize and lead on these problems. The free market cant lead on anything except the pursuit of individual profit. The benefits deriving from the FM to the country as a whole are collateral, cooincidental, erratic, and often too slow in arriving. This is a nuanced assertion. Government shouldnt by the tyrranical absolute arbiter of all problems(even with the consent of the governed), businesses have rights and valuable insight. But without government leadership on broad scope issues, you dont really have a country, just a well armed free trade zone catering to the needs of the wealthy and powerful.

  • Now for the discussion part of our program–now that we’ve had a chance to howl out our credos, our manifestos, our proclamations, our objections and projections (The poor moon never hears a howl.)

    Now we see that once in charge radicals are a botulism & plutonium cocktail with a twist of ebola to a working society.
    Comment by The Answer is Orange

    I’m sensing this a bad thing. 🙂 So true. Left or right, the extremes are toxic. I like your phrase “a working society”. I think that reality-based means realizing that people don’t live out utopic or dystopic agendas. They just live. They work. They encompass contradictions. Extremism is like war. The people who just want to live their lives are destroyed while the power-mongers live out their dramas. (Shenandoa with Henry Fonda is an excellent movie about this.) I think that ideas of accomodation to this current crop of conservative extremists is wrong-headed. It’s not the liberals who have left the arena of rational discourse. It’s the Bush-addled Right.

    PS Does anyone else wish that html didn’t switch the smiley face to an emoticon. the colon/parenthesis is a simple indication of a smile that fits typographicaly into the flow of the text. While the emoticon is a brightly colored shit-eating grin that dominates the whole message. 🙂

  • Left or right, the extremes are toxic.
    Comment by Dale

    And the reason they are toxic is that they are ultimately authoritarian.

    “Liberals believe they should be responsible for the defense and security of the nation.”
    Comment by Mark Barrett

    Excellent point (although I wouldn’t call the rest “noise”). Especially in this environment of magnified perceived threat and actual real threat, the security issue is extremely important. I guess a lot of people thnk that Liberals would be so tolerant that they would just give the country away. What makes them think that if we hate the Christian Reich so much that we would be willing to put up with the Islamic Reich.

  • LIberals believe that there is no such thing as a “real American” – we are ALL Americans, regardless of our ethnicitiy, color, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, education achievement, age, or geographic location. Liberals beleive in inclusion – not “us against them” or having one group define what “American” is..

    Liberals believe that there is never an acceptable circumstance for the government to be less than 100% open and honest with the people. Liberals beleive that the best government is one that operates in the sunshine. Never forget that one of the very first acts of the Bush Administration upon taking power in the 2001 was to halt the flow of public release of government papers, later made official by the infamous Executive Order 13233 which gives the President, rather than the people, personal discretion to prevent release of official papers, regardless of the law.

  • It’s a truly liberal concept to clearly define ourselves, even if it takes the form of a David Letterman “Top 10” list. Conservatives, in the sense we know them today, defined themselves by pointing to Jim Wright’s bloated and complacent Congress in ’94 and said “We aren’t them.” I’m not aware of any ironclad conservative manifesto detailing who they are and what they stand for, other than ad hoc descriptions to defend themselves and their actions.

    That being said, I think a definition of liberalism should start with one central tenet and cascade down with attributes from there. That central tenet? Liberals believe that government is the glue that holds a society together. It is the job of government to keep its citizens a cohesive whole by defending and preserving their persons, property and rights so that all benefit. Government should continually advance society as a whole for the benefit of all citizens. Government should step in when economic systems fail to take in to account the need for all of society to advance.

    I also believe that we should posit the ideal of an American brand of liberalism, to be wary of the constant references to leftists as anarchists and guys like Hugo Chavez. American mythology has always held that anyone, no matter what their background should have the chance to succeed on their own merits. This is a liberal value. Societies willl always have the tendency to stratify, and wile conservativism will seek to preserve the status quo, liberals believe all should have the chance for upward mobility and governement should deconstruct atrificial barriers that prevent that. Liberals should also believe that America is a nation among many and that what we wish for ourselves we should wish for for others, but not force upon them.

