What is wrong with the word "Liberal" and being one?

[Cascadian]

Ever since the Reagan era, the word "liberal" has been bashed around and made into something bad. So bad that some Democrats don't even want to consider themselves liberal and start mimicking Republicans in thought, word, and deed. Why? What the hell is wrong with being a liberal or a lefty for that matter? Why do people want to go for that DLC Republican Lite line. Why do they feel the need to copy Republicans and their conservative line?

I recall when John Kerry was on the Daily Show. John Stewart asked Kerry if he was a "liberal". Kerry said "no".It seemed he was ashamed of that word. Why? Have some Democrats been beaten down so much that they are ashamed of what the core Democratic Party principles are that they have to mock the GOP? I am afraid the word "liberal" describes what those principles are regardless of anybody likes it or not.

It's time to make that word "liberal" dignified again. If it weren't for liberals, we would not have the worker's rights, human rights, a clean environment, and above all dignity. There is no shame in the word "liberal". It's time whenever somebody calls you a liberal or that your ideas are liberal, stand up and say "Hell yeah I am Liberal!" The Democratic Party can be strong again once we stop trying to "fit in" and start "standing out". If you came with the right message and presented it to the people, they will follow you. People truly like those who are bold and want to go forward.

So get up, stand up, and say "I am a Liberal"!


John

[Arkana]

1. It's because the damn GOP has demonized the word

...almost to the point where no one wants to be identified with it.

[Diana52]

7. True, but,

for too long a time, WE let them get away with it.

No more!

[tabasco]

Also gutless Democrats that did not defend our positions.

With the debacle of the Bush administration, we see what can happen when progressives are disunited. Fascists tend to rally behind a strong leader. Liberals suspect authority and are less loyal to any leader than to our personal values, therefore we are harder to unite.

Liberals must stay united or the rich war profiteers will destroy our Nation.

[aquart]

10. Never let THEM set the vocabulary.

Never play by their rules.

Liberal, from the Sumerian libis, from the Akkadian libbu (HEART) meaning COURAGE, HEART, CORE, FAMILY, ANGER.

They have made us ashamed of our hearts. They should be ashamed to be without them.

The root of liberal is HEART. Our COURAGE is how we stand up to greed and fraud and theft and incompetence and cowardice masked as courage. Our ANGER is just. Our very CORE, our principles, our constitution, and dear god, our FAMILIES, have been hurt by these greedy, heartless people who worship profit as their only god no matter where they go to church.

[Robbie67]

19. and therefore they win

because liberals have allowed this bashing to go unchecked

[VOX]

51. And ass**** Newt was in the vanguard of this demonization...

He wrote it up as one of the trigger-words to link with taxes, crime, bad economy, etc., etc.

May he have a very special circle in hell reserved.

[AntiFascist]

2. I remember a time when certain Republicans were embarassed...

to be called conservative, so they began calling themselves Progressives. Those were the days....

[aquart]

11. Oh, is that what the damn progressives are?

I can never figure them out.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I am a liberal

and I believe the prophets of all spiritual paths were liberal as well, if you take my definiton of liberal, which is a person who is tolerant, who wants to help the less fortunate, protect the environment, etc.

[Hello_Kitty]

4. They skillfully equated liberal with communist

Very effective tactic at the height of the Cold War. But now I am seeing a trend of equating "neo-con" with unsavory concepts. I've seen a few right wing politicians and pundits deny they are neo-cons in the media. Hopefully this is a trend that will continue. Let them be on the defensive and have their labels demonized.

[serryjw]

5. Some ruin it for the rest!

I know a gal from the my volunteering at the (food bank) Church. She is bipolar, diabetic and incontinent. All treatable problems that millions have...there is no reason why she should not work.

[aquart]

12. Absolutely. I'm sure you know many who would hire her.

[serryjw]

16. Was that sarcasm?

She has some challenges, but there are way to many whom are in much worse shape. At least she needs to try. I posted this before. I live in D/T Denver, my across the hall neighbor is what you would call 'strange'. He shovels snow in the winter and racks leaves in the summer...he has never been late on his rent.

