Journal neocon's Journal: `What is a liberal?': A challenge 37
Well, we had so much fun with our last challenge that I thought I'd post another one. Here it is:
In a past journal entry here, we discussed what it means to be a Conservative. In a number of threads, I have linked this, and have asked people taking a liberal point of view if they could provide a similar definition of what it means to be a liberal. None have, and as the recent election show, this seems to be a sign of a larger division within the `liberal' movement.
Two recent threads -- here (I started out posting to this one AC, to avoid the `Call it a night' limit, and because it was hard to believe this wasn't a troll) and here -- showcase this nicely. The left in these threads is sure that they're against `the system', and that `Republicans are nasty', but they seem never to quite present a coherent alternative.
Well, here's your chance, lefties, liberals, and Dems of all stripes: can you answer this entry with a definition of what a Liberal is which is clear enough to define a position (can I read it, look at someone's views, and say `that's a Liberal', or `that's not a Liberal'?), but is not defined in terms of opposition to others (does it say what you believe in and don't believe in, not who you oppose?).
Let the posts begin!
the notion of "liberalness" (Score:2)
Example: forget the very abstract 'liberal'. Try this exercise with something more concrete -- a chair. Is it possible to accurately describe a chair by its physical features (not the context in how it's used) so that I could distinguish a chair from an elephant, or an end table -- so that I could look at something and know if it's a chair or not?
Try it. I got this exercise in grad school and have yet to see a convincing answer. If it's hard to do with a concept that most everyone agrees on (chairness), I find it hard to believe it will be any easier with a concept that people *don't* agree on.
Re:the notion of "liberalness" (Score:1)
That is stupid, an object is defined by how it is used.
For all (some) intents and purposes, elephants are chairs.
Re:the notion of "liberalness" (Score:2)
Sure, but as a person, you wouldn't say "Oh, that's a chair. It fits all the properties of chairness." You'd say "Oh, that's an elephant."
Objects are not solely defined by how they are used -- the context in which we use them helps to define what they are -- but the clearest difference between a pen and a pencil isn't how it's used...it's a property of the object.
Re:the notion of "liberalness" (Score:1, Flamebait)
I'm going to have to disagree with this, on the simple grounds that people say all the time `I'm a Liberal', or `he's a Liberal', or `he's not a Liberal'. These people mean something when they say this, presumably.
We've already seen above a definition of what a Conservative is [slashdot.org] which, IMHO, almost all Conservatives would agree with. Is the definition of a Liberal then `one who believes he cannot define what he is'? ;-)
Re:the notion of "liberalness" (Score:2)
But on a practical level, I'm willing to take this one on (at least for one entry).
Okay, let's start with the fact that I do not and never have considered myself a "liberal". Personally, I always want to wash my mouth out when I say that word, having lived through New York City in the Nineteen Seventies and suffered the all too serious and material consequences of "liberal" decision-making.
For the record, if I had to summarize I would say that I am a radical utilitarian. Want more? Track down my "stats" post.
So, now that that's done,
1.) A Liberal, as the term is meant in modern America, is a person who believes that tolerance of others must extend not only to lack or interference, but to understanding and, ideally, integration of other people's beliefs with one's own. However, it is a fundamentally asymetrical philosophy as it does not place any opprobrium on those of the disempowered who do not want to reciprocate that desire to integrate and merge.
2.) To be blunt, it is fundamentally a belief system predicated upon the assumption of comparative privilege having been the lot of the believer. IOW, since "I" (from now on I'll speak in the voice of the liberal belief structure) start out with significant (in the scientific sense) advantages relative to others, it is incumbent on me to open myself to the mores and concerns of others while minimizing the extent to which I impose my already omnipresent and dominant mores and concerns in return.
3.) Further, it is the obligation of the power structure (dare I say "The Establishment") to try to equalize those inequities by whatever means are possible that do not infringe on the existing positive conditions of the disadvantaged. Since the current state of affairs was in large part a result (or entirely a result) of uncompensated takings from those less powerful, the obligation of the propertied and privileged classes is to confer enough advantages on those currently at the bottom to enable them to rise to a position of comparative equity.
4.) Since we got jobs and school admission on the basis of family and ethnicity (then), the underprivileged must be given jobs and school admission on the basis of family and ethnicity (now). Since we enjoyed the freedoms and pleasures of imposing minor assaults both verbal and physical (then), we must turn the other cheek at receiving minor assaults both verbal and physical (now).
If governmental force is required to impose these redistributions, then this is appropriate as the application of force outside the law perpetuates existing power dynamics and the inaction of the government would be a sin of omission.
5.) Another aspect of this is that much "liberal" thought contains inherently or explicitly the belief that "goods" in the economic sense, are preexisting, zero sum, and created or first obtained by a process external to the lives of those within the purview of modern life. IOW, the goal is not to create goods, but to ensure that all goods are distributed equitably. Further, goods are, by and large, immutable and infinitely divisible, such that they can be broken up, moved around, and repurposed without any significant destruction of goods in the process.
6.) Just to put things in a bit of personal perspective, my mother was an academic and my stepfather a former school teacher and we lived on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. I went to the parties (since they didn't quite believe in the concept of protected or different childhood) and sat in on the discussions at the heart of the "Liberal" world. And I can tell you that, at least then and there, the Marxist underpinnings of modern American Liberalism were quite clear and explicit. If you want to see the current version of this, you will most likely (around here at least) end up at the CUNY Graduate Center and/or The Brecht Forum and at each of these you will find significant voices of the little vestigal world of liberalism on their Guatamalan-fabricced, vegan, gently swaying home turf.
