Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I’m Proud to Be a Liberal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 08:33 PM
Original message
I’m Proud to Be a Liberal
Edited on Tue Mar-28-06 08:53 PM by Time for change
For as long as I’ve been old enough to vote (three decades) the term “liberal”, as used in political discourse, has increasingly been used as a term of abuse. This fact was notoriously demonstrated in the final Presidential debate of 2004, when George Bush cited evidence that John Kerry was the most liberal member of the Senate, as if that was some kind of insult.

Consequently, Democrats began to run from the “liberal” label and have been increasingly continuing to do so for the past few decades. One relatively benign way of doing this is to utilize other labels to define themselves, such as “New Democrat” or “progressive”.

The reason why this bothers me is somewhat similar to the reason why many of us DUers are bothered by the failure of most of Senator Feingold’s colleagues to support his censure resolution: What it amounts to is a retreat in the face of fear of political consequences. In the case of the censure resolution, Democrats are refusing to utilize an opportunity to call to the attention of the American citizenry the gravest abuses of the Presidency in the history of our nation, for fear of the political backlash that might result. The downside of that decision is that, since the corporate media can be expected to give these issues substantially less coverage than they deserve, many Americans will continue to remain ignorant of the perilous state of our nation. Though these Democrats refuse to take this opportunity because they are afraid of the political consequences, many of us believe that they may thereby be creating the opposite of their intended effect, thereby missing the opportunity to take back Congress in 2006.

I believe that running away from the “liberal” label is somewhat similar to that: By running away from that label we are tacitly admitting that the conservatives are right to denigrate the term. So what? We call ourselves “progressive” and thereby avoid the notorious “liberal” label. According to one definition, progressive means “favoring progress toward better conditions”. Gee, who could be against that? But then what do we do when the Republicans or the corporate media make “progressive” a term of derision? Change names again?

By saying all this I certainly don’t mean to imply that liberals, individually or as a group, haven’t made serious mistakes. Of course we have. Some liberal programs have been wasteful or have been abused by their recipients. But that shouldn’t be a reason to refute or to pretend to refute the basic principles of liberalism. Liberalism is a wonderful tradition, and the good majority of Americans agree with its general principles and greatly admire its most prominent proponents (e.g., Lincoln and FDR), even while being brainwashed by our corporate media into believing that “liberal” is a dirty word.


Some of liberalism’s best known historical proponents and greatest achievements

A quick look at some of history’s best known liberals and their principles or achievements should be enough to make one wonder how anyone can get away with excoriating the word “liberal” today. It is worth noting that, although most of these liberal principles are well accepted today, liberals initially had to fight tooth and nail for each of them, against the conservatives of the day, in order to make them a part of our policies and institutions:


As noted by Gary Vance, an evangelical Christian minister:

Jesus was the ultimate liberal progressive revolutionary of all history. The conservative religious and social structure that He defied hated and crucified Him. They examined His life and did not like what they saw. He aligned Himself with the poor and the oppressed. He challenged the religious orthodoxy of His day. He advocated pacifism and loving our enemies. He liberated women and minorities from oppression.… Jesus was the original Liberal. He was a progressive, and He was judged and hated for it.

Yes indeed, Jesus was the ultimate liberal. And yet it is the conservatives who have now hijacked his name while at the same time excoriating his principles.


Thomas Jefferson, as the principle author of our Declaration of Independence, enshrined the unalienable rights of man as the basis for our Constitution and our birth as a nation. The rights of all people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, against those who would oppress them, is perhaps the most basic tenet of liberalism, from which all the others flow.


Susan B. Antony, whose work on behalf of women’s rights began in 1854, is known as the mother of the suffrage movement within the United States. Though she faced fierce opposition from the conservatives of her day, and unfortunately she didn’t live long enough to see the victory that emerged from her efforts in 1920, today conservatives can no longer even question the right of women to vote. And considering the fact that women voted against George W. Bush, for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, in much larger proportions than did men, I shudder to think where our future might lead without that right.


Abraham Lincoln’s life long hatred of slavery was his most notable characteristic, and the end of slavery in the United States with his Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 was his greatest gift to our country and the cause of humanity. His stance against slavery prior to his being elected President was about as liberal as one could get while remaining a viable national politician in those days.