    Geez, I could go on and on, but my last defining principle would be that liberals put their faith in the U.S. Constitution and its built-in limits on the powers of government to protect the rights of all citizens. That while this nation has advanced over the centries, in fits nd starts, it has been adherence to the principles entaile din the Constitution that have kept this nation on track to become an ever more pefect union.

  • On the use of terms, why not democratic socialists? Its past time that the U.S. gets rid of the fear and ignorance of the S word. And its time to think in terms of globally not just nationally. Its the global corporatists that do not care about the security and well-being of the U.S.

    As far as impeaching Bush, if Cheney goes too then whomever the Republicans appoint President (which is what will happen if Cheney goes first) that person will then have a leg up as a “reform” candidate with a year’s experience in office come 2008.

  • “In other words, liberals can wax poetic about empowerment by … without them actually wanting to know any members of those groups.”

    [@ #18 N. Wells]

    Did you by any chance go to a liberal arts college &/or spend a lot of time with social rights activists? (I will not use the smiley winking face emoticon because since Dale mentioned it, the damned thing looks like Shrub.)

    You are no doubt refering to the dreaded “My [fill-in-the-miniority] friend says,” usually non-minority, usually upper class twit that is all too common in liberal movements. Them ain’t liberals, them be posing pratts who are always shocked, offended and often vicious when informed their narrow “as seen on TV” world view reeks of bigotry sprinkled with lavender.

    Perhaps that will be the only way to tell who is a real liberal (real conservatives included) from the poseurs: If ShrubCo’s Special Fancy Ops Team starts rounding up dissenters en masse a lot of those fat heads will suddenly remember how much they luuuve the POTUS and hate icky liberals. I’m sure the same thing happened over two centuries ago when the British showed up to discuss back taxes. Throw tea into the harbor? Sure!
    Oops, here come some guys with guns, um… Long live the King!

    Is that one for the list? Liberals don’t change their spots for the sake of social/political expediency.

    Never mind, that just separates cowards from the brave.

  • I’m not sure this list is a fair representation of what can be called liberal or progressive policy. All of the items strike me as things people already accept as applicable to all, excepting the most self-conscious and narcissistic of demogogues. In other words, it doesn’t take any courage to stand up on behalf of things people already agree on. In my opinion, a much clearer definition of liberal would be the opposite of what the current crop (crap?) of “neo-conservatives” exemplifies. Examples:

    Conservatives believe fertilized embryos in a petri dish are “babies” and must not be destroyed. Liberals believe fertilized embryos that would have been destroyed under normal procedures in fertilty clinics can and should be used in the development of stem cell lines.

    Conservatives believe the first casualty of war is the truth. Liberals believe democracy is destroyed through the suppression of truth and the use of propaganda.

    Conservatives believe in the consolidation of wealth, authority, and power into as few hands as possible. Liberals exemplify the exact opposite – the decentralization of wealth and authority with much more emphasis on the autonomy of the individual.

    Finally, it appears conservatives really believe government is meant to do the most good for the least number of people and to ignore the demands of the rest. Liberals already know that government can be a force for good in the lives of the most number of people. The progressive ideal is a government dedicated to improving the lives of all citizens in ways that only a strong federal government can.

    Rather then try and rehabilitate a concept such as “liberal”, I think we should dedicate ourselves to exposing the falseness of “conservatism” or “neoconservatism” and to reveal it to be what it is: a form of fascism dedicated to its own survival and nothing else.

  • Liberals do not dismiss good ideas even if they are labeled conservative. A few come to mind:
    1. There are times when appropriately applied tax cuts might be needed.
    2. There are some tasks and roles that the private sector can do better and more efficiently than government.
    3. There are times when smaller government is better. There are government programs that do need to be cut or eliminated.
    4. There are times when individuals do need to take more personal responsibility and rely less on government.
    5. Risky behavior should not be reinforced by government assistance, but the govenment can help to reduce or mitigate the consequences. This applies to both the rich and the poor.

  • I think he may have been aiming a subtle criticism at the conservatives with his first, or first three, points.

    This is what a liberal would believe in: there should be a custom where, on any pundit show on TV, the discussion panelists or guests on each show will be picked at random from a list made of suggestions for that show from several people- members of the show’s production staff offer an equal number of suggestions for the speakers for each show, liberal and conservative.

