The L Word: Liberal

[byro]

Why is "liberal" a four-letter word in mainstream America?

I remember, many years ago (1988?), when GHW Bush debated Dukakis and repeatedly taunted him for being a liberal. Bush eventually, cutely, started calling it "the L word" and the crowd ate it up. Dukakis ran from the "accusation" like a bunny in a shooting gallery, thereby affirming Bush's supposition that being a liberal was a bad thing. The same thing happened when Kerry ran for president; he defended his presumed non-liberalness more vigorously than he did his record in Vietnam.

In the political arena as a whole, the word "liberal" has not just been degraded, but transmorgified into an epithet (often preceded by the words "tax and spend"). A few months ago, AOL had a poll, asking, "Is John McCain conservative enough?", but it's unimaginable that they would ever ask, "Is Obama/Clinton liberal enough?" Even now, I read repeatedly that Obama presumably has the most liberal record in the Senate and that "information" is used to dismiss him as being "out of step with America."

Given that a majority of Americans want out of Iraq, believe tax cuts to the wealthiest should be repealed, want Social Security and Medicare to be preserved, favor universal health care and are strongly in favor of initiatives to combat climate change -- all of which are positions held by liberals -- how did liberalism come to be so denigrated? (Especially given that so many "conservatives" in recent years have become rampaging radicals.) Now it's not safe even to use the word "liberal"; Obama calls himself a "progressive" -- presumably out of necessity.

Just once I'd love to hear a liberal in a Presidential debate say something like:

-Liberals opposed slavery and in some cases died protecting runaway slaves.
-Liberals fought for voting rights for women and blacks.
-Liberals decriminalized interracial marriage and repealed Jim Crow.
-If you like/need Social Security and Medicare, you have liberals to thank for having established them in the first place.
-If you enjoy the civil rights afforded you by the Warren Supreme Court you also have liberals to thank.
-FDR was a liberal.
-Eleanor Roosevelt was a liberal.
-Gandhi was a liberal.
-Martin Luther King was a liberal.
-If being a liberal puts me in the same category as these people, then thank you for the supreme compliment.

But no. Whoever gets the Democratic nomination will be "tarred" with the brush of liberalism and will run from the label as though it's synonymous with "pederast." It's yet another example of how brilliantly the right wing of the Republican party (is there any other wing now?) has established and continues to dominate the terms of "debate" over the past few decades.

Is "liberal" a word that can ever be re-claimed for mainstream America? Are Democrats still haunted by McGovern's landslide loss? And given Americans' stands on the issues cited above, can a liberal Democrat (whatever he may call himself) actually get elected President of the United States?

 

[JackFTwist]

it may take years for that word to be in favor again, whether because of 1972 or what

good post

 

[byro]

I always refer to myself as a liberal and people often give me a startled look, like they're surprised I would admit it.

 

[Bruski-101]

IF BEING LIBERAL IS A BAD THING. I'm guilty and will fight to keep that (label) freedom that is so precious as persons are dying in the name of freedom.Just because someone says something doesn't make it law.I'm very tired of the way it has been during the current addministration and all must stop the appathy.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Is "liberal" a word that can ever be re-claimed for mainstream America? Are Democrats still haunted by McGovern's landslide loss? And given Americans' stands on the issues cited above, can a liberal Democrat (whatever he may call himself) actually get elected President of the United States?

Probably not.

I too have struggled with the word Liberal.

As you stated in one of your other posts in this forum, 'Mainstream Americans are more centrist than of either of the two idealogies.'

I paraphrased, but that's how I remembered your comments.

The L word is has now become a divisive term to contrast against "conservative" ideals. Without of course, outlining the hypocrisy and shortcomings within the premise of conservatism.

Notice how there are "Social Conservatives," and "Fiscal Conservatives," but only one type of Liberal; "tax and spend?"

Short of the "credit crunch" within out country, most Americans are expected to pay their debts, but "Conservatives" just keep printing money, and passing the debt off several generations down the line. As if the tab for their drunken spending spree will never come to an end.

Where's the logic in "cut-taxes, and continue to spend" Conservative?

As I'm sure you know, Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat from New Jersey and the 28th POTUS was a product of the "Progressive Era."