7.) If and when you end up there, you will find that, as I have said, Liberalism comes down to four things:
-Things of value in the world are a zero sum game. Wealth is not created or destroyed, just moved around.
-The privileged must, to whatever degree possible, simply hand over their disproportionate wealth and only by doing so both expiate the sin of its initial acquisition and start the process of creating a new equity.
-The world can and should be viewed as a child views things, with "important" decisions and actions done by and controlled by distant, parent-proxy "others" who can only be convinced to change their actions through modified versions of the importunings of a child, either in the form of displaying virtue and poverty/need or in the form of loud complaining/tantrums. To suggest that those who are without should play a key role in building their own valuable things is offensive, inappropriate, and insulting as it suggests that those who are without are to blame for their condition.
-And last, language and logic are secondary. Belief and intent are primary. Again, as with a child acting so as to gain something from a parent, an act should not be judged on its effectiveness but on its intent and sincerity. As in the fiction of Suzette Elgin [adrr.com] if intent is truly pure, then *anything* is appropriate and admirable.
So, that, at least, gives you folks some arguing points.
Rustin
Re:the notion of "liberalness" (Score:2)
Thanks for posting this -- this is a good critique of the positions Liberals take, and matches a lot of my own reaction to the type of threads which inspired this journal entry (or the earlier `What is a Conservative' piece).
I would like to see the arguments a liberal would make in response to this post -- while there are certainly liberals who are, for example, out of touch with reality enough to argue that wealth is in fact a zero-sum proposition, others profess not to believe this, but put forward the same policies, policies which do not make sense in the absence of such a belief.
What is notably lacking is any statement of a core set of beliefs that a liberal would agree defines his position. Anyone?
And as a New Yorker who's still feeling the effect of administrations like Lindsay's, and who knows plenty of people who've done or are doing their time in Cuny's Grad Center, let me second your reaction to such `liberalism' as well. :-)
Definition of Liberal (Score:2)
I know I shouldn't get involved with this, I am certian no good will come of it and I am surely setting myself up as a target because it is no longer politicaly correct to be liberal. However the question is a valid one and it deserves an answer. I would like to make it clear up front, I am liberal, but I am not a Democrat. I do not approve of what Bill Clinton did while he was President and I beleive Al Gore would have been not better. I am also no fan of the current Democrat leadership. Which is of course why I vote with the Green Party.
Here is the definition straight from the Oxford American Dictionary:
Liberal: 1)giving generously, 2)ample, given in large amounts, 3) not strict or literal, "a liberal interpretation of the rules", 4) (of education) broadening the mind in a general way, not only training it in technical subjects. 5) tolerant, open-minded, especially in religion and politics, 6) favoring democratic reform and individual liberty, moderately progressive.
The following is the Green Party Platform, I lifted it directly from thier website. I beleive it falls into the realm of liberal and it may give insight into what is liberal.
1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY: Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.
2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.
3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM: Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.
4. NON-VIOLENCE: It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society's current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.
5. DECENTRALIZATION: Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.
6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE: We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a "living wage" which reflects the real value of a person's work. Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers' rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our "quality of life." We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.
7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY: We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.
8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY: We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines. We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.
9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY: We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.
10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY: Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or "unmaking" all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.
11. QUALITY OF LIFE: Our overall goal is not merely to survive, but to share lives that are truly worth living. We believe the quality of our individual lives is enriched by the quality of all of our lives. We encourage everyone to see the dignity and intrinsic worth in all of life, and to take the time to understand and appreciate themselves, their community and the magnificent beauty of this world.
Re:Definition of Liberal (Score:2)
Well, they say a camel is a horse designed by committee. :-) Given that this list
seems to have been written with the aim of pleasing a wide range of constituent groups
by giving them each their own line item. I'm curious how you would pare these down to
a set of base principles from which the others could be derived?
To give some examples:
In item 1.), we hear that a key goal is to give all an equal voice in the democratic process, but in items 7.) and 8.), we are told that it must be a particular focus to seek more voice for women and minorities. Are these the same principles? Are they, as many would feel, conflicting principles?
What is the relation between the values specified here (such as equality of the sexes) and the goal, stated in item 8.) of respecting the traditions and structures of other cultures? This is a particularly pressing issue at a time when we find ourselves opposed by groups which make inequality of the sexes and persecution of religious minorities central to their aims.
In a world where our foes do not take many of the values here for granted, what is the prioritization between the liberties proclaimed here and the goal of non-violence set out in 4.)? Are these liberties only important to the extent to which they can be achieved non-violently? Or is 4.) a lower priority than the other goals on this list?
Likewise, does the quality of life and economic viability of the population take precedence over getting their in a `community based' and `environmentally responsible' manner, or vice versa?
In general, the point is that this seems to be a laundry list rather than a set of principles. Presumably, a liberal would feel that other rights than those mentioned here (such as free speech or property rights, I hope) are valid. What are the principles from which the course of action described here is derived?
Re:Definition of Liberal (Score:2)
I am not sure prioritization is paticularly important to the definition of liberal, or conservative for that matter. The priorities of any given issue is going to vary from person to person, from community to community and from situation to situation. For instance, Water Rights/Managment is not an issue in New York City, but it certainly is in Klamath Falls Oregon.