Theodore Roosevelt was our first President to recognize and act on the fact that, with the coming of the industrial age, corporations had accumulated too much power, which they utilized to gain ever more power and wealth for themselves, at the expense of the great majority of American citizens. To curb their power, he invoked anti-trust laws and defended the right of labor to organize. Recognizing the need for consumer protection against the corporations, he pushed through the enactment of the Pure Food and Drug Act, which saw the creation of the Food and Drug Administration. And, he was our first President to make the protection of our environment a national priority. Our current pResident, just as he does with Jesus Christ, uses Roosevelt’s name for his political advantage, while trying to undo most of his great achievements as quickly as he can.


Franklin Roosevelt, faced with the worst economic crisis in the history of our country, used his executive powers to create a vast array of new government agencies and programs, including the Social Security Administration, to lift our country out of the Great Depression. His conservative opponents of the day hated him with a passion and claimed that he was a Communist. Yet his programs and polices gained so much acceptance by the American people that today’s conservatives cannot openly attack them. Instead, they try to dismantle them while claiming that they trying to save them.


Harry Truman’s best known liberal achievement was his integration of the armed forces. That may not seem so liberal today (and again, conservatives today are unable to openly criticize that achievement), but in Truman’s day it was an extremely controversial and politically risky act, fought against passionately by conservatives. That act knocked down one more mighty barrier to racial equality in our country.


John F. Kennedy said in a 1960 speech that liberalism is “an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man’s ability, through the experience 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”.


Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” program (following up on the efforts of his predecessor) was responsible for great progress in our country towards improving the opportunity of our citizens for a decent life, and included the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Medicare, among many others. The Great Society programs as a whole have resulted in substantial improvements in public health in our country, manifested by a steady drop in the infant mortality rate until George W. Bush took office in 2001 and began to reverse those programs, whereupon infant mortality rate began to rise for the first time in several decades.


Marin Luther King, liberal though he was, is widely enough respected today that a national holiday has been named after him. Though he is best known for his fight for racial justice, in the latter years of his life he expanded his efforts on behalf of the opportunity for a decent life for all citizens, black or white. On the topic of economic justice and the income gap between rich and poor:

He maintained that civil rights laws were empty without "human rights" -- including economic rights. For people too poor to eat at a restaurant or afford a decent home, King said, anti-discrimination laws were hollow…

King developed a class perspective. He decried the huge income gaps between rich and poor, and called for "radical changes in the structure of our society" to redistribute wealth and power. "True compassion," King declared, "is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."



George McGovern is known as a liberal primarily because of his early and vigorous opposition to the Viet Nam War, based on the fact that there was no legitimate moral purpose to that war. Though he was excoriated as a “pacifist” due to his opposition to the war, this was not pacifism at all, but rather a manifestation of the liberal principle that a country should go to war only for a very good reason. Since retiring from politics, McGovern has devoted himself largely to another bedrock liberal principle, manifested by his efforts to ameliorate world hunger.


A major contribution of Jimmy Carter to our nation’s liberal discourse was his elevation of the concept of “human rights”, applied to the international scene, to a national priority. Since retiring from politics he has continued to work on behalf of world peace, as well as other liberal principles, with the creation of the Carter Center.


John Conyers’ whole political career has been devoted to liberal principles and actions, but perhaps the ones for which he will be best remembered are his efforts to save our democracy by trying to fix our election system. With our democracy in great peril because of a dysfunctional election system, Conyers has led election reform efforts in the House of Representatives, starting with his Committee to investigate the scandalous 2004 election, which resulted in the landmark report, “Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio”.


That should be enough on this subject to make my point. The above discussion is a far from complete description of liberal principles and those leaders who have fought for them (and I recognize that some of those leaders also demonstrated some non-liberal principles in other areas), but it is simply meant to make a point by considering the great liberal thoughts, actions, and achievements of some liberal leaders who are best known to Americans.


Some destructive myths against liberals

It is the destructive myths against liberals, initiated by our political opponents, and more recently amplified by the corporate media, which have caused numerous Democrats to turn away from the “liberal” label. These include the myth that liberals encourage irresponsibility, the myth that liberals are soft on national defense, the myth that liberals are wild spenders and can’t balance the budget, and the myth that liberals are anti-“law and order”. Because this post is already getting quite long I decided to discuss these myths in another post.

Ask yourself: What would happen if, rather than turning away from the label, we fought back by challenging those myths?


