Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Let's define "liberalism" ...

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
 
cool user name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 03:08 PM
Original message
Let's define "liberalism" ...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0610100318oct10,1,1903801.story (registration required)

...In many quarters, the word "liberal" has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe. As a liberal, I find that appalling.

In that light, I thought it might be interesting to try to articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define "liberal" today. Undoubtedly, not all liberals embrace all of these propositions, and many conservatives embrace at least some of them.

Moreover, because 10 is a small number, the list is not exhaustive. And because these propositions will in some instances conflict, the "liberal" position on a specific issue may not always be predictable. My goal, however, is not to end discussion, but to invite debate.

1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others... Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.

2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference... (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)

...

4. Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as "conservatives," share this value with liberals.)

5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual... It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people.

6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate...

7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith...

8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties...

9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false...

...

Are these propositions meaningful? Are they helpful? Are they simply wrong? As a liberal, how would you change them or modify the list? As a conservative, how would you draft a similar list for conservatives?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cool user name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Damn this sank ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. Steve Kangas' "Liberalism Resurgent" site did a good job
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/tenets.htm

RIP, Mr. Kangas, the world needs you now more than ever, but all we have is the words you wrote years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
some guy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. hey cool - Thanks!
okay, scrap much of what I put in my other post; going to the link in your thread, I came across this:

(How does Liberalism differ from Socialism) " Socialism means that workers, not private owners, would own and control the means of production: factories, farmland, machinery, and so on. In democratic elections, workers would vote for 1) their supervisors, 2) their representatives to a local and national council of their industry or service, and 3) their representatives to a central congress representing all the industries and services. "

Pretty much everything I've ever read about Socialism makes sense to me, but I've always been left with the question of how the structure is held together, and how does a Socialist society eliminate the leaches - those who would enjoy the benefits, without making efforts.

So that gives me an answer to the structural portion of my question. Yay!

- Ken, who is leaning a bit more toward Socialism now, but still needs some learning. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. no prob - always fun to lob the ol' LR ball on this topic
There's definitely plenty of ammo for your quick response cannon on that site, but if you find yourself leaning more towards socialism, you might want to try a focused site like marxists.org, do a little more reading and see what you think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cool user name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Nothing wrong with Socialism ..
It's democratic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Didn't say there was
and http://www.marxists.org/ is an excellent site to learn more about it.

Seriously. They have a lot of excellent primary source material, along with a well-written encyclopedia of terms used in discussing the bases of key philosophic, economic, and historic concepts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Many people will never accept this definition of Socialism and you
Edited on Sat Oct-21-06 04:49 PM by patrice
can't force them, no matter how right you are.

I think we should begin the political discussion of Socialism with the simple fact that "the group" has basic responsibilities to the individual. Why should any individual make him/her-self part of a group, abide by group mores and rules, unless there is a quid pro quo? This is an economic fact that anyone can accept. Let's work on that.

How those responsibilities are worked out, how they are defined, what they constitute, will have to be indentified in the political process. At present they are defined only as money and that is not enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. it's important for people to get clear on socialism and liberalism
whether or not we agree with the tenets of socialism or liberalism, or any particular interpretation of it, the right wing in this country has gained huge and undeserved ground by conflating the two, building on a (at least partially justified) distrust of Soviet-style communism. If we really want to reframe the debate this time around, we have to challenge distortions and propagandistic confusions as they arise in conversation, and understand when we are discussing which.

We have an obligation to object when we're conversing with those who confuse Democratic party policies with socialism, and/or modern socialism with Stalinism or Maoism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. I think there are many things people disagree with that they also agree
with. There are no absolutes.

For example, people reflexively reject "Socialism" (although there are a whole lot of ways that term can be defined, they usually think there is only one and they reject that), but if you were to ask such people if they think that by virtue of the fact that an individual chooses to become part of a group, the group owes that individual something for his/her participation in and support of the group. They would not object to an effort to define the obligations of the group to the individual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. it is the nature of those perceived obligations that divide us
If one believes the group owes the individual respect and care in their juvenile, elder or unfortunate years regardless of economic means or social status, one arrives at a much different political consciousness than that which arises from a belief that the group owes the individual according to their wealth or heritage.