Since the basic definition of Liberal does not seem to go far enough, I give you this, it is excerpted it from the writings of Brian McKinley. It leans a bit towards propaganda, but perhaps it lays the foundations you are looking for;
Liberalism is "Life." It is freedom from physical dangers that can kill or disable us. The Liberal believes it is a nation's job to protect its citizens from physical harm, whether from external sources, such as hostile nations, or internal ones, like crime, disease, or hunger. Without the solid ground of physical wellbeing, our nation and its citizens cannot enjoy the benefits of being free. Liberals believe in a strong military, well suited to defend the nation. Liberals believe in good laws, hard-working police, and a just legal system to protect its citizens from crime. Liberals believe in affordable health care for everyone, to keep our people strong. And Liberals believe in the availability of food and shelter for its needy, not as a hand out but as a reasonable step in moving all Americans toward self-reliance and the freedom that comes with it.
Liberalism is "Liberty." It is the freedom to do as your conscience dictates without impeding another's rights. Fleeing oppression in mother Europe, our founders established a nation where personal belief and self-determination are protected, not persecuted, where hard work is rewarded, not demanded, and where each person is bestowed with the ability to better his or her life because of citizenship, not class. Liberals believe in freedom of speech to protect us from political oppression. Liberals believe in sound regulations to protect us from economic oppression. Liberals believe in just laws to protect us from social oppression. And Liberals believe in quality education to protect us from the oppression of ignorance.
Liberalism is "The Pursuit of Happiness." It is the freedom to create an environment where the individual can excel. What is freedom if it cannot be used to better our lives? A truly free society must be one where its members can rise above their limitations and expand their futures. We call it "The American Dream," and it's alive and well in the heart of the Liberal. Liberals believe in equal opportunities for all to rise above our means. Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our education levels. Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our social status. And Liberals believe each and every family should have an equal opportunity to make this world better for their children.
Re:Definition of Liberal (Score:2)
Again, we're kind of in laundry-list land here -- liberals can hardly claim to be differentiated from conservatives by wanting `just laws' or by wanting `hard-working police', for example -- if anything, in practice, a hard-working policeman is more likely to be kept from doing his job by well-meaning but misguided restrictions passed by liberals themselves, for example.
Likewise, you raise the issue of the Klamath Basin water supply, but this has been a rallying-cry for conservatives, while liberals (including the Clinton appointees who first turned off the flow of water) have used exactly the `concern for biodiversity' and `living in harmony with nature' which you advocate in your prior post to justify the cut-offs.
Indeed, this is a perfect example of how you have to prioritize -- the clash at Klamath is between those who believe providing optimal habitat for the suckerfish (as per items 3 and 8 in your prior post) outweighs the standard of living and economic justice for the residents of the Klamath Basin (as per items 2, 6, and 11 in that post). That a similar debate has not occurred in New York is not because of different local priorities, but because no one has yet loudly claimed that biodiversity and harmony with nature are harmed by New York's water usage.
Obviously, in order to prioritize, we need a set of ideas from which courses of action and specific goals, such as those you lay out in this post, can be derived. A Conservative, as defined in my earlier piece [slashdot.org] would consider some of the following to be such principles:
In contrast, much of the program of Liberals (and the program of the Green Party you post above) seems to exactly concern itself with enacting a moral ideal through law (i.e. using law to achieve greater participation of minority groups, even when it has been generations since law was an obstacle to these groups, and the primary impediments to their progress are now cultural), and with redefining ideas of what is moral (the idea, shared by most Americans, but few Greens, that a valid primary objective for my hard work is the providing for myself and my children, not for a larger set of community or government projects). What are the Liberal ideals which, set side by side with the above, justify this difference in focus?
Re:Definition of Liberal (Score:2)
It seems I misunderstood what you were asking for. What you want is moral justification for the liberal point of view. If this is the case perhaps the following will help.
Re:Definition of Liberal (Score:2)
This seems to come from a classical definition of the term `Liberal', rather than a discussion of the current philosophy of Liberalism -- in traditional usage, the term `Liberal' referred to a philosophy very close to modern Conservatism or Libertarianism, and this usage survives in some of the European parties. The principles you give here, for example, stand more or less in direct contradiction to the program of action and statement of goals you post above. Some examples:
The first point here, equal applicability of an external law to all can hardly be the basis for your prior post's emphasis on using law to increase the voice and position of minority groups (points 6, 7, and 8), nor can it be reconciled with that post's call for providing equal consideration and merit to all cultural traditions (point 8). You can't simultaneously hold that all cultures' ideas of the good are necessarily of equal merit and also claim that there is an external idea of justice which applies equally to all groups.
Likewise, the program above can hardly be claimed to `restricts deliberate control of the overall order of society' -- it openly calls for a broad and top-down restructuring of culture, economics, and society.
So, if the grounding you provide here is a grounding for Liberalism, then Liberalism is a form of Conservatism -- but if it is such a grounding, then neither the two posts you provide above nor any of the threads which inspired this challenge are `Liberal' at all...
Re:Definition of Liberal (Score:2)
I am aware that my previous post is part of the definition of the "Classical Liberal" rather than the "Modern Liberal". I am also aware that the "Classical Liberal" is closer to the "Modern Conserative" than the "Modern Liberal". I posted it because I wanted to know if you knew the source and to point out the term "Liberal" has changed meaning over the last 100 years and will change over the next 100 years. Robert Anton Wilson said, "It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.". This has been played out over and over again, new ideas begin as liberal or radical or even lunatic fringe, but if it is a good idea, it slowly makes it way into mainstream thinking. Have all liberal ideas survived the test of time ? No, but the good ones have, and this a direct contradiction of your conclusions:
"That attempts to define a new morality external to the achievements in culture thus do more harm than good."
and
"That attempts to make morality a matter of law rather than of tradition and culture thus harm both law and morality."
