Crossposted from MY LEFT WING
Over the past several years I’ve become convinced that the ways we classify political beliefs and ideologies (or perhaps the very definitions themselves) are in dire need of revamping. For instance…
What’s a “conservative?” Used to be there was a standard reply to that query, one that included the paeans to “small government, low taxes, laissez-faire” portraits of the federal government. Nowadays, however, when I think of a “conservative,” I think of a bizarre hybrid, a “free trader” crossed with a would-be Puritan, whose ideal federal government micromanages the individual’s private affairs, but still uses a hands-off approach in dealing with corporatism…
The same could be said of “Republican” — is there a shorthand descriptor of a Republican today? Aside from the fact that people like me use it as a one-size-fits-all epithet, I cannot think of anything that remains of the old definitions of Republicanism. Certainly there are, as there have always been, different subsets among the whole — but if you had to distill its essence, how would you describe a “Republican?”
And how about a “Democrat?” What does a Democrat stand for? Is there a quick sound bite that aptly summarises what it means to be a Democrat? (“Not a Republican” seems to be it, nowadays.) How about a “liberal?”
Here are some of the definitions of “liberal” that I’m happy to claim:
lib·er·al adj.
— Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.— Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
— Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
— Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
— Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
— Showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; “a broad political stance”; “generous and broad sympathies”; “a liberal newspaper”; “tolerant of his opponent’s opinions” [syn: broad, large-minded, tolerant]
— Having political or social views favoring reform and progress
— Tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition [ant: conservative]
— Given or giving freely; “was a big tipper”; “the bounteous goodness of God”; “bountiful compliments”; “a freehanded host”; “a handsome allowance”; “Saturday’s child is loving and giving”; “a liberal backer of the arts”; “a munificent gift”; “her fond and openhanded grandfather” [syn: big, bighearted, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, handsome, giving, openhanded]
— Not literal; “a loose interpretation of what she had been told”; “a free translation of the poem” [syn: free, loose]
noun:
— a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties [syn: progressive] [ant: conservative]
Here are some synonyms:
— advanced, avant-garde, big, broad, broad-minded, catholic, detached, disinterested, dispassionate, enlightened, flexible, free, general, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, impartial, indulgent, inexact, interested, latitudinarian, left, lenient, libertarian, loose, magnanimous, not close, not literal, not strict, permissive, radical, rational, reasonable, receiving, receptive, reformist, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, unconventional, understanding, unorthodox, unprejudiced
and some others:
— amiable, beneficent, benevolent, benignant, complaisant, favorable, friendly, generous, genial, gentle, good, good-hearted, gracious, kind, merciful, mild, obliging, sympathetic…
And, of course, we have John F. Kennedy’s superb distillation of liberalism. A sample:
For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man’s ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
. . .believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it.
. . .
But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”
Though I am not Christian, I think that some of Jesus Christ’s statements could be used to perfectly sum up the concept of “liberalism.” Among them should always be included this one, from Matthew 25:31:
“… whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me…”
and“… whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”
Or to paraphrase an earlier biblical figure, to be a liberal means you ARE your brother’s keeper.
I don’t know if I ever believed differently than I do and have in recent years. If I did, it’s long forgotten. I just know that for as long as I can remember, I have taken very seriously the spiritual lessons of the ages, be they Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Buddhist or secular in nature and origin: be good to one another, help one another, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The languages may be different, but the one overriding theme of all spiritually based life lessons has always been the “Golden Rule.” It is that edict above all others, to be of love and service to my fellow human beings, that drives my actions, thoughts and feelings.
Being human we, of course, fail miserably to make the ethos of selflessness our overriding way of life. But regardless of how many missteps and defects of character litter our paths, how many detours born of selfishness and foolishness, the fact remains that if we are liberals, the service of others is our ultimate aim.
Our purpose on this planet is to help others. Period. It is not to serve our own desires for comfort, nor to fulfill our own goals of self-aggrandisement, nor to acquire and accumulate a surplus of possessions and accomplishments.
The very great irony in the liberal approach to life is that, if one works very hard at helping others, one finds the very fulfillment and satisfaction that eludes one when actively seeking them. In other words, to borrow a line from the 12 Step community, “You can’t keep it unless you give it away.” A life lived in service of other human beings results in limitless reward, while a life lived in service to the reward itself results in futility, emptiness and frustration. One has only to observe the pitiful and bathetic existence of the average socialite in her nightclub habitat or the average corporate fatcat buying homes in which he will never live and decorating them with gold umbrella stands to see this truth.
It is a long, strange trip, indeed, from innocence to consciousness, from self-interest to the common good. Along the way one may abandon some personal goals and acquire others. One may move from passive political observer to impassioned political activist. I was able to harness those characteristics about me that always had the power to engage, stimulate and otherwise powerfully affect people around me, and put them to work in the brave new world of blogging, reaching thousands of people and connecting with them on some very basic levels of cooperation, correspondence and comity.
So why are we here? What do we hope to achieve? What’s it all about, Alfie?
Liberals want to live in a world whose political leaders serve the people, rather than their own interests. We want American politicians to serve their constituents, rather than the corporate interests represented by the lobbying industry, let alone their own selfish aims (which almost always begin with retaining their seats of power, to the exclusion of actually using that power in the manner they ought).
We want to live to see the day when healthcare is a human right, not a pricey privilege or a “benefit.” We want to live to see a day when the government regulates corporations, not personal lives. We want to be told the truth by the media and by those the media cover. We are sick of the lies, the spin, the charade. So sick of our default setting perception of anyone in government or power being distrust and cynicism. And so very sick of the wretched, ubiquitous suspicion that the whole system is rigged and there’s nothing about it we can do.
We are idealists. That’s what liberals are, really; those who see what is and ask, “Why?” and see what isn’t and ask “Why not?” Liberals want to see met the basic needs of every human being. Liberals look at a world where one rich man can build an entire city out of gold while millions of poor people go without nutrition, water or medicine for their entire lifetimes — and ask, “Why is this so? Is this not wrong — and insane? And why do so many refuse to see it as such?”
In their paradigm, liberals see the utter horror and futility of war and demand that every other possible option be tried before resorting to such a disastrous, destructive action as war. Liberals believe that government exists to serve the people, not the corporate, moneyed interests; that the function of a federal government is to protect and promote the flourishing of every individual citizen, and usually from the very corporate, moneyed interests which currently control virtually everything on this planet…
In their paradigm, liberals believe that people ought to be let alone to live their lives as they see fit, barring any injury to others. Liberals believe in the radical equality of every human being. Liberals believe in the sanctity of privacy, of calling one’s body one’s own — of being free, within the parameters of a liberal society, to live without fear of being molested (both literally and figuratively) by others’ ideas of how they should be living.
If “I am my brother’s keeper” is one side of the liberal coin, “Live and let live” is the other.