Few object to the effort itself; it is only in the results achieved through this effort that we find discord.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
some guy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
24. I can agree
with the basic group responsibility to individuals argument. I've read some of the arguments from the early 20th century advocating Socialism, but hadn't come across anything that identified any sort of decision making process, and how that was structured, so I've always been stuck at, "yeah, sounds nice, how does it work? How does it hold together?"

That's a very weak advocacy position to be in, if you can't even answer your own basic question. And foolish to try to make up an answer, and then find the made-up answer isn't anything like the actual Socialist-viewpoint answer.

So, while I've long been somewhat fond of the idea of Socialism, I've certainly never made any effort to advocate the idea.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "At present they are defined only as money and that is not enough." - but if you're speaking of how does a society quantify (as example) the value of x amount of time spent building homes vs y amount of time spent providing health care to a member of the society; yeah, that also becomes an issue with its own entire set of complications built in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. Thanks for the reminder, good site
I remember when he first put it together, but didn't realize he had passed. How sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. nothing wrong with the good old dictionary
ORIGIN Middle English : via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man).’
- open to new behavior or opinions
- favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
- favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform
- given, used, or occurring in generous amounts

Thesaurus
tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened; permissive, free, free and easy, easygoing, libertarian, indulgent, lenient, a liberal social agenda progressive, advanced, modern, forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressivist, enlightened, reformist, radical, wide-ranging, broad-based, flexible, broad, loose, rough, free, general, abundant, copious, ample, plentiful, generous, lavish, luxuriant, profuse, considerable, prolific, rich, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting, ungrudging, lavish, free, munificent, bountiful, beneficent, benevolent, bighearted, philanthropic, charitable, altruistic, unselfish.

Go look up Conservative.. hahahahhahahaha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
some guy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. meanimgful?
I dislike that word, so I'm skipping over that. Helpful? Yes.

Since you left out 3 & 10, and I dislike registering on sites, so won't register at that one to read those two items, I don't know if this is mentioned or not:

As a liberal, I believe natural persons should be accorded more stature than artifical persons. i.e. I don't think corporations or any legally constructed entity should have the same rights as natural persons.

Walt Disney was a person; he formed a corporation and named it Disney. If corporations and persons were truly equal, Disney the corporation would have died at the time Disney the man died. But it survives, and thrives, enjoing virtually all the rights of humans, with the additional benefit of potential immortality. That is obscene.

I have been thinking lately, I should take the time to write up what I believe, and what it means to me to be a liberal, partly to have something in-hand that I could give to poeple when they speak the word liberal with disdain, partly just to help focus my thoughts for myself, so thanks for posting this - in that sense it is helpful, at least to me.

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cool user name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Awesome post.
Yes, I agree with you about the corporation.

It is OBSCENE!

I also think that a liberal thing to do is to ensure that all people don't have to die or get sick or go bankrupt because they are of ill health and no ability to pay.

I think it is very liberal to make sure that healthcare is provided to all people regardless of ability to pay.

Free Healthcare.

I copied this post from another forum so I don't know what the missing entries are. I, like you, don't register at sites. (Sign of the times)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. For more on corporate personhood, check out Thom Hartmann
Unequal Protection has his critique of the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company SCOTUS decision which "established" corporate personhood as legal precedent. There's also a great video you may be able to find with him giving an extended talk on the subject, as well as constitutional law and the intent of the framers and revolutionaries. I'll post a link if I come across it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cool user name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Our Secret History of Corporations:
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
First published January 2001

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controlled the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.

In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court's decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court's attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passedto circumvent the Dartmouth ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people's message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state's powers over "artificial bodies."

But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation's resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.

The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment--a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public's resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.

Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid "borers" to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largesse. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters. Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.