    But a conservative wouldn’t believe in that. A conservative would want to do anything they can to keep the best liberals off of the show, because they believe that their point of view is right and therefore they can do anything that helps keep the other point of view from being heard.

    Stone’s first point may have been a valid criticism of conservatives, and it may be a realistic description of liberals’ belief. But by emphasizing it, by trying to criticize republicans that way, he’s really missing a pretty basic consideration. Conservatives don’t care that you’ll criticize them on this point.

    You can argue rationally with a conservative about this all day, and convince them to admit that they liberal suggestion I described above is the best one and is a fair way to run TV shows and radio shows. But they’ll go right to their friends right afterward, and talking in private, they’ll be joking about how liberals should be beat up with bats or intimidated. They won’t be thinking or talking about what they talked to you about.

  • In my comment at 14, I’m not saying that liberals believe that the best answer to whether there should be a state religion or not is just that any answer is as good as the alternative. I meant to say that on the question of validity of religions in general, liberals believe in to each his own. Of course, however, the application of that to practical governance is the question of the extent to which government should support the practice of religion.

  • 2-3; 5-7 – not bad
    #1 – drives me nuts
    #8 – redundant
    4, 9, 10 – not specific to liberals
    Nine and ten smack of defensiveness – “See – we’re not weak on defense.”

    My almost 10:
    1. Everything is open for discussion.
    2. We should tolerate others’ opinions and beliefs, other than those supporting intolerance.
    3. The only bases for collective action should be consensus values and simple rationality. No religion determines either.
    4. We should not allow others to suffer unjustly and needlessly.
    5. Each individual’s actions should be the only determinant of his/her success.
    6. Equality of opportunity is evaluated with a long view; we should try to ensure equal opportunity at (and sometimes before) birth to ensure equal opportunity later.
    7. Society’s success is measured at the bottom and the median; one billionaire does not equal one million children in poverty. (Thanks, FDR.)
    8. We should address the causes of disorder, not just the symptoms. (Thanks, AEynon.)
    9. People can work together, even when they disagree.

    Notes:
    1. It’s not “I doubt my truth,” but “I understand that I am sometimes wrong, regardless of how many others agree with me.”
    2. Many posters here seem to think that tolerance means tolerance of prejudice and/or refusal to point out error. It’s not inconsistent to refuse to tolerate intolerance.
    4. Many conservatives would agree with this, but many others would say that there is no moral obligation to help another.
    5. Many conservatives would agree with this, but others would support dogmatic ideas regarding gender and age.
    6. E.g., we should provide a good public education.
    7. Many conservatives would claim to agree with this, but they don’t act accordingly.
    8. This flows naturally from some of the others, but I liked AEynon’s phrasing.
    9. Probably the weakest on the list – not that particular to liberals.

  • Some exceptionally thoughfull answers this week. Lance seems to hit some fundemenal truths, though I can’t offer any hard evidence beyond personal experience.

    What also strikes me is something that was also noted at least twice. The ‘list’ is more of a civics 101 recital than anything else. Let’s see, don’t hide sexual predators, don’t rob the republic blind, and don’t wipe your arse with the constitution…

    It is enough to differentiate Democrats from an extroidinarily corrupt and incompetent GOP, but it hardly defines me as a liberal. My basic outlook is much simpler. Government should serve two basic purposes:

    1. Protect the weakest among us
    2. Insure the greatest possible freedom for everyone else

    Based on individual outlook, even these two simple edicts can be in conflict. Presumably adament anti-abortionists are often certain that they are pursuing #1, while the most vocal supporters of reproductive rights are probably focusing on #2.

    But as a general, big picture, matter, consistant failure on either of these fronts seriously erodes, at least to me, the fudemental justifications for a democratic republic to exist at all.

    This defines me as an American, call it libertarian or whatever. For example, I despise West B. Baptists protesting funerals, but I am loathe to put limitations on the first amendment…

    What defines me as a liberal is not some benign list of nice thoughts that are seldom vigorously pursued in consistant action- but traditional bleeding heart stuff, like it is a crime against God that in the wealthiest counties in the wealthiest country in the known history of man thousands of children attend school light headed from hunger and with no axis to medical care.

    Or, in a similiar vein, that a corporation – a fictional person, can pursue legal protection from creditors, while a human family, facing crushing debt from medical bills, cannot…

    I guess I’m a traditional liberal – and like most past progressive movements (abolishionists, civil libertarians, woman’s suffrage) I am largely influenced by my sectarian faith.