Even though the era was said to have ended in 1913, many Americans up to World War II called themselves "progressives."

Look at the changes that took place in the early 20th Century under the Progressive Era | Movement, quoted from the same source/link above:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By the beginning of the twentieth century, muckraking journalists were calling attention to the exploitation of child labor, corruption in city governments, the horror of lynching, and the ruthless business practices employed by businessmen like John D. Rockefeller.

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At the local level, many Progressives sought to suppress red-light districts, expand high schools, construct playgrounds, and replace corrupt urban political machines with more efficient system of municipal government. At the state level, Progressives enacted minimum wage laws for women workers, instituted industrial accident insurance, restricted child labor, and improved factory regulation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At the national level, Congress passed laws establishing federal regulation of the meat-packing, drug, and railroad industries, and strengthened anti-trust laws. It also lowered the tariff, established federal control over the banking system, and enacted legislation to improve working condition.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Four constitutional amendments were adopted during the Progressive era, which authorized an income tax, provided for the direct election of senators, extended the vote to women, and prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages.[/FONT]

Where were the "Conservatives" while all of those changes were taking place?

It was more about what they weren't doing, than what they should have been doing.

“Many middle-class Americans came to believe that individual freedom in the hands of big businessmen had become a perverted thing and would destroy the country,” he said. “Progressivism grew out of a belief that market forces—a society of free individuals doing whatever they wanted to do—was hopelessly inadequate and destructive. The most difficult thing for liberals and conservatives to square is the liberal insistence that a better society has to come at the cost of rejecting certain kinds of individual freedom, and also requires saying that some people ought to mold and shape others.

Source: America’s progressive visions sparked persisting conservative backlash

The only group holding the the true mantle of "conservatives" these days are the Libertarians within our political system, and honestly there aren't enough of them.

Many argue, along with the Author pointed out in the link above, believe that our politics are very much rooted in the "Progressive Era," and the backlash that ensued due to it.

I think that he has a point.

However, the so called "Conservatives" within this country, say one thing and do the opposite.

I think that the pendulum is swinging back toward the middle again. Or at least I hope that it is.

But I agree with you.

Those "left of center, or even moderates for that matter" shouldn't run from the tag "Liberal" they should embrace and contrast that tag against what conservatives have done, and what they've being doing to correct our shortcomings in the areas of public education, our financial institutions, our labor laws, our civil rights and our civil liberties, and foreign policy, and the list goes on.

Sometimes there's nothing liberal about being Progressive.

What I fear, is a backlash against Conservative principles and ideals.

We should take what has worked, and build on those programs, and principles, and chuck the rest from both idealogies.

If that makes me a "Liberal" then, sticks and stones...

Go thread topic!

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ Unless Kulindahr is on vacation, I anticipate you will get a post about the other L-word.

I'm counting on a response from Kuli on my post.

Are you accusing me of baiting?



Oh, you were responding to bb1988.

 

[sunoftheskye]

I was just thinking about this. No one uses the word "conservative" as an insult, unless you're in a group of liberals.

 

[LaloGS]

There isn't a conservative alive in this country that even has a clue about what conservatism is about. They talk about Tax and Spend Liberals, yet statistics show "Conservative" governments have spent more than all "Liberal" governments combined, and GWB's conservative government has spent, or has caused to be spent into the future more than all presidents in our history from both parties combined. And he has done it while cutting taxes to the wealthy and corporations to the detrement of the middle class and lower classes. Additionally, he has cut budget support for infrastructure and education and health care. and would have destroyed Social Security if Congress had let him, so FUCK Conservatives who throw tax and spent at liberals. The fact that he gets away with it just illustrates how FUCKING ignorant and STUPID Repuglicans are, and how stupid and ignorant they believe the American people are.

I prefer the term left wing to liberal, because it has been more accurate throughout history. There are many "liberals" who are far more conservative (using the true meaning of the word) in their thinking than any so called Repuglican conservative, who aren't conservative at all. If our educational system hadn't been trashed by the "conservative" Repuglicans, maybe ordinary Americans would be able to think critically for themselves as to just what a liberal is compared to what a conservative actually is. A scumbag hiding behind ignorance and ideology, without a soul. Spawn of the devil if you ask me.