What the thugs resent is there is a difference b/t a hand out or a hand up..I have no problem paying for healthcare and meds to help her...BUT she has to try and help herself.
Hey, I am a 54 year old woman whom is a Breast Cancer survivor. I also have problems working but that is my responsibility NOT yours.

[noiretextatique]

21. in a civil society, we are all each other's responsibility

unless of course you buy the "personal responsbility" crap from the right. o'reilly and rush are exmaples of how personal responsiblity only applies to people who aren't like them.
what exactly is the difference between a handout and a hand up...to the right? answer: none.

[serryjw]

23. You are drinking koolaid........

If you don't know the difference.

[noiretextatique]

28. i don't understand "code language" and i hate kool-aid

catch-phrases, like "handouts" and "handups" are meaningless soundbites , generally washed down with kool-aid. so, please enlighten me...what is the difference between the two? it would be helpful if you didn't use more code language in your response...thanks.

[serryjw]

30. I have an idea........

Why don't we let the thugs run the country and give us each $1000/month to do nothing!
What ever her problem, my problem or your health problem is, its nothing like what Christopher Reeves went thru for 9 years.......and looked what he accomplished....This kinda class warfare makes it difficult to pass fair legislation for people whom REALLY need it

[noiretextatique]

31. thugs ARE running the country

the THUG * goes to bed at 9:30 every night, and he makes 200K+ for doing it. the thug cheney's company is profiting from the deaths of american soliders in iraq, and getting paid a salary to do it.
so :wtf: are you talking about?!?!
christopher reeves (rip...and much respect) was a well-paid and well-known actor before and the accident. do you think that MIGHT have contributed to what he accomplished after his accident?
class warfare?!?!?! :wtf: are you talking about?! do you even KNOW?

[serryjw]

32. Sorry...Bushit is getting PAID $400K for destroying this country

[noiretextatique]

33. really...i didn't know that...thanks

any other comments?

[serryjw]

36. It was raised during Clinton's administration

but Potus salary is not grandfathered.
Other than that I have nothing else to say. We simply don't agree. Was Christopher's care better because of his fame and fortune....no doubt....BUT that has nothing to do with what he choice to make his legacy.

After 3 years out there spreading the word, I have spoke to people who truly need help. IMHO they come first. Why should you not work because some one is blind? When I was fundraising for the DNC we had a blind person doing it. He just used a Braille keyboard.

Please read what Nick accomplished. He changed the laws in Alabama that will effect thousands of disabled......a 20 year from a working class family.....whom just so happens to be a quad. Nick will be in Congress someday championing the rights of the disabled....personally, I am humbled by him
http://www.nickscrusade.com/

[noiretextatique]

39. for every christoher reeves

there are a millions of others with all sorts of challenges who are working, as YOU keep mentioning. lots of poor people work, not just one job, but two are three. the example you cite NEGATES YOUR OWN ARGUMENT...so again: what are you talking about? the hordes of "others' out there doing nothing? i don't believe they are are problematic or as costly to US as are *, cheney, enron, ken lay, etc.
i am an accountant...if i lost my sight tomorrow, i literally could not do my work. in time, i probably could learn to do something else. would you begrudge me disability, though it might be temporary, but temporary could mean 5 years? could you understand that i would need that time to learn braille, to adopt to my diability, etc? and how long would i have to do all this before my support would be considered a handout?