You appear to be looking for a moral justification of liberalism, I can not offer you one, other than to say, I personally do not subscribe to the idea that morality is static. As far as I can tell, there is no ethical or moral basis for either a liberal or conservative point of view and your attempt at using deductive reasoning to achieve that goal falls somewhat short. The problem with your deductive reasoning, is your conclusions depend on the first one being a defensable premises. Concepts like morality, ethics, compassion etc, can not be defined in terms which fit all people all of time, everywhere in the world. For instance;
Every cow is a mammal.
Bossie is a cow.
Therefore, Bossie is a mammal
The two of us probably won't have any difficulty reaching a mutually satisfactory definition of "mammal" and pointing to the individual named Bossie, so I have reached a sound and reliable conclusion assuming that both premises are the case. However, if I say this:
Every cat is a mammal.
Morris is a mammal.
Therefore, Morris is a cat.
I have made a logical error called an "undistributed middle." Both premises are the case, but the conclusion is indefensible. I cannot reach ANY sound conclusion using those two premises however well I demonstrate that they are the case.
We can reach sound conclusions from most true premises if we use sound logic. Just not with the language of ethics. If I say this:
Every good man is compassionate.
Neocon is a good man.
Therefore, Neocon is compassionate.
I have made something that LOOKS like a sound argument, but is not really an argument at all because its first two terms are not premises. With the use of terms like "compassion" and "good," I have stepped out of the orderly world of true premises and logical conclusions and into the wild wasteland of persuasion. What I really mean is something like this:
I approve of compassion (whatever I mean by the term, and I'd better investigate whether you mean the same thing...or else this discussion will rapidly descend into verbal chaos.)
I approve of what I deem to be compassionate convictions and behavior and assume that you approve of it too.
Neocon shows what we both deem to be compassionate convictions and behavior.
I like and approve of Neocon; I want YOU to like and approve of Neocon also.
My original Neocon argument was focused on getting you to approve of Neocon. I have to get you to approve of my concept of compassion before I can launch my campaign to get you to approve of Neocon on the basis that he is compassionate, a process in which real logic plays only a minor and subordinate role. Any characterization of goodness v. badness, approval v. disapproval, angelic v. wicked, etc belongs to the world of persuasion, and must be explored by its rules. It is also beyond the scope of this discussion, since I am not trying to convert you, only provide a definition.
As per your original request:
can you answer this entry with a definition of what a Liberal is which is clear enough to define a position (can I read it, look at someone's views, and say `that's a Liberal', or `that's not a Liberal'?), but is not defined in terms of opposition to others (does it say what you believe in and don't believe in, not who you oppose?).
For which my answer is this:
Liberal: 1)giving generously, 2)ample, given in large amounts, 3) not strict or literal, "a liberal interpretation of the rules", 4) (of education) broadening the mind in a general way, not only training it in technical subjects. 5) tolerant, open-minded, especially in religion and politics, 6) favoring democratic reform and individual liberty, moderately progressive.
I have also provided ample examples of liberal thinking, if you compare my laundry lists to this definition, you will see they each fall into one or more of the catagories within the definition. I would be interested in any ideas you consider liberal, that do not fit with this definition. Now whether or not these ideas are right or wrong, good or bad and the priorities of the ideas is outside of the scope of this discussion and would be getting onto the area of opposition, which you specificly wanted to avoid.
Re:Definition of Liberal (Score:2)
Yes, of course we're all aware that discussions of political ethics are not going to be resolvable by syllogistic logic -- if they were, all such matters would have been resolved long ago, and we would not be having this debate.
I would posit that the reason that such debates are not so simply resolveable is that different political philosophies depart from different premises. You have provided one possible example of such a premise -- more on that in my next post.
But then, you come with a dictionary excerpt defining `liberal' in the conversational sense, which provides little for us to go on, to wit:
With the exception, perhaps, of that word `progressive' at the end, there is nothing here which provides a distinction between a `Liberal' and a `Conservative' in the political sense at all. Surely you are not going to tell us that only Liberals (or only Conservatives) favor liberty, democracy, or wealth? No -- disagreement between these groups lies in the question of how best to provide these things, and your definition does not stake out such a difference at all.
When Conservatives call for cutting taxes, and Liberals disagree, both do so from a claim that their program will provide more wealth and more liberty. This points to a disagreement which is not captured in your definition.
Re:Definition of Liberal (Score:2)
When Conservatives call for cutting taxes, and Liberals disagree, both do so from a claim that their program will provide more wealth and more liberty. This points to a disagreement which is not captured in your definition.
I would argue that the tax cut issue is addressed in the dictionary definition, 1)giving generously. In the political context, this means, everyone must pay thier fair share. The size of government is not shrinking, it never has shrunk and never will, regardless of who is in power. The War On Terrorism anf the Dept of Homeland Security are good examples of this, these are new expendatures that need to be paid for by someone. The conservative view is to cut taxes now, raise the deficit and pay for it in 4 or 5 years with the theoretical increased money that will be available then. Liberals on the other hand, want to pay for it up front and raise taxes if neccessary to do so. I will not argue the pros and cons of either of these approaches, only that it is covered by the dictionary definition.
Re:Definition of Liberal (Score:2)
Exactly -- we have different premises here, as I suggested -- you seem to believe that the best way to `give generously' is, in fact, to take generously -- in other words, you believe that increasing government spending is the best way to provide prosperity to all.