Remember Conservative Repuglicans are right wing. So was Hitler a right wing dictator. Liberals are left wing. At one time America was left wing enough to oppose Hitler. But the right wing repuglicans have taken the county to the same side as Hitler. Makes you feel good don't it booby?

 

[G-Lexington]

Liberals and lesbians are a lot alike. They're both phases that one is supposed to outgrow once one leaves college.

...thank you very much! I'll be here all week!

Lex

 

[Letterbomb]

I am a liberal (once a libertarian) and proud of it, I am also a pacifist, but I will fight for my beliefs and values to the death.

 

[Ben1]

In all societys "liberal" is a good word. Liberal is humanism. Only the American Society thinks, it is a swear word. Of course, guys, NOT YOU.
Would Senator Obama say, he is liberal? What do you think?

 

[byro]

No, I think he calls himself a progressive, as most liberals do these days. The word "liberal" has become so tainted it's radioactive.

 

[Nishin]

Liberals... socialists... all synonyms for COMUNISTS... no?

 

[Letterbomb]

Liberals... socialists... all synonyms for COMUNISTS... no?

No. But I used to think socialists were the same as communists. They ain't.

 

[LaloGS]

So all those "conservatives" who are fed up with their party's elected officials have no clue either?

You obviously don't understand the difference between a Republican and a Repuglican Jav. Repuglicans are no better than Nazis.

I have not once ever attacked true Republicans who I believe are fine, honest, upstanding, Americans, who understand American values and ideals. Unfortunately, they have been a bit dimwitted to allow the Repuglicans to take over their party, which has put America on the slippery slope of decline.

If you understood what you read in my post (which is obvious you didn't) you would have got that Republicans ought to be fighting with the Democrats this time around to call for the prosecution of Repuglicans, if they believe in America. If you are still calling yourself a Republican and still support the Repuglicans, then you have joined the bastards, and ought to realize it and change your party affiliation to Repuglican. Because you are part of the problem, and not part of the solution for saving the America we know to be true. Get it? Probably not, because Repuglicans don't know how to think for themselves. They just spout the party propaganda.

 

[construct]

I generally describe myself as a leftist rather than a liberal. "Leftist" raises even more eyebrows.

 

[byro]

^ Right. "Leftist" has a vaguely European/borderline Commie feel to it. A leftist might hurl a molotov cocktail at any minute!

 

[LaloGS]

^ Right. "Leftist" has a vaguely European/borderline Commie feel to it. A leftist might hurl a molotov cocktail at any minute!

That's partly what's wrong. There are no Molotov throwing leftys anymore. They are all too enamored of their stuff to risk losing it to backlash by Nazis in government.

 

[Sammie13]

Why is "liberal" a four-letter word in mainstream America?

Given that a majority of Americans want out of Iraq, believe tax cuts to the wealthiest should be repealed, want Social Security and Medicare to be preserved, favor universal health care and are strongly in favor of initiatives to combat climate change -- all of which are positions held by liberals -- how did liberalism come to be so denigrated? (Especially given that so many "conservatives" in recent years have become rampaging radicals.) Now it's not safe even to use the word "liberal"; Obama calls himself a "progressive" -- presumably out of necessity.


Is "liberal" a word that can ever be re-claimed for mainstream America? Are Democrats still haunted by McGovern's landslide loss? And given Americans' stands on the issues cited above, can a liberal Democrat (whatever he may call himself) actually get elected President of the United States?

I interviewed George McGovern in 1984 and he told me that liberal would be mainstream in US politics within 10 years!!! How wrong was he!!!

I doubt it will return in the next 20 years. Maybe...but not likely.

Byro...this is great topic and post, but I just don't agree with your laundry list of what the American majority thinks on current issues.

Yeah, the war--60% oppose--agree.

But most of your issues, you're spinning them the liberal way...crafty wording that one would easily support on the surface, but that doesn't speak the whole truth of the issue. Americans as a kneejerk don't like tax cuts for the rich, but they don't mind tax cuts if they understand that it wasn't done as a "thank you" to rich people but rather to allow the economy to be stimulated and re-investments by the people who have the money. Which will stimulate the economy more? A lower middle class person who gets $200 more back or a upper class person who gets $10000 back from the government? Corp tax cuts that create jobs and allow for more equipment to be purchased or maybe even incents a company not to send their operation overseas are more important than low income tax cuts.

