What is a liberal? -- JFK's answer (and mine)

highplainsdem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-05-05 10:57 AM
Original message

What is a liberal? -- JFK's answer (and mine)

I'm sure this has been posted here countless times, but I want to post it again, since it's relevant to the recent discussions of labels. These paragraphs are from John F. Kennedy's speech on 9/14/60 accepting a second nomination in his Presidential campaign, from the New York Liberal Party. (For the full text, see http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/sept60/jfk140960_ny04.html .)

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that 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 that I'm a "Liberal."

<snip>

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a 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.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies.

I'm still proud to call myself a liberal and a member of the Democratic Party, and I will not cede the honorable tradition and dignity of those labels to our critics on the right, or worry about whether we need to come up with new labels to identify ourselves -- labels that would be even more quickly demonized by our opponents if they see us willing to abandon the proud traditional identifications we've used because of their attacks. We need to remember that the right's criticism of those who identify themselves as liberals isn't something new. They would love nothing more than to see the liberals in this country, especially the liberals in the Democratic party, splinter into a thousand factions and shy away from identifying themselves as liberals or even Democrats.

I DON'T CARE if the "political compass" test I took yesterday put me in the "left libertarian" quadrant -- I don't have to accept that as a defining label, or wonder if new party labels are needed, when there are older, better labels that fit. My values are the ones the dictionary uses as the definition of liberal:

giving freely; generous

tolerant of view's different from one's own; broadminded

favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, etc.; specif., favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual; progressive

I've been a liberal Democrat ever since I was old enough to think in terms of politics and party identification (which was during the 1960 election). I don't see that changing, ever: it's a proud label and a great tradition, combining generosity and tolerance and personal freedom and democratic, progressive reforms. And I won't let my own disappointment with some individual Democrats, or any deluge of insults from the right, or any academic labels on a "political compass," change how I feel about being a liberal Democrat.