handup...this is the choice a woman i know is facing right now:
she has a job (and a BA), but it doesn't pay well. even with a degree, one she got while on wlefare, she can't find a better paying job because employers want experience, and she is a single parent raising a small child, so she has childcare needs. she wasn't making enough money to support herself, her child and pay childcare from her job...and she was making too much money to keep her subsidized housing. so, she decided to go back on welfare so she could go back to school to get a nursing degree.
now, this person clearly isn't perfect, and hasn't always made the best choices for herself, but she is trying to end her poverty (which is her choice now), and make a better life for herself and her child. is she getting a handout or a handup? does it really matter?
i'd rather pay for a million people to "do nothing," than to spend billons on killing people.
we cannot continue to keep expecting people to beat all the odds of inequality (like poor education), and still expect them to all be christopher reeves...that is s fantasy. and of course his money and fame helped in his situation, but clearly he had a lot of character.
i came of age in the 70's, when this country was at least trying to care for its people. programs like head start proved to be very successful...handout, handup...who cares as long as it actually improves people's lives. entrenched poverty, including those entrenched in the welfare system, is a complex problem that will not be solved by catch-phrases. in california, at least, welfare-to-work programs included of prepardedness training...writing, speaking, appropriate dress, etc...things that would increase the likelihood sucess in the workforce. some people may be lazy, but a whole lot more lack basic skills.
welfare to work programs worked really well...when the economy was in good shape under clinton. but shouldn't suprise anyone that they don't work now.

[serryjw]

42. How easily you dismiss Nick's accomplishments

I salute the lady whom went back to school for a nursing career...Is this not a hand up....she will graduate and support herself and her family.
I know a dozen people whom are on meds for bipolar and function fine. There are millions of Americans whom are diabetic.
I will never begrudge any one needed help BUT they also have to try. The blind guy from the DNC could have done nothing, BUT he contributed and had a REASON to get up in the morning.DOING nothing is no reason to get up.
You easily dismiss people making really BAD life decisions that other people have to pay for. I never had kids. I was not married and even IF I decided to adopt at my earnings it would have been very difficult. When are liberal dems going to stop having multiple children they can't afford? Sure, in the last 3 years many whom did everything right and got an education are having financial problems BUT that is not whom I am referring to. If you have a HS education, no skill or trade what makes you think you can support 3 children? WTF should I pay for it?

[noiretextatique]

43. i don't dismiss anything...there are plenty of people just like him

and i'm sure nick would be the first to agree with me...he probably doesn't want to be seen as some poster child for bootstapping types, like yourself.

people do make idiotic mistakes, and not everyone will make good choices, or choices you agree with. someone out there probably feels that exact same way about you. get this: people are not "equal." not all are blessed with even an eaverage intellect...not all get good educations...not all make good choices. and not all of them are you, so they won't do what you would, or make the choices you make, or the choices you think they should make.

like it or not...in a civil society, one way or another we will deal with the poor choices people make. it makes much more sense to deal with it in a civil manner, by educating people vs. in and uncivil manner, by criminalizing or incarcerating them. or as you do, feeling superior to them, and expect them all the be like christopher reeves or nick.

as far as stupid choices we pay for:
why should my taxes dollars support the stupid choices of bush and cheney? it's ridiculous to whine on about someone on welfare when we are spending BILLIONS on killing people in iraq.

"liberal democrats"...you are completely full of shit on that...and not long for DU if you keep this shit up. watch jerry springer and listen to how many of the people on that show support bush...the ones who are sleeping with their girlfriend's grandmother and living on welfare with their 7 kids...white people, btw.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

49. I could give a shit...

Whether they spend a million dollars giving her free food and shelter, or giving her some pro forma "job" that she can do in diapers.

No, I take that back. I would rather see handouts. It's not as hypocritical nor as discriminatory. Fuck the work ethic--I'd rather just support people and be done with it. Government should NOT, RESOUNDINGLY NOT, be in the ethics and values business.

A welfare dollar prevents more crime than a hundred dollars in law enforcement. And it doesn't support lazy, racist, violent cops, who IMO are the biggest welfare moochers in the country.

[JohnKleeb]

6. I thought the question was "are you the most liberal in the senate?"

I agree with what you're saying though, but I also recall in the past Kerry has called himself progressive which some like better than liberal, I dont know why it's so demonized, its not a bad thing.