Summary

If the principles of liberalism could be summed up in a short paragraph it would be this:

Liberals believe in the sacredness of human beings, regardless of their race, gender, nationality, religious beliefs, sexual preference, etc. They therefore believe that all people should have the opportunity for a good life, and they are willing to question and challenge the status quo if they believe that is necessary in order to afford people that opportunity. Consequently, they believe strongly in the individual protections given to us in the first ten Amendments to our Constitution (which conservatives also claim to revere). More specifically, they believe in the following:

 Prevention of discrimination against individuals based on the above noted characteristics
 Freedom to criticize the government
 Right to privacy as long as that right doesn’t have the potential to hurt others
 Opportunity for all to a decent education
 Opportunity for all to decent health care
 Opportunity for all to a decent quality of life
 Recourse to war ONLY as a last resort, and to protect the vital interests of the people of the United States
 Protection of our environment, so as to enable future generations to live decent lives
 Respect for law, including international law, so as to facilitate the peaceful co-existence of the nations of the world
 Controls over the powerful (e.g. corporations) to ensure that they don’t oppress others
 Access of the citizenry to information, so that they can make informed decisions
 Fair and transparent elections, meaning the right to vote for all citizens and the right to know that our vote counts

The history of our nation reveals that liberals have continuously fought for these principles, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, but almost always against the fierce opposition of conservatives. And overall they have been so successful that today there are numerous liberal principles that are widely accepted that were considered beyond the pale not too long ago.

Yet today we find ourselves in the remarkable position that the word that most defines us and our proud heritage is denigrated so badly by the ultra-conservative Republican Party and their allies in the corporate media that most Democrats have turned away from that term, in word, and sometimes in deed as well, from fear of the political consequences.

I have nothing per se against tactical compromises in order to achieve crucial strategic goals. And I recognize that liberals are challenged mightily today by virtue of the fact that the corporate media attempts to excoriate them whenever they “step out of line”. Nevertheless, I have to wonder if the increasing avoidance of the “liberal” label by Democrats over the past few decades, in response to bullying by our political opponents, hasn’t played right into their hands by producing the widespread impression liberalism is a failed political philosophy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. Amen!
I'm liberal and proud of it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. Me too.
Fuck anybody who doesn't like it.

Redstone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. Wow, an amazing effort. And wonderfully worded.
Your sunnary says it all, and should be adopted by the DNC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
35. It would be great if that happened - Thank you very much
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. Truman's desegregation of the Armed Forces
was so huge. Remember that in the late 40's and 50's there was a nearly universal draft for males. Many white males met their first black males in the Armed Forces. Truman helped usher in the Civil Rights era.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. That's a very good point
In some respects it would seem like a very minor achievement compared to all the advances of Johnson's Great Society programs.

But one has to put these things within the context of the times. At the time that Truman integrated the armed forces, that was considered a radical move, and probably a bad political move as well. But he did it because he knew it was the right thing to do.

And it's entirely possible that Truman's action prepared the ground for Johnson's programs, so that if Truman hadn't done what he did, Johnson might have been a whole lot less successful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theobscure Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #4
41. he also ushered in the idea of.....
...targeting civilians to be killed by the tens of thousands as a legitimate tool of war as long as you are on the "right" side. Our current President seems to have picked up on the idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. Nice
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theobscure Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson would be a person for present day Democrats to learn a lesson from. When John Adams was steering this country in a fascist direction; Jefferson stopped him in his tracks. If Jefferson had sat back and waited for his turn instead of challenging Adams' reelection; we would have had a dramatically different country for the worse, if one at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
20. Well, we did have several Dems challenge Bush after his first term
Problem is, there was so much cheating in the 04 election that we can't have much confidence in the results.

So we have crooked voting machine vendors to worry about, in addition to the corporate media and the GOP money machine.

That's why we have a situation IMO where it's real tough to win an election even when most of the country agrees with our agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theobscure Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
40. put up somebody who actually stands for something....
... the elections wouldn't be close enough to steal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
waiting for hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
7. Bravo Time for change!
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

I'm proud to be a liberal too - always have been, but it still confuses and amuses me when I hear conservatives label that sentiment as being akin to communism...... :shrug:

Another name for your distinguished list - and a whoop holler for GMU making the final four:

George Mason 1725-1792
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, Dec. 10, 1948)

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore, The General Assembly Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Snip
http://www.gunstonhall.org/documents/udhr.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
19. Very nice
Of course, George W. Bush is too stupid and ignorant to recognize the similarity between this Declaration adopted by the United Nations and our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution. And even if he did recognize that there's no reason to suppose that he would have less contempt for it, given his contempt for our own constitution.