Social security and medicare are breaking the backs of US taxpayers and the government ....and universal health care and climate control iniatives will be incredibly costly...if the voter understands this, he often backs down from supporting these ideals. These ideals sound great on a superficial level until you realize the real costs of such programs and entitlements. How many more manufacturing jobs, etc will be lost due to climate regulatory issues? Universal health care would potentially be the costliest entitlement since Medicare and Social Security. And we can't afford those 2 programs right now. With boomers getting older, another generation will be saddled with even more liberal expenditures than our generation already must endure.

Problems do need to be solved, and the public sector is how we must resolve more problems. I do believe govt oversight is critical because you really can't trust corporate America to do the right thing unless they are watched carefully. But, we can't live without a viable, profitable corporate presence in this country. Sometimes I think liberals would just assume eliminate jobs and profit, and just live in utopia. We are a working culture, not an entitlement culture....and liberalism died because hard-working Americans began to see that their hard-earned money was supporting a welfare state....a place where people would become apathetic, declare themselves a 'victim' and live off the government for good. I'm not saying all these programs are bad, but they've veered way off course from their good intentions. Liberals overall don't seem to seek innovative ways to resolve problems, but rather just want to throw money at it and perpetuate the welfare state.

And yes, conservatives, esp Bush, have been fiscally irresponsible, too. They can't bring spending under control because of their fondness for defense spending.

I'm not anti-progressive, but there is a clear reason why the financial community is never liberal. Sometimes, the Dems get it right...Bill Clinton mainly with a Republican congress did a fantastic job on fiscal responsibility....Bush 43 has been clueless and primarily with own Republican congress.

So, will America lean back toward liberalism? I don't think so...regular people began to understand that all the goodies in the Santa bag during election season come with a big price tag.
</IMG></IMG>

 

[Yngbldhwk]

The dictionary definition of liberal uses descriptions such as "broad minded," "not bound by authoritarianism," "generous," and "tolerant." Not exactly pejorative terms. I'm a "liberal" and quite proud of it. It's unfortunate that the word "liberal" has become a dirty word, and not not what it used to mean colloquially.

I'm afraid I have to question the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy are more of a stimulus than for the lower and middle class citizen. Approximately two thirds of the US economy is consumer driven, and there are far more lower- and middle-income Americans than wealthy ones. They're the group that's going to spend any tax rebate almost immediately, and not the rich. The rich spend money whenever they want and not because of a tax break. They can do that because they're rich.

As far as business investment goes, tax breaks have very little effect. I can't think of many small or large businesses that plan their development strategy based on a tax break, or the promise of one. This isn't solely my opinion. It's also that of President Bush's first treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill. He oughta' know; he ran Alcoa for over a decade. (O'Neill was also known as being probably the most intelligent person in Bush's cabinet during his first term. Characteristically, he along with the other moderates like Christie Todd Whitman and Colin Powell were marginalized almost from the start.)

It's true that Medicare and Social Security are expensive entitlement programs. It's also true, I think, that they've substantially raised the quality of life in this country, which is something that government, as an entity, ought to be about and focused on. Actually, there would be ample funding for both programs if we weren't flushing $1.8 Billion a week into the sinkhole of Iraq.

Lawrence Lindsay, Bush's economic adviser in 2002, was savagely attacked by the administration for daring to suggest that the occupation of Iraq -- and that's what it is -- could cost up to $200 Billion. What an irony, considering that current upward estimates are now around $2 to $3 trillion. To put that in perspective, the gross domestic product of the entire country was $13.8 Trillion last year.

It won't be Medicare and social programs that break the back of the economy, or future generations of taxpayers. Now, and for some time to come, it will be Iraq. All of this -- the astonishing costs, the dead and maimed US solders, the more than 100,000 Iraqis (about half of which were children under the age of 18 years old) killed -- might have been avoided if the commander in chief had been a more open-minded, questioning, tolerant, and less ideologically bound person. But that would smack of "liberalism." And we don't want that, do we?