In real life, it almost never works this way. Why? Because economics is not a zero-sum game, and thus the best way to provide for all is not necessarily by taking more from some. Conservatives believe (and history has shown this to be correct) that the best way to provide for people at all levels of society is to encourage economic growth. Whereas taking a fixed amount of money and redistributing that money provides exactly that much money to those it is given to (mostly government bureaucrats, by the way), encouraging economic growth increases the total amount of value in circulation, and thus increases how much everyone has.
Given this, lowering taxes, especially those taxes such as the income tax and the capital gains tax which punish investment, triggers economic growth which creates more wealth than the amount of tax money given up. Indeed, as Kennedy and Reagan understood when they introduced their tax cuts, decreasing taxes even increases the amount of money the government takes in, as a smaller percentage of a much larger economic base works out to a larger amount of tax revenue.
So again, rather than try to suggest that conservatives don't want to `give generously', you should look at the fact that conservatives and liberals have very different ideas of what the best way to achieve that end is, and try to explain what you think the rationale for the liberal approach (which brought us the economic slowdowns of the seventies and nineties) is.
Re:Definition of Liberal (Score:2)
As mentioned above, I'd like to touch on the one potentially substantive difference with the Conservative idea which you have touched upon. You write:
As a Conservative, I would like to explore this claim, as it does present a substantial difference, if carried through.
A Conservative would argue that morality is in fact static, although our evolving understanding of it may be better or worse at different times (and is in no time perfect). Thus, to a Conservative, the fact that we used to practice slavery and since banned it (the former, a trait shared with all of the world's civiliztions, the latter a unique innovation of the West) does not mean that slavery was right and became wrong -- it means that as our culture evolved, through the Enlightenment and its consequences, a better understanding of morality, it acted accordingly.
If morality is not static, it is hard to see what it would mean to say that slavery is wrong. Was it always wrong? Will it always be wrong? How can we be sure that it is wrong if in some other set of circumstances, it might be right? These are questions that seem to me unanswerable if one does not accept the idea that morality is external.
If we agree, however, that our changing ideas of morality are changing approximations of a static goal, however, these questions are easily resolved.
Re:Definition of Liberal (Score:2)
Re:Definition of Liberal (Score:2)
And to you!
I'll also be in and out for the next half-week or so. See y'all after that. :-)
Re:Definition of Liberal (Score:2)
Also:
a.) thanks for posting this -- although I think it raises as many questions as it answers, this brings a lot to the discussion.
b.) as a courtesy, all should read `there' for `their' in the second-to-last paragraph of my response. Flu meds and all. :-)
the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
as someone in the lower left quadrant (something like -5, -8 iirc - can't be arse to take the test again). my beliefs could be summed up in the following way:
i think society should progress. by that i mean that previous generations gave us knowledge (language, science, law, etc) and things (roads, schools, hospitals, etc). we should build on that.
to that end, i'm in favour of any economic system that will further that. if capitalism is the best way to get something done, then i'm for it. if state-owned or communal arrangements are better, then i'm for them. history has shown that no "pure" economic system works well; in the end they're just tools and like any tool you should use the right tool for the right job. i'm in favour of public services being cheap/free and i'm in favour of them expanding.
i believe that society should exert its will in the least intrusive way possible. on a scale from law to ethics to ettiquite, as much as possible should be governed by the latter.
however, i do believe that "society" is something that is of value and that should be maintained (aka, paid for). as long as taxes are progressive and fair (and simplicity helps in that perception), i have no problem with them. if 38% of my income is taken as various payroll taxes (as it is here in irelandi - there are practically no deductions and you can work out your taxes 10 minutes after the budget is announced), that's really not an issue since my fellow citizens pay the same thing on their income.
i believe in the concept of multi-lateralism. treaties and international law must play a greater role in governing the behaviour among nations. this means things like the international criminal court and the un.
as far as the environment goes, i don't believe we'll ever destroy the earth; we'll just destroy our ability to live on it. i think we as a society should begin to push for more intelligent and more efficient uses of our resources. this btw is not something pure capitalism is necessarily good at deliverying. one way to sell more widgets is planned obsolescence of said widgets (either through failure or fashion).
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
I'll take this thought a step further. The key word in describing a liberal is progressive. A true liberal accepts that change is constant and embraces new ideas and new ways of thinking to deal with the change. True liberals beleive human progress should be the single most important driving force in society, the alternative is stagnation. To sum it up in a Neconesque way:
History bares this out. Almost every great cultural leap human society has taken was because some liberal-hippie-nut bag stood up and said "Thats wrong and we need to change it.". Jesus Christ, who for my money is the greatest revolutionary in the history of mankind, for instance, took a stand and promoted such radical ideas as Peace, Goodwill, Tolerance and Forgiveness, the establishment nailed him to a cross for his liberal ideas. Our own Founding Fathers had some pretty radical ideas too, they felt all men are created equal, among other things and they fought the revolutionary war for what they believed in. The abolitionists in the southern US during the mid 19th century, who felt slavery was wrong. Emily Davis and the Suffragettes who thought "GASP!" women should have the right to vote. The various Labor movements which flourished in the first half of the 20th century, whose motto was "Honest days wage for an honest days work". Of course everyones favorite, the Anti-War and Civil-Rights movements of the 60's. The list of people who fought against tradition and the establishment to bring about reform and progress goes on and on. All of these people promoted ideas which were considered "Liberal" and "Radical" at the time, but also promoted the liberty, prosperity and general welfare of the people.