(snipped)

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. found audio of the Hartmann talk on corporate personhood
http://www.philosopherseed.org/mp3.htm - about 1/4 of the way down the page, from Sept. 2004,
A RETURN TO DEMOCRACY
part 1, 27 minutes
part 2, 32 minutes
part 3, 16 minutes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cool user name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Fantastic ... bookmarking that and I'll listen later.
Thank you!

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
some guy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
22. have it.
read it.

Not doing very well on the "Model Ordinances to Rescind Corporate Personhood" part of the book though. :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
State the Obvious Donating Member (561 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
7. How about President Kennedy's definintion of "Liberal".
(from a 1960's speech in New York...)

What is a "Liberal"?

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 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".



(The rest of the speech is great, too...)

http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/whatis.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
12. I am not even sure alot of Republicans would disagree with this list
They might have their exceptions, but other than #6 I think most Conservatives would not view these as liberal-conservative differentiators.

I think some time that boths sides do more electoral good for themselvess when they try to define the pther guys more than when they try and define themselves.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
14. The under-lying fact that is fundamental to much of what is listed in the
Edited on Sat Oct-21-06 04:58 PM by patrice
OP is this: Liberals are Inclusive. This is an essential characteristic of Liberalism.

Conservatives are exclusive.

Because Liberals are Inclusive, Socialism, the recognition of the obligations of the group to included individuals, is one of its natural manifestations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
17. False. "Liberal" was made a "perjorative" by Limbaugh, Gingrich, Luntz and
Edited on Sat Oct-21-06 05:02 PM by omega minimo
the whole Contract on America gang.


"In many quarters, the word "liberal" has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe."

Not true. It was an orchestrated effort by master propagandists.



(now it's called "framing") :yoiks:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. We haven't said why Liberals defend the Civil Rights of Homosexuals.
It is assumed that we do so because we are, according to some, "moral degenerates". The ignorant and intellectually lazy accept the argument in the terms they hear and we haven't done anything about that.

They need to hear things like: Liberals defend the Civil and Human Rights of Homosexuals, because that is best for everyone, best even for those who think homosexuality is bad. Groups of any kind and the state must not impose their answers to questions about individual sexuality because it simply doesn't work. Since it doesn't work, the unhappy individual harms the group even while functioning "acceptably" within it. In order to be happy, the individual must figure their sexuality out for him/herself. Liberals defend this right to self-determination because it's good for the individual and hence for the group.

I don't know if that works well enough, but what I'm trying to say here is that Liberals have to make the case that self-determination is better than conformity and, hence, if a person is truly Homosexual it is *good* for them to live that way, because it is less damaging to the person and, hence, to the group. The Gay community has been saying this all along, but it would be a step forward if your garden variety hetero-Liberal would say, "Honesty is the most important thing when it comes to intimate interpersonal relationships. Heterosexuality is not inherently good. Heterosexuality can be bad. Homosexuality is not inherently bad. Homosexuality can be good."

end of rant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. IMHO if liberals defended the civil rights of women, the rest would follow
Also IMHO it is shortsighted to fight for "civil rights" of homosexuals without that integral step. It is the male/female power dynamic that the status quo is hell bent on maintaining. When women are equal and free, all other gender relationships will be also.

See?

However, the argument is being "framed" as "civil rights" for homosexuals and appears to be making some headway.


I agree that liberals could better convey priorities, but my post was responding to the claim that liberals are to blame for "liberal" becoming a "perjorative" which is not true.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Well the two, women and homosexuals, are related to the principle
I was suggesting "Self determination is good for the individual and, hence, good for the group." So I don't see it as either the rights of women or the rights of homosexuals.

Self determination is better than blind obediance and conformity; we need to say how and why that's true in concrete terms of specific issues.

But more importantly I'm saying Liberals should talk about what is Good and WHY what is Good IS Good and why what we say is Good is BETTER than what "the other side" says is good. We should describe our morality in terms of the issues. The "other side" has the Bible and everything about good and bad is based on that. We need to talk about how and why we value what we value in much more detail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-21-06 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
19. Here ...


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 Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:21 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