“Liberal” as a Term of Abuse and Scorn

Time for change

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Feb-24-11 11:06 PM
Original message

“Liberal” as a Term of Abuse and Scorn

The word “liberal” has been systematically disparaged over the past three decades in the United States. So successful has that disparagement been that even most of those politicians who remain faithful to liberal principles have felt it necessary to change their description of themselves from “liberal” to “progressive”. Though I hate the idea of changing the word that best describes my political ideals just because it’s attacked by propagandists who hate those ideals, I myself often replace the word “liberal” with “progressive”, simply because of the fact that the word “liberal” seems to have disappeared from the English language, except as a term of abuse and scorn.

The reason why the word “liberal” has been so disparaged in recent decades can perhaps be best understood by first examining a speech on Liberalism by President John F. Kennedy:

Liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves…

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" … If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who… welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

Why they want to destroy Liberalism

Those who today wish to destroy Liberalism are the same kinds of people referred to by another great liberal president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his 1936 Democratic Convention speech to the American people, which he used to justify his New Deal that eventually lifted tens of millions of Americans out of poverty following the Great Depression. President Roosevelt, inaugurated in the midst of the gravest financial crisis in our nation’s history, had a few choice words to say about the “Economic Royalists” who caused that crisis:

Out of this modern civilization Economic Royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities… the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer…

The privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor – these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age – other people's money – these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

The characteristics of liberals described in Kennedy’s above noted speech are terribly threatening to the economic royalists in three respects: 1) Independence of thought, manifested by “welcoming new ideas without rigid reactions”, challenges the status quo; 2) Concern for the welfare of our fellow humans – “their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs…” – tends to place limits on their own wealth and power, and; 3) Reducing the “suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad” has the potential of reducing the hundreds of billions of dollars that we pour into the military industrial complex every year.

Liberals such as FDR and JFK presented great challenges to the wealthy and the powerful, and they were hated for that. Consequently, a military coup was attempted against FDR. That coup was unsuccessful. JFK didn’t live through his first term as president. In recent decades the Economic Royalists – otherwise known as the right wing elite – have been hard at work to make “liberal” disappear from the English language, except as a term of scorn.

ON THE ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN “LIBERAL” AND “PROGRESSIVE”

I have often tried hard to identify substantive differences between the terms “liberal” and “progressive”. Having found none, I have to conclude that they are just different words used to refer to the same political ideal.

Definition of liberal

Let’s consider some characteristics of liberals from a typical definition of the word, from Dictionary.com. Here are some key parts from that definition, excluding those parts that refer to non-political uses of the term or are so vague as to be meaningless:

Favorable to… governmental protection of civil liberties
The most obvious example of this principle of liberalism is the Civil Rights Movement. In addition to laws that gave the vote to previously disenfranchised minorities, a major goal of the Civil Rights Movement was to prohibit discrimination against minorities by private businesses or individuals in their public actions. Liberals believe that people should not be excluded (or segregated against) from voting, restaurants, public transportation, education, buying of homes, etc. on the basis of race, skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin. We believe that such exclusion or segregation is contrary to the principles on which our nation was founded, as well as destructive of the interests of the great majority of the American people.

Favoring or permitting freedom of belief or expression
This particular freedom is a cornerstone of democracy. It was enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution – as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.

Representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies
This principle of liberalism is so fundamental to the founding of our nation that it shouldn’t be controversial. Yet it is. Liberals understand that when a nation’s laws perpetuate wealth and power from one generation to the next, that nation comes to resemble an aristocracy or a monarchy. They understand that children who are born into poverty lack the opportunities for a decent life that are given to those who are born to wealthy parents. That is a major reason why they favor such things as access to health care for all, an inheritance tax, and public education. Most of all, they view the use of private money to influence public officials and our political system to be a great affront to the concept of democracy.

Free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant
This characteristic of liberals means that we recognize our solidarity with the rest of humankind. It is the foundation of our belief in civil liberties for all and freedom of expression.

Open-minded or tolerant, especially… not bound by traditional ideas, values, etc.
Liberals do not automatically accept the status quo as a knee-jerk reaction. We recognize that our society is not perfect, and we seek to make it better. We have nothing against traditional ideas and values per se – but they must stand on their own merits, not simply on the fact that they are traditional. Sometimes tradition serves to maintain the privileges of the few at the expense of the many. Those are the kinds of traditions and values that liberals are against.

Characterized by generosity
It is this characteristic of liberals that causes us to believe that an important function of government is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity for a decent and meaningful life – and we are willing to pay taxes to support government programs for that purpose.

Are there differences between “liberal” and “progressive”?

So what are the differences between “liberal” and “progressive”? Would anyone say that the above characteristics don’t apply to progressives as well as liberals? I doubt it. Here is some additional definition of “liberal” from Dictionary.com:

Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs… noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

That hardly distinguishes liberals from progressives. Here is a typical definition of “progressive”:

Favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform… making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas… characterized by progress, or by continuous improvement… pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics… going forward or onward…

Some of that’s pretty vague. What some consider “progress” others consider regress. Another part of the definition simply equates “progressive” with “liberal”. In any event, I don’t see how this or any other definition of progressive distinguishes it from “liberal”.