    -jjf

  • I think I’m a Preservative. I want to preserve the rights, protections and momentum of those very activist documents, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

  • Okay Bigtime OT (Off Topic and Over the Top)

    How is a Conservative NOT like a dung beetle?

    Winners of the Ig Nobel Prize for Nutrition explain:

    “Two gentlemen from Kuwait took this home for noting that the dung beetle is actually very particular about which dung it fancies. “

  • […] conservatives really believe government is meant to do the most good for the least number of people — Timpanist, @32

    Of course they do; that’s what they mean by “small government” :^)

    Dale and TAIO; I think only the colon/parenthesis smiley gets transformed into an emoticon. The tongue-in-cheek one: :^) and semicolon/parenthesis 😉 don’t

  • I guess these late comments are sort of like popcorn on the theater floor after everyone leaves.

    I was just thinking, though, that I can learn a hell of a lot more about modern liberals from bloggers and commenters than I can from some professor. It’s a fast moving angry redefinition of ourselves, because it is in response to the biggest authoritarian challenge by unprinicipled thugs that this country has ever faced. It’s a street definition.

  • Oh well, I was half-right…
    Comment by libra

    🙂 That’s better the Republicans are doing, libra.

    Bonus question: The tongue-in-cheek emoticon was an IM favorite of what certain former Representive?

  • Michael in #25: Yes, it’s a safe list, but liberals are inherently a pretty safe, slow-change, gradual-progressive-improvement sort of people, aren’t they? Isn’t that one of the things that separates liberals from farther-left radicals and left-wing revolutionaries. Conservative fears and demonizing not withstanding, when was the last time that you heard of a firebreathing liberal, or a liberal call to arms other than in defense against an external enemy? “Give me Nationalized Health Care or give me death” has never been a Liberal talking point.

    To TAIO in #31: I was thinking more along the lines that if a liberal politician sees a march of black power people, or women’s rights people, or a gay pride march, or a march to end poverty or something (any group that they do not happen to belong to), their inclination is to join in or at least show some synmpathy and support, whereas the inclination of a conservative politician facing a large group that he or she does not belong to is more likely to be to call out the police or the national guard. However, this does not necessarily translate into personal relationships.

  • Coming late to the party after a day of soccer games and helping our daughter fill out college apps… but here goes…

    Stone’s first proposition comes close to what I think may be the most basic difference between liberals and conservatives, and with some tweaking might serve as the source from which his nine remaining propositions could be derived:

    1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others…

    Inherent in the statement is the notion that truth not absolute but an individual perception — itself, a fundamental difference between many liberals and conservatives. Liberals might say Stone “acknowledges” multiple truths, while conservatives might say he “assumes” multiple truths or “denies” that truth exists. So, before we get to Stone’s statement itself, we have a philosophical split over an assumption underlying the statement.

    Stone’s assumptions go a bit further, implying that an individual’s (perception of) truth may not be complete or correct, that truths perceived by others may be equally or more correct, and that one has an obligation to consider the differences. Again, we find a fundamental difference between liberalism and conservatism. A fundamentalist of any religion simply cannot accept the notion that the truth of another faith might be equally or more valid than their own without abandoning core beliefs. Similarly, a person inclined to accede authority cannot accept the notion that the truth they’ve been told might be incorrect without losing faith in authority, thus becoming hopelessly lost.

    Great comments all!

  • Stone’s assumptions go a bit further, implying that an individual’s (perception of) truth may not be complete or correct, that truths perceived by others may be equally or more correct, and that one has an obligation to consider the differences.
    Comment by Beep52

    True but that’s not often the case with Wingnut truths. How often and how broadly do you consider their statements of truths? Liberals can also spot BS and it saves them a lot of time. That’s why I find it more valuable to look at the range of ideas in a friendly forum like this blog than I would in a discussion with a rightwinger. You can only stretch the relativity of truth so far.

  • “True but that’s not often the case with Wingnut truths.” – Dale

    Agreed. In many cases, however, the wingnut truths are derivatives of arguments that we have considered and rejected. (A lot of fundamentalist religious claims would fall into that category). So, yes, there’s not much point to considering them again.