[yewberry]

13. It was.

I think Stewart was referring to Bush & Cheney constantly claiming that JK is the "the most liberal senator"--and it's not true. If you look at lifetime voting records, he's not even in the top ten.

[JohnKleeb]

17. according to national journal he's 11th

of them all, he has a simliar record to Kennedy just a more moderate rhetoric. Hell, its not jsut his stances on most of the issues I like but he himself is one hell of a guy.

[greekspeak]

8. There is nothing wrong with being a liberal. But they are after "libruls"

"Librul" is a caricature, created by religious hatemongers and schlock jocks to scare the holy hell out of people. Libruls want to take your bibles, your guns, your income. They want to kill your babies and allow the United Nations to rule the United States. They rewrite history and science to suit themselves. They are pantywaist eggheads who have never done a real day's work in their lives. They are atheists who keep minorities poor with their endless frivolous social programs. They want to burn your flag and ban the pledge of Allegiance. They want terraists to go free, along with everyone else in jail. They want to dismantle the armed forces. In short, they are libruls. Commies. Pinkos.

As soon as I meet one of these Libruls, I will let you know. As for we liberals, we scratch our heads in wonder at this caricature and marvel that anyone with an ounce of brains believes it.

[HereSince1628]

9. I'd rather be known as progressive.

Liberal is more or less the oppostite of conservative.

Letting a stupid conservative define my position as his/her opposite provides me no opportunity to define myself.

As a progressive I support and work for the movement of American society toward better expressions of liberty, justice, and equality for all citizens.

Frankly, it's hard to find progressive candidates. Nonetheless, working for improvement along these axes of progress is honorable.

[aquart]

15. What a ....gutless answer. So you're the same with a different name?

Which safely escapes whose definition?

YOU make the definition. When someone calls you a name, you either own it, deny it, or duck and run. Now, which decision did you make?

Never let anyone call you a name without demanding they define the word.

[HereSince1628]

22. Well, no. Liberal and progressive are not the same.

I'm sorry that your interaction with my posting begins with name calling. That is neither liberal or progressive. Indeed, it is a serious rhetorical flaw.

Nonetheless, assuming a liberal is the same as a progressive is your problem.

Liberal is an adjective derived from liberty, suggesting degrees of freedom. Currently that implies many things that are mostly the opposite of conservative ideals...such as rejection of authoritarianism, rejection of dogmatism, rejection of fear of death as a lever of reasoning, etc.

Recent academic papers also suggest "Liberals" have a willingness to accept various viewpoints of others; these include issues of social, religious, and political importance. To me that's very post-modern and relativistic.

Being anti-conservative and Post Modern IS NOT the same as being Progressive.

Progressive is not defined as the antithesis of conservative. And it has little to do with being accepting. Indeed true progressives are some of the LEAST accepting people you might ever meet.

The adjective progressive now turned into a label implies that there is an interest in moving society in some direction. That direction, deemed progress by the progressive movement's adherents is a measurable, if incremental, improvement of Liberty...personal freedom, Justice...fair treatment, and Equality...full, unbiased participation in society regardless of personal circumstance.

Recent reviews of the psychological profiles of liberals and conservatives found great difficulty in defining liberal. Liberal is a very poorly defined term (which BTW helps conservatives attack progressivism as some part of liberalism).

Consideration of behavioral and belief systems of conservatives dominate this area of research. The implicit assumption is that "liberals" are somehow the opposite of conservatives. That assumption is unfair, if not intellectually risky, and impedes the acquisition of a true understanding of both liberalism and progressivism.

So, let me say as a point of distinction there is little room in "Progressive" ideology for compromised positions that accept relativistic rationalizations for asymmetries in freedom, justice, and equal access to opportunities.

Progressives lament that the present state is FULL of inequities. Unfortunately progressives' strong ideological stance alienates them from folks who are "willing to go along to get along."