On the other hand, societies which embrace tradition and resist change are among the most oppressive in the world, I point to the Theocratic regimes of the middle east as examples. These countries are among the most conservative and reactionary in the world. Their human rights records, particularly where women and children are concerned, are the worst in the world. They are destroying their own environments and sucking their own natural resources dry for the short term gain of the wealthiest 10% of the population while most of the rest toil in poverty. To say their health care system sucks, would be a world class understatement. The employees in these countries don't make living wages let alone health insurance or retirement plans. The only rights women have is to be beaten by their husbands. Opportunities for people not born into the upper class to better their positions in life are nearly non-existent. From my point of view the problem with these countries is no significant progressive reform has ever taken place in these countries. Culturally, socially and morally these countries have been frozen in the 18th century. When you consider the constitution, when it was written, only applied to free white men, how different from these countries would the United States be if none of the progressive reforms I mentioned in the previous paragraph, had ever taken place ? The United States is a great nation, not becuase of its military might or its free market economy, but because it is the most progressive nation on earth.
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
sorry, no. it might have been, but you might want to pay more attention to current events.
and america's standing economically is not just related to its politics. for much of its history it was remote, has few neighbors, lots of internal resources and didn't suffer too badly from colonialism (or rather suffered so badly that those that suffered don't really exist any more).
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
No, thank goodness, America is not the `most progressive' nation on earth. It is the most free, the most democratic, and the most prosperous, all through the graces of a system which has served all of us quite well. Given this, it seems hard to see why `progress' away from that system would be the meter against which we should be measured.
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
there are thousands of murders every year. there are more people in prison in america per capita then in china. millions of americans lack health care. there are millions of people below the poverty line - a significant number of those have jobs.
productivity figures in america are continually rising, and yet americans are working longer hours and going on holiday less.
plus there are still issues with race. i was under this moronic impression that my generation was the end of that but it just seems to have gone underground. 10 years ago the assistant manager at a convenience store i worked at as a college job got two black cashiers fired by shorting their drawer (my girlfriend's drawer a shift or so later in each case was over by about the same amount which looked bad on her too). a friend of mine was mugged and was accused by the cops of dealing drugs - he was black. cashiers at the store across the road from the dorms had to issue "security alerts" over the pa when black customers entered the store. that was just in buffalo, ny - never mind the rest of america.
so, yes, i believe there is a rather huge case to be made for progress.
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
Let's go through what you're saying here, shall we?
I contest this claim -- I would argue that the American system provides better for its citizens at all levels of society than any other the world has seen. Does this mean that there aren't plenty of ways we could improve? Of course not -- but we are improving, and have been for the entire life of this nation, and we have been doing so powered by the driving forces of democracy, prosperity, and freedom which have been part of our society since day one, not from arbitrary man-made changes such as those you propose.
Sure there are -- but our crime rate is dropping steadily. In contrast, the crime rate in nations such as the United Kingdom or France, which spent the nineties trying radical new social programs, or `solutions' such as the UK's harsh new gun control, have seen surging crime rates in the same period.
Simply untrue. Provide a cite for this, or withdraw this claim. Mind you, even were this true, it tells us very little -- unless you are suggesting that any substantial number of those in jail here are innocent of the crimes for which they were sentenced.
Not in any real sense -- 85% of Americans say that they are happy with their current level of health insurance, and even those without have the world's best system of emergency rooms and hospitals to fall back on in the case of real trauma. It is a crime in the US to deny emergency medical care to a patient in need, regardless of insurance. You try telling someone in China or Nigeria that this is `lacking health care'.
Sure, in a country where being `poor' means driving a Kia instead of a Lexus, or having two bedrooms instead of four. People all over the world would (and daily do) give up everything they have to live in that sort of `poverty'.
You say that as if rising productivity is a bad thing -- it's not, in fact it's exactly what makes the lives of everyone so much better. You say people are working longer hours, but I would point out that people are richer than ever before, are more able to switch jobs than ever before, and have more upward mobility than ever before.
You give some interesting anecdotes, but that's just what they are. The fact is, a black man entering college today was born after the Voting Rights Act, was born after the onset of affirmative action, and has grown up his whole life in a country where there is no real discrimination based on race. Are there serious cultural problems in the inner city communities which cause some to fail who might succeed? Sure. Can differences in economic outcome reasonably be blamed on racism? No -- and this can be demonstrated with a simple fact: while it is true that blacks in America do not have 100% income parity with whites, black immigrants to this country do. This shows pretty clearly that it is not skin color or racism which is holding people back.
Anyway, what would a `progressive' solution to racism be? The attempts at such a solution so far, e.g. affirmative action and welfare have all done the black community more harm than good. Is this `progress'?
For progress, as in improvement? Absolutely. And if you want improvement in the conditions of all, you would make a good start by realizing that our system has provided more improvement in the lives of more people than any other in the world's history. Can we do better? You bet. Does this warrant a `progressive' approach based around top-down, artificial changes in culture and society? Given the outcome of all such attempts in the past, I would say NO.
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
uh, no. try again. uk crime rates have dropped for the seven years prior [bbc.co.uk] to this one. they rose this year for several reasons - an increase in mobile phone thefts and changes in reporting. those rates are still much lower then in america.
> You say that as if rising productivity is a bad thing
i do no such thing. i'm just saying there is more to life then work. it's good that productivity is going up and it's good that wealth is going up - though the wealth gap is inordinately huge in america. i'm just questioning the wisdom of a society that does not also reward productivity with not just money but more free time for a better quality of life.
and i've lived in both america and in ireland. i've been taxed in both countries. i can actually compare the two on working conditions based on actual experience - mine and my coworkers on both sides of the pond. i love what i do and work long hours, but on the whole i think my irish coworkers are healthier then my american ones were. i think 4 weeks of holidays are more reasonable then 2.
