Liberalism (Part I)
In my next couple of posts, I plan to explore the concepts of the 'liberal' and 'conservative' categories, politicially, culturally, and spiritually.
In particular, I'm interested in the problem that liberal has come to mean something derogatory. I think that liberals need to own the term and need to actively define liberalism. I can't remember the last time I heard a Democrat say, "Yes, I'm a liberal. And by liberal I mean that...."
I think the core feature of Liberalism is openness to new ideas. It's not surprising that some people would find this threatening. Anyone who is used to doing things a certain way, or benefits from certain existing arrangements, naturally could feel threatened by new ideas.
But it's hard to think of any concept more patently American than that of openness to new ideas. In business, openness to new ideas is called innovation, and it's deeply prized. In science, openness to new ideas is called research (or the practice of exploring new ideas) and it's the lifeblood of scientific progress. In the arts, openness to new ideas is called creativity, and it's widely seen as what makes the arts vibrant and invigorating and edifying. Americans readily and aggressively adopt new ideas throughout their culture. Yet somehow the name for this open and progressive attiitude towards change - Liberalism - has attained the tint of elitism.
A second primary characteristic of Liberalism is the idea of community, that as a nation or state our fates are linked together. The idea of a common destiny is a deep and historic current through American history and does not seem like something we need to distance ourselves from politically. Yet this aspect of Liberalism too has come in for ridicule - the 'bleeding heart' liberal. In fact, conservatives also value community, they place a great value on charity, neighbors helping neighbors, and the dependability of regular, honest people. I think the only difference between the liberal and conservative values of community are the scale at which the community is concieved. Conservatives tend to draw a small circle of community, focused on family and the most intimate friends and neighbors. Liberals tend to draw the circle of community more broadly, to include a wide variety of different people and outward on to the idea of world community.
If these are the two defining strains of Liberalism - openness to new ideas, valuing and defining community broadly - I don't see why any progressive-minded person should seek to avoid this label. These are good, solid, American values; values that we can embrace and values that we can run political campaigns on.
In particular, I'm interested in the problem that liberal has come to mean something derogatory. I think that liberals need to own the term and need to actively define liberalism. I can't remember the last time I heard a Democrat say, "Yes, I'm a liberal. And by liberal I mean that...."
I think the core feature of Liberalism is openness to new ideas. It's not surprising that some people would find this threatening. Anyone who is used to doing things a certain way, or benefits from certain existing arrangements, naturally could feel threatened by new ideas.
But it's hard to think of any concept more patently American than that of openness to new ideas. In business, openness to new ideas is called innovation, and it's deeply prized. In science, openness to new ideas is called research (or the practice of exploring new ideas) and it's the lifeblood of scientific progress. In the arts, openness to new ideas is called creativity, and it's widely seen as what makes the arts vibrant and invigorating and edifying. Americans readily and aggressively adopt new ideas throughout their culture. Yet somehow the name for this open and progressive attiitude towards change - Liberalism - has attained the tint of elitism.
A second primary characteristic of Liberalism is the idea of community, that as a nation or state our fates are linked together. The idea of a common destiny is a deep and historic current through American history and does not seem like something we need to distance ourselves from politically. Yet this aspect of Liberalism too has come in for ridicule - the 'bleeding heart' liberal. In fact, conservatives also value community, they place a great value on charity, neighbors helping neighbors, and the dependability of regular, honest people. I think the only difference between the liberal and conservative values of community are the scale at which the community is concieved. Conservatives tend to draw a small circle of community, focused on family and the most intimate friends and neighbors. Liberals tend to draw the circle of community more broadly, to include a wide variety of different people and outward on to the idea of world community.
If these are the two defining strains of Liberalism - openness to new ideas, valuing and defining community broadly - I don't see why any progressive-minded person should seek to avoid this label. These are good, solid, American values; values that we can embrace and values that we can run political campaigns on.
Comments
The reason you never hear a Democrat say "Yes, I'm a liberal, and by a liberal I mean that..." is that the party has become so scared of it's own shadow you won't even hear anyone say "Yes, I'm a DEMOCRAT, and by a DEMOCRAT, I mean that..."
Even now, we're only looking good because the creeps are looking so bad -- and that's no predictor of future success...
What you're talking about is a specifc ethos that tracks back to the Enlightenment, and which is the true heart of what we "liberals" are about today. But then a lot of god-fearing folk will tell you that the Enlightenment is precisely when we started our downward descent into immorality and amorality.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the last Republican presidential candidate to get completely whupped was Goldwater, at the beginning of the 60's, and that we got Nixon and his code-worded, silent majority politics at the end of the 60's. It was easier to be "open minded" about other people's beliefs when they were largely the same as your own or else closeted. Everyone is open minded in theory, but the flaunting of nonconformist values has been toxic. Now those boomers who helped dissociate the ideas of liberalism and free thought that you're trying to associate here are much older, richer, and have teenage kids they're scared are having oral sex and ruining their hearing with iPods.
It used to be that calling yourself a conservative was tantamount to saying "I hate people." Thus the "compassionate conservative" was invented. So you can take comfort that today, candidates and citizens will proudly tell you they are conservatives. Me personally, I don't care too much about reviving the word "liberal," since it's just a word.
If to most people liberalism means spending money on government programs and caring for minorities and the poor, and if we do nothing to defend the term "liberal," we won't just be losing the word, we'll be losing the values arguments the word is associated with.