Because you seem to be unclear about the differences between liberal and progressive you might productively reconsider your association to each movement.

[noiretextatique]

53. excellent post

i am bookmarking this thread so i can reference your post when the subject arises again...with all due credit, of course.

[CBHagman]

14. I keep telling a co-worker of mine...

...that anyone who looked at the dictionary definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" would probably say they both sounded rather positive. I hate the way both have been abused by politicians who are merely into social Darwinism and race- and gay-baiting.

The co-worker doesn't yet seem convinced, but I see him peeking at the Washington Times often enough to wonder if his tender mind has been infiltrated by said Moonie rag. The fact that he's willing to discuss things in general gives me hope, though.

[Firefly2004]

18. Don't Let Neo-Cons Control the Language and Frames

http://www.alternet.org/story/19811/

Alternet.org article on George Lakoff's new book, Don't Think of an Elephant. Good stuff. Pass it around.

In this excerpt from his new book, "Don't Think of an Elephant!" George Lakoff talks about how transforming the language of politics can help win the good fight.

January 21, 2004 — On this date I spoke extemporaneously to a group of about two hundred progressive citizen-activists in Sausalito, California. When I teach the study of framing at Berkeley, in Cognitive Science 101, the first thing I do is I give my students an exercise. The exercise is: Don't think of an elephant! Whatever you do, do not think of an elephant. I've never found a student who is able to do this. Every word, like elephant, evokes a frame, which can be an image or other kinds of knowledge: Elephants are large, have floppy ears and a trunk, are associated with circuses, and so on. The word is defined relative to that frame. When we negate a frame, we evoke the frame.

Richard Nixon found that out the hard way. While under pressure to resign during the Watergate scandal, Nixon addressed the nation on TV. He stood before the nation and said, "I am not a crook." And everybody thought about him as a crook. This gives us a basic principle of framing, for when you are arguing against the other side: Do not use their language. Their language picks out a frame — and it won't be the frame you want. Let me give you an example. On the day that George W. Bush arrived in the White House, the phrase “tax relief” started coming out of the White House. It still is: It was used a number of times in this year's State of the Union address, and is showing up more and more in preelection speeches four years later. Think of the framing for relief. For there to be relief there must be an affliction, an afflicted party, and a reliever who removes the affliction and is therefore a hero. And if people try to stop the hero, those people are villains for trying to prevent relief.

[Lefty48197]

20. Liberals are really irresponsible with the budget and taxes and stuff

Unlike Bush and Tom DeLay who are "models of fiscal responsibility"

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Robbie67]

25. well, that's interesting n/t

[Dark]

26. Welcome to DU Liberal Intellectual!

I don't think all is lost, though. Keep in mind, that those polls tipically favor republican candidates because they oversample them.

If it were 50/50 (or 33/33/33 including independents) Kerry would win easily. Also, I agree with you. I don't like him too much, but he's all we got that can beat Bush.

[Cat Atomic]

27. Here's a tip for you. You guys aren't smart enough to hide in this crowd.

Stop wasting your time.

[Liberal Intellectual]

29. What are you talking about?

Have things gotten so bad here that people who yearn for the glory days of Bill Clinton are branded Bush followers?

[Larry Tyler]

34. We have a choice

One choice is to complain about our candidate, and try to steer people away from him right before the election, thus giving the current appointed admin another 4 years to rape this country.
or
We can stand behind Kerry and try to help his/our cause allowing his administration to take office and begin the repairs needed after the boy king is done playing with us.

Now is not the time to express hate for the democratic choice. Bill Clinton is not running, cant run. No need to compare Kerry with Clinton. Times are different now than they were then.
I think that once Kerry takes office, it will be very clear that he is just as able to run this country as Clinton was.

In short, if you feel like bitching about Kerry, do it elsewhere. Like it or not, he will be the next president of this country, and he will be re-elected for his second term.