> Simply untrue. Provide a cite for this, or withdraw this claim. Mind you, even were this true, it tells us very little -- unless you are suggesting that any substantial number of those in jail here are innocent of the crimes for which they were sentenced.
nice try, but it's simply true. according to the uk home office, the usa is second only to russia for per capita incarcarations. see here [homeoffice.gov.uk].
yes america has progressed a great deal. but that was then. what's happening now? the middle class in america is shrinking and has been for years. the wealth gap is growing larger. infant mortality rates are higher in the usa then in most of the developed world. go visit the cia world fact book [cia.gov] if you want to check that one out.
you are in a privledged position within america. so was i. but do not delude yourself that things are just peachy for millions of your fellow citizens. thay are not.
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
Sure, let's look at these claims too:
Crime as a whole, yes -- but violent crime and street crime have risen every year since 1996, and rose about 30% from 1998 through 2000. But don't take my word for it -- full statistics are available through the Home Office's Crime Reduction Program [homeoffice.gov.uk]. Here are some more articles on the subject:
Actually, it is not the position of society to tell you whether you should prefer more money or more freetime. That way lie policies like those of France, where there is a branch of the police force whose job is to fine anyone caught working overtime. Here in the US, people can choose whether more money, fewer hours, or harder work now followed by early retirement is more valuable to them.
Then make that a point of negotiation -- take a smaller salary, and get more weeks of vacation in return. Even with a paycut, you'll almost certainly be earning a lot more than you would in Ireland, after all.
Go read your own article -- that holds true only if we ignore all of China's political prisoners, all the inmates in the Laogai [laogai.org] prison camps, and even then take the Chinese government's official numbers (widely held by groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to be artificially low) at face value.
Umm, yes, it's been `shrinking' because more and more people are leaving it at the upper end. This is mainly caused by restructuring of the tax code under Clinton and others, which increasingly redefine the middle class as `rich', pushing them into the top tax brackets, while 52% of Americans pay no taxes at all.
As true as it is irrelevant. All levels of American society are growing richer at an astounding rate -- to give you a clear example, the bottom 20% of American society in 1990 had, earned, and consumed as much (after adjusting for inflation) as the middle 20% had done in 1950. That the rich have grown at a faster rate in no way takes away from the rate at which the poor have grown. Economics is not a zero-sum game.
Regrettably true, but again, improving steadily. This is also partly because birth rate is much higher than in most of the developed world. On the other hand, waits for medical procedures (including emergency care) are much shorter than anywhere else in the developed world, and the quality of care [telegraph.co.uk] is much better as well.
On the contrary -- by the standards of just about any nation on earth, all Americans are in an extremely privileged position.
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
If I understand your post, then, you define a liberal as one who supports change in society. This has always been something I find fascinating about the term `progressive' -- it assumes that change, in and of itself, is the goal. This hides a very dangerous presumption -- that change, in and of itself, is necessarily change for the better.
It is not. The act of changing society is, of itself, morally neutral -- it is what changes one seeks to make which need to be looked at. After all, if we were to search the world for the single person most directly trying to change the nature of our society, we would be hard-pressed to find a better example than Osama bin Laden himself. That we can look at the changes he wishes to make (the oppression of women, the execution of gays, the destruction of secular society) and know that they are evil and undesirable shows us that it is not change itself which is the source of the Good.
So defining yourself by the fact that you seek change isn't really helpful, IMHO -- what needs to be laid out is what you seek a change toward.
This is best laid out by a slight modification of your last bullet point, by the way. You wrote:
Which is a very conservative idea -- if one believes, as I have stated, that the larger evolution of our culture, out of the control of any man or party, is what created the basis for the truths we hold self-evident -- truths which have created a society which is more free, more democratic, and more prosperous than any other the world has ever seen -- then surely arbitrary and man-made freezing or changing of a culture is a very dangerous thing indeed.Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
On the contrary, the examples you give are exactly examples of evolution within society, of evolution of our understanding of the founding principles of this nation, the principles which conservatives seek to preserve and protect (hence the name conservative).
Just look at those involved: Lincoln? Republican. The legislatures which brought us the fourteenth and fifteenth ammendments, the nineteenth ammendment, and the voting rights act? Republicans all. George Wallace, Oral Fauvus (the governor standing in the schoolhouse door at Little Rock), Bull Connor, and all the segregationists? Democrats all, as were the governments which introduced de jure segregation in the early part of this century. The only former `Grand Kleagle' (or member of any rank) of the Ku Klux Klan in the congress today? Robert Byrd, a Democrat, and self-labeled `progressive'.
No, I don't think the record of us conservatives need to be defended here. Now, if you want to explain what you feel a progressive is, rather than what he is not, we might get farther in this discussion. After all, there are many ways in which one could `change' society, and clearly we are not in agreement as to which are the right ones. This suggests that what makes a progressive is not the fact that he wants `change', but what end he seeks. What is that end? What do you define as `progress'?
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
You know, it doesn't sound like you are paticularly interested in finding a real answer or no one is telling you what you want to hear. So I will give you the definition you are looking for:
Liberal: Communist, Facist, Homosexual, Athiest.
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
Ah yes, when all else fails, smear! smear! smear!
Contrary to your claim, I'm very interested to hear what a Liberal is -- but so far, all you've given us is `one who supports change in society'. Since in later posts, you made clear that there are in fact some changes in society which you consider `progressive', and others which you consider `regressive', it's clear that this definition won't hold. After all, there must be some criteria by which we can tell a `progressive' change from a `regressive' change, no?
