Posted on 10/16/2006 10:48:16 AM PDT by Sterm26
FOR MOST OF THE last four decades, liberals have been in retreat.
Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Republicans have controlled the White House 70 percent of the time and Republican presidents have made 86 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court appointments. In many quarters, the word "liberal" has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe. As a liberal, I find that appalling.
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.
1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others.
This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.
Please tell that to every conservative who tries to give a talk at a college.
Search may be a lot of Freepers' friends, but it doesn't seem to be mine....nothing I search for ever pops up as posted!
Anyway, it was reprinted from the Trib in today's Phila Daily News.
Really, all it means to be a liberal is that you think you're smarter than everyone else but you get very upset when anyone wants to challenge your ideas.
Owl_Eagle
If what I just wrote made you sad or angry,
it was probably just a joke.
What it means to be a liberal -- see ''Marxist''
The first 3 or 4 are particularly laughable....
This might be the definiton of a "classical" liberal, but it's certainly not the definition of a "modern" liberal.
A very good article describing the self-delusional fantasies of liberals ...
The utility of this is that it should remind us not to slack in our duty to publically define what liberals REALLY believe, and see that that definition gets out there.
That liberals believe that the state is the answer to all problems.
That it is the criminal who is worthy of compassion, not the victim
That charity should not be a personal choice, but done at gunpoint from the state. Only the state knows how wealth should be distributed
Faith is evil. God is dead.
Abortion is good, executing criminals is bad.
Feel free to offer your opinions directly to Mr. Stone here:
g-stone@uchicago.edu
Liberals believe in Free Stuff, mostly from government. Conservatives are sceptical about the whole idea of Free Stuff and think that all stuff of every kind eventually has to be paid for. Liberals believe in a "they", who are infinitely wealthy and can be conveniently taxed for everything. Conservatives believe that "they" are infinitely closer than the liberals think and, quicker than you would expect, the punitively taxed "they" turns into "us." As PJ put it; "Liberals believe in Santa Claus. Conservatives believe in God. Santa Claus gives you everything you want just for being good. God gives you what you want but reminds you that there's a price. The only difference is that God is real."
11. Liberals are unable to define their true beliefs because truth changes.
12. Liberals believe that historical facts are like a game of darts where it only counts if it sticks but you should be able to keep throwing until it does.
13. Liberals despise America.
Tell that to Barbra Streisand.
A response to “What it Means to be Liberal”
By Oneolcop
Mr. Stone’s OpEd begins with the statement “For most of the past four decades, liberals have been in retreat.” -An opinion that bears examination. The so-called days of rage that took place in Mr. Stone’s fair City of Chicago were a seminal moment in the contest between what the youth of the day considered the stultifying repression of free expression ante-Vietnam war and utopia.
The “Chicago Seven” were the poster children of the cultural change taking place in America as the baby boomers took their rightful place on the front lines of society. Street demonstrations, learned from the experiences of the desegregation movement, were employed as a vehicle to display this generation’s discontent with the acquiescence of “the silent generation” to the perceived mistakes of mainstream politicians. “Equal Rights!” “Peace! “Power to the People!” all were taken as the slogans of that movement. I know about those days, because I was there. I believed, and still do, in civil rights, helping the less fortunate, voting rights, tolerance, respect, free speech, equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Our founding fathers sought Utopia as well. They placed their lives and fortunes on the line to achieve something approaching utopia right here on this continent. In doing so, they failed: They failed, as we all do, because Utopia is, in fact a chimera. We progress towards it only to find it slipping further out of our grasp. If only we could reach it, everything would be well, perfect.
Utopia, the concept of a perfect place, is a chimera. It is a state of being sought after by all. Yet it has a different definition for each of its seekers. Definition is the first rule of debate. Mr. Stone used terms we think we understand. Unfortunately, to liberals they have different meanings.
Fairly as defined in Webster’s (in definition 8) includes the words “according to the rules.” One could argue that the constitution of the United States establishes “the rules” to be generally accepted by those who live under its umbrella. This protection of the “rule of law” includes provision for change of the rules. It does not include “mob rule” as a part of the equation.
Truth: “in accordance with fact.” Tolerant: (root word: tolerate) “…to recognize and respect without necessarily agreeing or sympathizing.” Hate speech: Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a bigot as one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Imagine that; one might say that liberals are intolerant of conservatives. Just look at the intolerance, dare I say hatred that is showered upon the president of the United States. “Obstacles to voting”: One might surmise that not being able to prove that a prospective voter is ineligible by virtue of alien status or felonious behavior is an obstacle to voting. Most people don’t share this point of view. It’s the law. If we cannot tell who is voting, who has already voted, who is eligible to vote, why bother voting? Perhaps we could just have elected officials select their successors.