I realize that there are many people who perceive a difference between the two words – and almost every one I’ve read on this issue perceives a different difference. But I doubt that anyone could make a convincing point that the core characteristics that the two words are meant to convey are substantively different.

Why it’s important not to make artificial distinctions between “progressive” and “liberal”

When liberals began calling themselves “progressives” instead of “liberals” they in effect capitulated to the right wing view that there is really something degenerate about liberals. I think that Kennedy’s approach was much more straight-forward, honest, and effective. Rather than change the name of your ideology, explain it – from your heart. When right wingers try to disparage who we are, challenge them directly.

An example of one of many attempts to explain an artificial distinction between progressive and liberal is an article by David Sirota, in which he explains the difference as being that liberals favor the use of tax dollars to accomplish their goals, whereas progressives favor government regulation. Sirota’s higher opinion of the latter method is revealed by his use of such statements as “A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry…”

But the fact is that both money and government regulation are required to accomplish liberal/progressive goals, and I doubt that any but a very small minority of those who consider themselves liberals or progressives would disagree with that. The idea that liberals “throw a lot of taxpayer cash” at problems is silly, it’s insulting to liberals, and I doubt that there are any substantial proportion of those who call themselves liberals who would agree with that characterization.

I have a lot of respect for David Sirota. I’m sure that his intentions in making the distinction that he does are honorable and intended to point out the virtue of the more frequently used term “progressive” at the expense of the less used and thoroughly disparaged term “liberal”. But the effort to do so is misguided in my opinion. It lends credibility to the thoroughly dishonest and vicious attacks by right wingers on liberals, and it plays right into the right wing strategy of divide and conquer. If there is any substantial difference between liberals and progressives – which I doubt – we should be working together to achieve our mutually similar goals rather than trying to pretend that we are separated by fundamental differences.

INTERPRETATIONS OF “LIBERAL” VS “CONSERVATIVE” BY RIGHT WINGERS

Right wingers will never provide an honest description of what it means to be liberal, since they know that the majority of the American people are supportive of most liberal ideals. Here is a right wing web site, for example, which explains differences between conservative and liberal views on 21 issues. While pretending to be a neutral site, all of the explanations are slanted or phrased in misleading language to bias the reader against the liberal viewpoint or in favor of the conservative viewpoint – using well tested right wing talking points. Liberals (or progressives) need to address these issues head-on to correct the record. A thorough discussion of how these viewpoints are misstated would take more than a hundred pages. I’ll briefly discuss how this typical right wing web site handles 13 of these issues:

Abortion
The liberal viewpoint is stated as “The decision to have an abortion is a personal choice of a woman regarding her own body and the government must protect this right”. That is only partially accurate. The prevalent liberal viewpoint is not that “the government must protect this right”. Rather, it is that the government must not infringe upon that right by criminalizing abortion. Women don’t need government protection to get an abortion. There are plenty of doctors willing to provide abortions to women who need it as long as the government doesn’t brand them a criminal for doing so.

Affirmative action
The liberal viewpoint is stated as “America is still a racist society, therefore a federal affirmative action law is necessary.” That is a misleading interpretation of the liberal viewpoint. Whether or not America is still a racist society is not the main issue. The main issue is whether or not past discrimination against certain minorities has led to current lack of opportunity. A vast amount of evidence says that it has, and most liberals believe that affirmative action is sometimes needed to “level the playing field”.

Death penalty
Although the positions of liberals and conservatives on this issue are reasonably accurately stated here, the discussion omits the facts that, in actual practice, the death penalty is unequally applied, and that DNA evidence has shown a great many convicted “murderers”, awaiting execution on death row, to have been innocent.

Economy
The site states that conservatives are in favor of a “free market system” and that liberals favor “government regulation in all areas of the economy”. That is a highly misleading interpretation. It neglects the fact that a “free market system” does not exist in the United States. Powerful corporations rely upon government subsidies, tax breaks, monopolies that choke off competition, and in many cases fraud to achieve the profits that they do. Very few liberals favor government regulation in all areas of the economy. Rather, they believe that government regulation is required in some areas of the economy to police fraud, to ensure that competition is not choked off by monopolistic practices, and that those corporations that receive government subsidies and tax breaks provide a public purpose commensurate with their the government privileges they receive.

School vouchers
The site states that “Vouchers will give all parents the right to choose good schools for their children”. That statement is not true. School vouchers rarely if ever cover the full cost of education. Consequently, poor families cannot use them. The result is that school voucher systems provide disproportionately for families with enough money to afford expensive schools, to the exclusion of the poor and near poor. Also, they further disadvantage the poor by virtue of the fact that they cut into funding for public education. The result is a two-tiered educational system that greatly penalizes those who are most in need.