If you don't want to provide such a criteria, well and good -- but don't blame me for your not doing so.
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
Although I don't condone the smear, I understand his frustration. After all, when you defined conservative, you had absolutly no desenting views, pretty much everyone agreed with you. However, when we try to present the liberal, we have you nipping at everything we say. Specificlly, in your post just prior to the smear, you came off as saying "Every good idea, came from a conservative." That may not have been what you meant, but that is how you came off sounding. If that is what you meant, then you need to change your definition of conservative, because it is too broad. Emancipation of women was most certainly not a conservative idea, and was fought tooth and nail by the establishment for years. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton devoted 50 years to the woman's suffrage movement, neither lived to see women gain the right to vote. That does not sound like the conservative establishment embraced women's suffrage. The same is true of every other example he gave and had nothing to do with the labels "Republican" and "Democrat". You yourself have said the US has been predominatly conservative throughout its history and I agree with this, but along with the good comes the bad. Conservative establishment has stood against many progressive movements and only changed after public opinion turned against them. If you are seriously implying that these were not progressive movements at all, you REALLY need to change your definition of conservative.
Now on to what I think Hostile17 was getting at. When we talk about progressive, we mean moving forward, to a better future or better conditions. The examples he gave, Christ, Founding Fathers, Abolitionists, Emily Davis, The Early Labor Unions, the Anti-War/Civil Rights movement of the 60's all have one thing in common, these people were fighting for a better tomorrow. They wanted to fix the things that were wrong with society and they were willing to give of themselves to accomplish it. Now, your response to this will be something like "Conservatives want a better tomorrow too." Yes, they want a better tommorow, but conservatives prefer to preserve rather than inovate, they tend to go by the motto of "If it ain't broke don't fix it". There is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve what is right in our society, but not everything is perfect, some things need fixing and the establishment because it tends to be conservative, will resist this change.
No doubt, your next question will be, "What is a better tomorrow ?". I can't speak for you, Hostile17 or Osama Bin Laden, but for me a better tomorrow means several things, most of which is laid down in the green party platform. I want peace on earth, I want my children and my granchildren to be able to walk in unspoiled woodland, I want to breath fresh air, drink clean water and uncontamiated milk, I want everyone in the world to have enough to eat, I want everyone in the world to be able to speak thier minds, I want everyone in the world to have access to a good education and the oprotunaty to better themselves. Yes, conservatives want all these things to, IN THEORY, but they generally are unwilling to make the changes neccessary to accomplish them and instead of looking for new ideas to accomplish the "Better Tomorrow", conservatives will give you excuses as why it will never work. You yourself have been guilty of this throughout this whole discussion.
Lets take a simple example like taxes. Everbody hates taxes for one reason or another. The tax system in the US is broken and everyone knows it. If it wasn't broken we wouldn't be needing to mess with it all time and no one would be complaining about it. Conseravtives will say something like "Lets lower taxes, that will make everything alright." or "Lets raise taxes and everything will be alright.". This does nothing to fix the overall problem, a progressive, a true liberal will say "The tax system is broken, lets throw it out and try something new, like flat tax.". I am not going to argue the merits of various tax systems, but I will say this, niether you or I will live to see any true tax reform, unless there is a tax revolt and i don't see that happening.
Where does that leave us with our current political climate ? After all, aren't Democrat suppose to be liberal ? Nothing I have said so far would indicate so. No where in this little rant have I distiguished between Republicans and Democrats, I have refered to them collectivly as the conseravtive estabishment. This is intentional. The Democrat party is not liberal at all, just less conservative than the Republicans. Neither party is putting forth any new ideas for reform, both simply spewing the same crap they spewed 30 years ago. They sometimes mix and match ideas, case in point, Bill Clinton got elected in 1996 by co-opting Crime and Law Enforcement issues from the Republicans and George Bush co-opted Social Security and Education issues from the Democrats in 2000. If you don't believe me, check out the web pages of the two parties, both the Democrats [democrats.org] and the Republicans [rnc.org] key issues are nearly identical. Further, I don't see anywhere on either website where either party is offering any ideas for real reform. Both parties have a vested interest in the status quo and have no reason to institute real change. Oh they disagree on issues, but niether party wants to step up to bat and make real reform. We do not have a two party system, what we really have is two factions of the same party. Since both factions are resistance to any change and cling to the status quo, both factions are conservative.
If after all this, you still don't know what a liberal is, then the problem is in our definitions of the terms we are using. Do you really not know what progressive is or are you just being a devils advocate ? When I write, I assume you are a smart guy and can draw conclusions from examples, but so far you have refused to do so. It seems to me and apparently Hostile17, instead of trying to build understanding, you are picking at us. If we can't agree on a starting point, then there is nothing to build understanding on and there is no purpose in continuing the discussion. Perhaps if you put forth a definition of liberal (remember the ground rules though) as you see it, it would help me understand where you are coming from and perhaps from there we can build some mutual understanding.
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
Umm, no, you can't make that claim unless you provide a convincing argument that there is such a thing as `forward' and `back'.
See, you have argued above that change, in and of itself, is the end of progressives. If you wish to argue, instead, that some specific goal is the end of progressives, and that Mr. bin Laden is pushing to move us away from that goal, then you will have to tell us what the ideal goal is.
Of course, once you do so, we have abandoned your original definition of a progressive as one seeking change, and returned to our original question: what are the beliefs of a progressive? What is `progress'?