Liberalism defined
I received a comment last week calling me a “foolish liberal wacko.� Some people think that being liberal in your outlook automatically qualifies you as foolish and wacko. And why not? Our corporate media have made a sport of misrepresenting liberalism to such an extreme that there is little good to be said about it—by those in the corporate media or the fools that listen to them.
(For those who think the media is run by those evil liberals, stop, think, and ask yourself: why would liberals give airtime to liberal-bashers?)
Liberalism has been so misrepresented that there are far too many people out there who actually believe we have liberals in government! Do we?
Is Ted Kennedy a liberal? Is Hillary?
According to http://www.answers.com/topic/liberalism, liberalism means “A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.�
I suppose some could argue that people are not naturally good, but what is wrong with wanting autonomy for one’s self? What is wrong with wanting civil and political liberty? How can any thinking person define “government by law with the consent of the governed� to be evil? Aren’t these the principles on which our country was founded?
Egads! Does that mean that Adams, Jefferson, Madison, et. al., were foolish wackos? Even ignorant Dittoheads don’t believe that.
That’s right, the United States was founded on liberal principles. What I find most amusing is that so-called conservatives are trying to conserve liberal principles—or are they?
The great, liberal Roman statesman, Cicero, said “The noblest goal is the public good.�
The “public good� is not served by big government! “That government is best which governs the least� (Thoreau, oft quoted by Rush Limbaugh!). So how can those who would intrude upon every aspect of our lives; those who think “government is the answer� to all our problems be correctly called “liberal?� They cannot! This of course includes the aforementioned Senators Kennedy and Clinton.
So why does corporate media portray them as liberal? My guess is that it keeps us divided. When labels are assigned to people, other people use them as a device to shut them out, to ignore them—or worse, insult them. Labeling lowers the bar for public discourse.
Labeling is a useful tool to keep people from thinking. After all, when you teach someone to think, there’s a good chance they will become a revolutionary. And who would lose in a liberal revolution?
The corporate media.
Comments
The traditional meaning of the word "liberal" is very positive, to my way of thinking. Conservative, too. Problem is politicians claim the virtues that are associated with liberalism and conservatism and when they get power become corrupted by it. The meanings of the words have evolved now, where most Americans wouldn't recognize the original meanings.
E.g. Reagan and W Bush are considered conservative, but promoted very expansive gov't and deficit spending, both the opposite of the original characteristics of a conservative.
Indeed.
Posted by: Michael Jones | September 25, 2006 07:49 PM
The "liberal" you describe resembles what is now considered Libertarian. Liberal as commonly perceived is promoters of expansive government funded by a transfer of wealth from earners to non-earners.
To suggest that Adams, Jefferson, and Madison are of the same mindset as Ted Kennedy is simplistic rhetoric with no substance.
Surely a true Liberal could do better.
Thank you for your comment, and thank you for reading.
Indeed, liberals are commonly perceived as promoters of expansive government. This is the fault of the corporate media and is a perception I refuse to buy into--although far too many people have. To suggest that Ted Kennedy is of the same mindset as Adams, Jefferson, and Madison is an insult to those great men.
If you think this is the comparison I made, you are mistaken. Please read the essay again. You'll see I did do better.
Posted by: barry johnson | September 30, 2006 10:02 PM
I would add that Milton Friedman also considers himself a "Classical Liberal".
But you must understand that the liberal movement in this country has now long been associated with the current leadership of the democratic party. This is not because of the evil corporate media. It is because of the progressive movement and self proscribed "liberals" who espouse the need for expansive government to "do the public good".
If a billion people call a cow a pig, I will not join them. For they they are incorrect.
If the cows call themselves pigs, I will not agree for the same reason.
Q
Posted by: Nick Freitas | December 31, 2006 04:04 PM