Energy
The site correctly notes that conservatives favor non-renewable hydrocarbon sources of energy (but without mentioning that they are non-renewable) such as oil, gas, and coal, while liberals favor renewable sources of energy (but without mentioning that they are renewable). However, failure to note the fact that use of hydrocarbon sources of energy are destroying the life-giving capacity of our planet, or that that is why liberals favor the use of other sources of energy, makes their discussion on this issue close to meaningless.

Climate change
The site correctly states the liberal and conservative views on this subject, noting that liberals believe that the burning of fossil fuels is destroying the life-giving capacity of our planet, while conservatives do not believe that. It adds that both believe that reputable scientists support their point of view.

Failure to note that the vast majority of climate scientists support the liberal view on this matter makes the site’s discussion meaningless. Liberals are not against the use of fossil fuels because of some innate bias against them. They are against them because of the scientific evidence showing their effects. Corporations that make huge profits on the use of fossil fuels are against government regulation of fossil fuels use not because they don’t believe that they are destroying our planet, but simply because they consider their short term profits to be more important than the future of our planet.

Health care
The site states that liberals “support free or low-cost government controlled health care”. That is a LIE. Most liberals support government ensuring that the means of obtaining health care is available to all our citizens. Most do NOT think that health care should be controlled by government.

Social Security
The site states the conservative view that “Major changes to the current system are urgently needed” because “In its current state, the Social Security system is not financially sustainable. Social Security must be made more efficient through privatization and/or allowing individuals to manage their own savings”.

At least two critical facts are omitted from this discussion. First, it is not noted that a recent report by the Social Security trustees finds that the Social Security system will be able to pay 100% of promised benefits for more than three decades. Second, it is not noted that right wing elites are aggressively attempting to reduce Social Security benefits – benefits that current retirees and those who will be retiring in the not distant future depend upon for the necessities of life, and for which they have paid into the system for several decades.

Taxes
The site notes that conservatives believe that “Lower taxes and a smaller government with limited power will improve the standard of living for all.” Well, some conservatives may believe that. The fact of the matter is that right wing elites are primarily interested in lowering taxes for the wealthy, and that indeed the wealthy have recently had their taxes lowered much more than ordinary Americans. Tax breaks for the wealthy in recent years have been so massive that government programs urgently needed by many Americans, such as a program meant to prevent poor people from freezing to death, have been cut drastically. These right wingers don’t believe primarily in a “smaller government with limited power”. Rather, they believe in a government with limited capability to help people in need. Anyone who says that they believe that a government that can’t provide for those in danger of freezing to death “will improve the standard of living for all” is either lying or stupid.

United Nations
The site notes that conservatives believe that “History shows that the United States, not the UN, is the global force for spreading freedom, prosperity, tolerance and peace.” Oh, for God sakes! The United States following the end of World War II 66 years ago has been the primary global force for spreading war, for the support of right wing dictatorships and the overthrow of popularly elected governments – not the primary force for peace.

War on Terror
The site states the conservative view that “The use of intelligence gathering and military force are the best ways to defeat terrorism around the world”. Actually, elite right wingers are much more interested in military force than they are in intelligence gathering, which they appear to have little if any interest in. Not only did our gathered intelligence tell the Bush administration that Iraq did not harbor weapons of mass destruction prior to its invasion of Iraq in 2003, but, as noted by Noam Chomsky in “Failed States”:

US planners were well aware that the invasion of Iraq was likely to increase terror and WMD proliferation, as many analysts and intelligence agencies warned… The National Intelligence Council predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict, hence engendering terror within Iraq and worldwide.

But we invaded anyhow. Our intelligence regarding our “War on Terror” was of little or no interest. What the administration was interested in was war.

Welfare
The site notes that conservatives prefer making the poor “self-reliant” rather than providing them with welfare, because “It is far more compassionate and effective to encourage people to become self-reliant, rather than allowing them to remain dependent on the government for provisions.” Nothing is said about how a family is supposed to pay for food, medical care, and shelter when nobody in the family can find a job.

THE DISPARAGEMENT OF LIBERALS IN PERSPECTIVE

There are in general two types of right wingers. There are the right wing elites – the type who FDR referred to as “Economic Royalists”. Those comprise a small minority of right wingers. Then there are the followers – the ordinary “conservatives” who comprise the vast majority of right wingers, and who keep the right wing elites in public office and in power through their votes, their money, and their general support.

The right wing elites desperately need the support of their followers, in order to maintain their power and their status. A major part of their strategy for gaining and keeping that support is to disparage liberals – who challenge their power and their methods for attaining and keeping their power. In disparaging liberals, the right wing elites must either misrepresent the views of liberals or else lie about or omit the facts on which those views are based. In the absence of such a strategy, liberals would come across as just normal people who are especially concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens. Many or most current day conservatives would then be liberals instead.

Liberals should not stand still for this. They should neither change their name nor the policies that they support. Rather they should, like FDR and JFK, directly challenge those who attempt to disparage them. Otherwise the right wing elites will win, to the great detriment of the American people.