If we tolerate “Overbearing” regulation by government, we do so for only the shortest period of time feasible. To call the protection of life an overbearing act by government suggests we should simply let all the killers out of prison. The freedom of murderers to kill would take the place of the right to life of the many. Unborn children are living beings, albeit incomplete ones. If we do not protect our most vulnerable, why bother to protect those of us who can protect ourselves? This is hardly a case of an “overbearing” government. “Special responsibility” connotes privilege above that which belongs to all people. It smacks of elitism and special status as the arbiters of what is good and what is not. It takes one down the “slippery slope” towards autocracy. To my knowledge, the vast majority of citizens are for “reasonable” restraints on government. The question then becomes “What is reasonable?” In this republic, we elect representatives to carry out the will of the people. We have the prerogative to “unelect” any official except some members of the judicial branch. Therein rests the problem: Unelected judges (lawyers) believe that they are wiser than the rest of us mortals. They usurp the prerogative of the legislative branch to legislate from the bench. How many unreasonable decisions should a judge be allowed before he or she is removed from the bench? Reasonableness is a little like pornography; it’s hard to define, but most of us know it when we see it.
With every one of the rights articulated in the constitution, there is responsibility.
The difference between you, Mr. Stone and me is that I believe that the “rule of law’ means that we observe the conventions of the law until “we the people” through constitutional means, change the law.
Lawyers view the world through the lens of litigation; for litigate is what they do. In “doubting their own truths” people should question their own motives and prejudices and try to see where the honestly held beliefs of others might be just as reasonable those with whom we agree. Conservatives believe that the systems established in the constitution to “level the playing field” apply equally to all, including those who are perceived to benefit unfairly. Conservatives believe in the dignity of the human spirit. Conservatives believe in self-reliance as the surest means to approach utopia.
“Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others.” Truth, to a conservative is almost perfectly objective. It would appear that to a liberal, truth is what a person believes, rather than what “is”. Truth is sometimes inconvenient, for it does not always comport with the desire of an individual to frame the debate in terms favorable to a particular objective. Lawyers specialize in finding the scintilla of uncertainty in an issue and creating a new “truth” woven of the threads of speculation and doubt.
The word “fairly” as used in position number one is subjective. Life is not fair. To some are given handicaps; physical, mental, economic, social and geographical. We conservatives wish that life was fair, but we know that it is not and never will be. We continue to believe in the power of the individual, in the innate ability of the individual to overcome handicap, to strive for utopia, to achieve by individual effort, what can be achieved in no other way.
If government programs worked in overcoming unfairness, we undoubtedly would have achieved utopia by now. The problem with government getting into the business of overcoming unfairness is that it creates bureaucracy whose very existence depends upon the prolongation of the thing it purports to eliminate.
“Liberals believe that government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate.” One might ask “Less fortunate than whom?” “Less fortunate” is a relative term. We all know that there is a “poverty level”. That very level presumes that one living beneath it is “less fortunate” but what, objectively is the point at which a “less fortunate” person cannot help him or herself?
“Liberals are skeptical of censorship...” Conservatives believe in self-censorship. That is, the restraint of self-will in the pursuit of what is good for the whole of the people in contrast to the interests of the few. For a government institution to refuse to pay from the public coffers for an artist’s work, the words of the critic, the cry of dissent; is not censorship. It is no more nor less than the recognition that worthy ideas will find a way to be heard.
History has shown that if a liberal loses a debate he is likely to say that the debate was not fair, to take his grievance to the “street” in a demonstration of discontent. Certainly to do so is a right. This right is articulated in the constitution. But the conservative asks: “Is this the responsible thing to do? Does not doing so, inevitably invite infringement upon the rights of others?
“Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference.” We should be, but we must be only to the extent that the differences do not destroy the underpinnings of the constitution. The ideas of the dissenter are subject to the scrutiny of the public, who can agree or disagree. There should be no law that forces an individual to accept all differences. The actions of those who use the shield of the constitution to attack the very protections it affords are should not be tolerated and respected.
You see, Mr. Stone, the devil is in the details.
So THAT's why my family can't leave politics out of it when I'm at home. Honestly, I just don't think all times in your life call for making things a political statement. I mean is it that important to bring up political topics at the Christmas dinner?
Awesome reply. I hope you send that off as an editorial to the Philadelphia Daily News.
I didn't, but I did send it to Stone. If you have the email address of the PhiDaily I will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.