  • beep52’s (#45) observation is on-target. My own ‘take’ on the difference between liberals and conservatives is twofold. Liberals tend to see gray areas where conservatives see only black and white. Liberals also seem to have a sense of empathy and conservatives don’t. The result of both characteristics is that conservatives regard liberals as wishy-washy. They demand a concrete answer, not more questions.

    (Unrelated, beep52, my soccer days are over — both coaching and watching. My children’s college days are well underway, however. Both played soccer, thus depriving their mom and me of a life for several years. Fun, though. I hope your games went well.)

  • I think of liberalism in terms of “no excuses,” as in, people receive all the
    “raw materials” they need to succeed – education, health care, etc. – so they have no excuses if they fail to take advantage of it. In today’s world, we can’t say that everyone starts on an equal footing. The day we can say that is the day I will stop complaining of inequitable results.

  • These are three rules that Liberals may not “believe” but that all Americans should keep in mind:

    1) Moderation is not a compromise between the extreme left and the extreme right. If you want moderation, ask someone moderate on the issue to draft a porposal that will bring both sides together, don’t ask extremists to draft it (that’s like asking the Theocratic Reactionaries and the Femi-nazis (paternalistic feminists) to develop laws on pornography!).

    2) Unintended consequences are a predictable result of any complex policy. Think it through carefully.

    3) Any new, enlightened, popular and clever policy initiative given over into the hands of true believers will be good for about two policy generations (a generation is about 3 years, thus 4.5 years approximately). Then it will fall into the hands of squirrelly little men, cost a great deal and achieve little (I’ve seen this happen more than once) and eventually be duplicated by another enlightened, popular and clever policy initiative. Thus every policy should have an expiration (sunset) clause after five years or should be very carefully drafted with rule 2 in mind. Sometimes, if the policy initiative is considered a joke by its sponsors, it won’t be even one year before it’s a waste of taxpayer money (re: Kuo and the Faith Based Initiative office).

    When considering the danger of Rule #3, remember that the Nazis were the expression of putting squirrelly little men into power and the “Final Solution” their most notable “policy”.

  • Liberals and moderate Democrats, when they retake the majority in Congress next month, must learn from the mistakes of not only the Republican majority of late but to also reread a page from its own history and learn why they lost their majority. Until 1994, we were almost as corrupt as the GOP is now. The only difference is, the GOP thought bigger.

    Obviously, they cannot win back the House and especially the Senate thriugh default.

    Paul Krugman lambastes poseurs like Lieberman in “One Letter Politics.”

  • I remember a time when “liberal” wasn’t the dirty epithet it has become. If you wanted to insult someone you called them a bleeding heart or a do-gooder. I was then and now proud to be called either.

  • Wow…great discussion going on here…I’m definitely late to the party…

    My $0.02 (and I apologize, I don’t quite have time to read everything right now), is that if you asked a conservative if they agreed with these 10 positions, they would absolutely concur on all but #6 (government has a responsibility to help those less fortunate).

    I say this because I believe that both the average liberal and the average conservative believe their ways are what is best for the country. Conservatives and liberals both want to make this country a better place. The difference is the means. I think this is particularly evident in #10. I expect a conservative would argue that the line separating “necessary” sacrifice, from “unnecessary” sacrifice has not been crossed. Liberals, of course, believe it has not only be crossed, but it has been egregiously crossed.

    People vilify conservatives on this site all the time, as though they were intent on setting up the Third Reich here in the US. While that may be true of the current leadership, I don’t believe that is true of conservatives in general. If you really think all conservatives are evil, then reconsider #1, because you clearly are not “fairly and openmindedly” considering other viewpoints.

    I think it is worth repeating — I believe on most issues, the difference between liberal and conservative is not theory, but implementation.

    Nobody wants to lose the war on terrorism. Clearly there are differences in how each side wants to fight it. Nobody wants poor people to starve to death. Clearly, there are differences in how best to help the poor over the long term. Nobody wants to sacrifice the freedom that made this country great. Clearly, there are differences in the perceived threat, and in the meaning of essential liberty.

    I think if we could admit that the “bad guys” aren’t evil, just misguided, it would go along way toward restoring civilized debate in this country.

    • Comments are closed.