I don't know much about George Mason, but I heard this evening that he refused to sign our Constitution because it allowed slavery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
waiting for hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. That was one of the reasons...
but as a land owner, he was living in the economic environment of the times.

ON SLAVERY
The following quotes reflect George Mason's views on slavery. While these excerpts portray Mason as against slavery, it is difficult to determine where he stood on how to address the difficulties of slavery. Mason owned a large number of slaves throughout his life, and never freed any that we know of. Nor did he advocate manumission as the answer to the slave issue. Slaves represented a large portion of Mason's wealth, and economic security for himself, and more importantly, his large family, weighed heavily on his mind. Likely, Mason did not know of a way to both end slavery, and at the same time ensure economic prosperity to plantation owners who depended on slave labor. Mason was, however, publicly vocal against slave importation, and he fought against its inclusion in the Constitution of the United States.

Dec. 23, 1765
The Policy of encouraging the Importation of free People & discouraging that of Slaves has never been duly considered in this Colony, or we shou'd not at this Day see one Half of our best Lands in most Parts of the Country remain unsetled, & the other cultivated with Slaves; not to mention the ill Effect such a Practice has upon the Morals & Manners of our People. 14
This quote came from Mason's response to the Stamp Act, where he devised a way for landlords to avoid paying stamp taxes. The first paragraph of the document reflects Mason's view on slave importation, while the rest of the document deals with the tax issue.

http://gunstonhall.org/georgemason/quotes.html#on

Another reason was that he believed that the office of the presidency should not be allowed to grant pardon for those convicted of treason:

The President of the United States has the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason, which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt.

http://gunstonhall.org/documents/objections.html

If Mason had his way, Scooter and Bush would be in a bigger shit load of trouble! :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Very interesting
Hopefully, they'll be in a shit load of trouble anyhow, along with Rove, Hadley, and Cheney. If Bush is impeached (following a Democratic landslide in 06), whoever takes over for him, if he or she is interested in continuing a political career, is going to have a very hard time giving him an outright pardon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teach1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
8. A kick..
Nice post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MazeRat7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
9. Damn tootin' skippy. Word !!!! - K&R
Edited on Tue Mar-28-06 09:37 PM by MazeRat7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
10. A Proud Liberal Here, too!
Edited on Tue Mar-28-06 09:53 PM by AuntiBush
And have no problem saying so, either. Don't buy into the BS MSN spinning talking heads. They willfully made the word "liberal" sound like a dirty word. Because of that alone, I now proudly say I'm a liberal because I refuse to allow stupidity to rack my brain and define who I am.

I think the majority of Americans are liberal-minded in some sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #10
21. I think you are definitely right about that
The majority of Americans are liberal-minded in some sense.

But the mainstream corporate news media is a real problem for us.

They are conservative to the bone, but they make every effort to appear neutral. The majority of Americans get most of their news from them, and they usually don't recognize the spin. So they don't even get their facts straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #21
33. They are.
Even many I've met that tell me they're Republicans and I've met people from all walks of life and from various areas of my state from urban to rural.

NO ONE likes *&CO and are fed-up with what they've done and are doing to our country. If there is one thing I've learned over the years, its that if I think a particular way, chances are really good that most do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. That's good to hear
With Bush approval at 34% (and probably biased towards the high end) and sinking, and scandals all over the place, there are bound to be plenty of Republicans beginning to wake up. Hopefully we may see a sea change before too long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
11. It's why I don't call myself a progressive
I'm never letting anybody use Liberal as a slur; I'm proud to be one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClayZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
12. We are too!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oscarguy Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
13. I`m proud to be a liberal from MA,a place where event hippies can have a
ball. We still have orgies down at the river, and we don`t give a damn at all. Yes I`m proud to be a liberal from Massachusetts...a place where hippies still have a ball. We don`t kow-tow to Bushies, it`s still the greatest State of all....YAHOO ! ! ...Oscar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RethugAssKicker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
14. Subject: Say it loud! I'm LIBERAL AND PROUD!.....

Excellent post!!