[sangh0]

37. Bitching about Kerry is the only choice LI has made on DU

The search feature is your friend

He predicted that Kerry would lose the debates

[Cat Atomic]

41. You don't know?

Let me help you out- maybe I can help you improve your performance. Every single point you made was the standard right-wing radio bullshit. But this one is particularly bad:

"have our people ready at the polls to "assist" in turnout."

I mean Christ- why not just speculate on Hillary Clinton 2008? That's the only one you missed.

[Selwynn]

46. Wow you disappeared right as I refreshed :)

[OneTwentyoNine]

38. 5...4...3....2...1...* POOF * nt

[Selwynn]

45. Calling Clinton a "liberal" is the joke of the year

EDIT - calling Kerry a loser in an election against George Bush is also ridiculous

[Julien Sorel]

35. What's a liberal?

What does a liberal believe in? Nearly every day here, I'm told I'm not a "real" Democrat, so now I'd like to know what a "real" liberal is.

[bling bling]

40. I'm on a mission

Anytime someone uses the word "liberal" as a negative adjective I stop them in their tracks.

The word liberal is used as a synonym for "incompetant." i.e. "liberal" judges. If a conservative thinks that a judge made a made decision, they call him/her "liberal", instead of "incompetant."

I'm SICK of it.

[George_S]

44. It's the result of effective propaganda

A popular Republican politician on his way to the top, Newt Gingrich clearly understood the power of propaganda. His political action committee (GOPAC) mailed a pamphlet entitled Language, A Key Mechanism of Control to Republicans across the country. The booklet offered rhetorical advice to Republican candidates who wanted to "speak like Newt." It was subsequently awarded a Doublespeak Award by the National Conference of Teachers of English in 1990.

The booklet contained two lists of words. GOP candidates were instructed to use one set of "positive, governing words," (glittering generalities) when speaking about themselves. A second set of negative words (name-calling words) were to be used against their opponents.

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/examples.newt.html

Since Mrs. Bush was a teacher, doesn't seem she would know about this Doublespeak Award?

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

48. Republicans are liberals, supposedly.

Anyone who is not for a hereditary aristocracy is technically a liberal. This basic opposition goes hand in hand with the original civil "liberties" such as freedom of the press, freedom of religion, et cetera.

The official Republican stance is Classical Liberal: all power out of the hands of the aristocrats and into the hands of the bourgeoisie. The Democratic stance comes from a later period when the bourgeoisie realized they had to buy off the working class with welfare programs in order to prevent Communist revolution.

When Bush or his henchmen speak against "liberals", they are duplicitously speaking to their lower-class constituents against the bourgeoisie--to which they themselves patently belong. Hence, "latte liberal". It's pure and egregious "class warfare".

However, they have a claim to be anti-liberal in that they seem to have no real interest in the Classical Liberal agenda--they would rather take over as a hereditary aristocracy.

[Larry Tyler]

52. Conversation with a Conservative friend a while back.

He is an EMT on an ambulance

Me, why are you conservative? doesnt really seem to go along with your job

him, My job is not a liberal or conservative issue.

But, liberals generally are more willing to help people, conservatives are generally looking out for themselves.

Him, I am looking out for myself.

me But,, isnt your job supposed to be to help people?

him. yep,I help people then I get paid for it.

me, so if you werent getting paid, you might not take the time to help?

him, basically, yes.

me, do you get paid if the person you are helping dies?

him, yes.

me, so,,, where the incentive to get them to the hospital alive?

him, if too many die, I dont get to keep my job

Me,, do me a favor, if you see me injured,, call someone for me would you?

[Technowitch]

54. Nothing's wrong with it as far as I'm concerned. I am a Liberal.

[LaPera]

55. The pigman Limbaugh as much as anyone has pounded away on "liberal' as

a negative, since Reagan was in office...all one has to do is look up the word in the dictionary and be proud they are defined as a Liberal. I know I am.