Where Have All the Liberals Gone?
So many people are unclear today about what it means to be liberal and conservative, democrat or republican, Methodist or Episcopalian. I think it would be a good idea to examine these things and to make conscious decisions and form intentional and reasonable conclusions about current events, rather than subscribe to an ideology or system of beliefs because our parents did, because the media is in an uproar, or because of the all-to-common cult of personality. I am going to start with liberalism, because I happen to subscribe to that social ideology. I am also a Methodist, which you can read more about here.
Here is the entry from Merriam Webster online that refers to liberalism:
Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: ‘li-b(&-)r&-“li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 : often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
– lib·er·al·ist /-b(&-)r&-list/ noun or adjective
– lib·er·al·is·tic /”li-b(&-)r&-‘lis-tik/ adjective
Notice that the key words in all of these definitions are liberty, freedom, progress, goodness. The first definition even refers to liberalism as a Christian phenomena. As I see it, Christianity and liberalism are perfectly suited for one another. I think that the Nancy Pelosi led Democratic party, however, does as much to hinder the advancement of liberalism than to advocate for it. It is true that when a political party can convey that they have a conviction and will act on it, the people respond. This happened with FDR, and JFK, it happened with the conservative party in the 90’s, and it has happened again with our new President. The Bush administration was a product of the aggressive spreading of the message that the conservative party stands with principle and purpose. The Bush administration did not necessarily stand on that principle, and many conservatives will let you know that up front. The American disillusion with the Bush administration was a direct result of the lack of commitment that they showed to the conservative convictions that helped elect them in the first place. The liberal platform has, I think, a stronger message and one that economically resembles many of the conservative principles of the old-school fiscal conservatives. Free competition and a self regulating market are powerful allies of progress, the essential goodness of humanity, and the autonomous individual. It was the Republican party that won originally won elections on the motto “the party of change,” but it is liberalism that actually stands on that principle. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are not representing many of those principles, and borrowing money that we are going to spend to fix a problem with our economy that was mostly caused by gluttonous spending and bad debt is not mentioned in the definition above. The conservativess in Congress have found their voice, and they have added an element to the debate that should have been there in the first place. If the party that is controlled by the Religious Right and the likes of James Dobson and Pat Robertson can claim that they are the “party of change,” then where are the liberals? If they don’t show up soon, then the Republican party will be well positioned in 2010 for an “I told you so” debate. And they could win.
Comment by helensorenson on 17 September 2007:
OK–Change doesn’t always mean liberalism. Look at Roe Vs. Wade. They “changed” it so no woman in my state could choose to aspirate a fetus- ie-reproductive freedom is OUT -unless she is rich. My 94 year old mother had a friend who aborted a fetus back in the 1940’s. She had an understanding doctor and health insurance. The people who can afford health care like that now are upper class. I know my local county health department used to help people who did not have money, but now it is illegal to do so. The liberals are still around, though.
Democrats and independants need to mobilize, but some are against reproductive freedom. We are stuck at this point. Socialized medicine is a controversial subject, but health care for all is scary for some people who have all the $. Therefore, they have ALL of the power. I’m on a rant, I know! What can I do? Let me know, please. I believe the subject was Change Is Good .
Comment by bryan on 18 September 2007:
helensorenson –
I don’t know what state you live in, but Roe vs. Wade was very clear about the subject of aborting fetus’. The ruling was in favor of Roe, ruling that fetus’ could be terminated up to the point at which the fetus could be sustained outside of the womb. So, if some situation occurs where you live that is inconsistent with that ruling, then you should encourage those involved to bring it up with their legislators. I don’t want to be mistaken, I am not pro-abortion. As a liberal, which was the subject of this post, I am pro-individual autonomy. I am for the decisions that ensure the greatest freedom and liberty for the individual and I support legislation that promotes the sanctity of civil liberty.
And, no, change is not necessarily good. But it is inevitable. What we must decide is whether or not we will embrace progress, whether it makes us comfortable or not.
Comment by Dawn on 19 September 2007:
American Heritage Dictionary – Cite This Source
con·ser·va·tism (k?n-sûr’v?-t?z’?m) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
3. Conservatism The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
4. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.
I felt you should have a contrasting definition as well.
Comment by Ohg Rea Tone on 19 September 2007:
Hey – fairness only applies to legitimate folks – that’s not what we are about
Comment by Ohg Rea Tone on 19 September 2007:
Hey Dawn,
I really appreciate your comments – I understand your sense of fairness and of moderation. I don’t know if you label yourself a conservative or liberal – but whatever you are you raise the average IQ of that group.
Dad