I have posted about this subject matter in the past as well... I'll never forive Kerry for not saying anything in the 2004 debates, when Bush called him, a liberal, as though its some kind of dirty word..I expected him to stand up and say to Bush " Yes I am a liberal and proud of it!"... But no, Kerry said nothing. His silence was in essence an agreement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #14
24. Thank you AssKicker -- I'd be interested in seeing your posts on this
I'm inclined to be easier on Kerry regarding that episode than you are.

I don't think that he actually ran away from the "liberal" label -- but he didn't embrace it either. What he did was to talk in general terms about the fact that debates should focus on specific achievements rather than on labels. I see a significant difference between that and running away from the "liberal" label.

There is merit in focusing debates on specific achievements rather than on labels. For example, if I were ever to run for elective office, notwithstanding my feelings about the proud heritage of liberalism, the best case I could make for myself would be my specific achievements (speaking theoretically, since I have no political achievements) or my specific proposals for the future, rather than to merely claim that I was a liberal.

Yet, it is also true, as you imply, that Kerry could also have used the opportunity to (in addition to complaining about the unfairness of labels) defend liberals in general by talking about their achievements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rocknrule Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
16. Jesus wouldnt've wanted to be associated with any political party
But I do think liberalism was based on his teachings
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrispyQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
17. Another one who's proud to be liberal!!

Excellent post!

:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
18. Thank you for your two posts re. liberalism - I posted links in my Journal
on my list of recommended DU post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #18
25. Thank you DeepModem Mom
I feel honored that you did that.

I didn't know that we have the option to do that -- guess I'll have to learn more about our journal options.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. I used one of the modules on the right. I named it...
"Mom's Recommended DU Posts," and I list the posts with subject line, poster, and a link to the post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Yes, I saw it - it looks very good
I'll work on figuring out how to do it myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. When you click on "edit journal, " the modules are the last ones...
on the page. You can click on one, and a blank will appear just like one you use for DU posting -- with a subject line, and a box for text. You can type in anything you want, and when you're ready to add it to your journal page, go back to the edit page and click that module from off to on.

(Someone else could probably explain it better! :) )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Thank you, I'll try that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brazenly Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:13 AM
Response to Original message
22. We were called "brazenly liberal." It was meant as a putdown. HA!
I've proudly owned it ever since. Go along to get along was never my thing. We don't have to wear every label they try to stick on us. "Liberal"? Sure. "Brazen"? Okeydoke! "Embarrassed"? Not a chance in hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. Yeah - I like your screen name n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ufomammut Donating Member (576 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
23. Terrific post! And shame on dems who've allowed...
The right to subvert the meaning of the word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #23
36. Thank you -- I blame the corporate media more than anyone
But I certainly think that it is time for the Dems to start giving back hell to anyone who tries to use the word "liberal" as an insult against them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
26. Note the sig line, Bro!
Me too!!

Good post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. Thank you
Good sig line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iniquitous Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
38. Of course.
I THINK, therefore what else would I be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tibbir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
42. I agree completely.
When Democrats run away from the word liberal it's like they've given up everything they stood for - and that's exactly what they've done. There's no way we can compete against the constant wave after wave of neocon puke when Democrats in Congress insist upon standing in the quicksand to the right of declaring themselves liberals. With that approach we can guarantee that the GOP will easily control both Houses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. Bumped completely
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:28 AM
Response to Original message
44. I've always been proud to call myself a liberal.
I have NEVER allowed the RWWs to define me and I've always hated and resisted their demonization of the word "liberal." Recently I've been using the word "progressive" interchangeably with "liberal," but only because other liberals (including my daughter) seemed to prefer it.

Re >>But then what do we do when the Republicans or the corporate media make “progressive” a term of derision? Change names again?<<

Hell, no! After all, what's the opposite of progressive?

REGRESSIVE!!!

If the Repukes start using the term "progressive" in a derogatory way, we can always start calling them what they actually are: REGRESSIVES! Come to think of it, maybe we should do it anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChipperbackDemocrat Donating Member (331 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. I have many names for them
Many of them I cannot print. But there are two I use most.

Cheap Labor Conservatives
That is their agenda, and they don't deny it.

and

Soviet Republicans
They are anti-American and anti-Freedom, and they don't deny it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. Those are good ones
And another word that applies to many though not all of them is simply "criminals".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. That's a good one, I like that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 28th 2014, 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC