In an online debate about the meaning of the word liberal, I found myself typing back and forth with another participant. He had read Mark Levin, a commentator who is a couple of big steps above a lot of the conservative bloviators lurking around the infosphere. Mr. Levin had told my counterpart that there is a difference between a leftist and a liberal, so he knew that much; but he was still hazy on some of the finer points of the distinction.
Like a lot of self-styled conservatives, his world view seems to be a mash-up of anything and everything he listens to on talk radio. He tried to say that the distinction between leftist and liberal was slowly and inevitably disappearing. He had the mistaken impression that once voters endorse any tenet or facet of social justice, they are doomed to be sucked into a communist vortex and end up as red, or redder, than Karl Marx.
Democrats, he implied, lack force-of-will, unable to maintain their own beliefs. He characterized most Democrats as statists, which is code for communists.
It is sad to find out how little confidence some people have in their fellow citizens. True, a degree of muddled thinking is clearly prevalent on both sides of the political spectrum these days. Imagine a Venn diagram with lots of voters joining the band wagons and weighting down both extremes, but those people are mis-guided, and they do not define us.
Towards the end of our discussion, and in an attempt to put me back into a more comfortable pigeonhole, my debate friend asked if I consider myself to be a liberal. He was still having trouble with the connotations of the word, but he also wanted me to use it in a definition of myself.
Here is my answer:
I am, and always have been, a Dual Extremist, or, if you prefer, an Extreme Moderate! By the way, I am starting a new club, the Extremely Moderate Club or EMC. I hope you will all join.
I am 1. Conservative on Fiscal issues. We are killing ourselves with huge Deficits. We cannot continue, on both sides of the aisle, to spend big, accumulate interest debt, and pretend the future will bail us out. Our crazy lack of respect for frugality and careful money management makes us the laughingstock of the world, and it makes us more and more vulnerable.
I am 2. Moderate on social issues. In a Democracy, everyone’s voice must be heard, and to the extent fiscally possible, all concerns of all citizens must be addressed. Everybody should be equal before the Law. If that much isn’t true, it isn’t a Democracy anymore.
I am 3. A Liberal. Historically speaking, I am in agreement with the Founding Fathers on the benefits of emphasizing individual freedom, and, like the Founding Fathers, I am idealistically committed to a freer and more egalitarian future.
If you have been keeping score with me, that adds up to one big check mark in all three columns. Like most of us, I suspect!
This is the way!
Thank you for trying to take back the term “liberal”—there is nothing liberating about illiberal push for higher taxes, more subsidies, expanded dependencies, increased rules, and greater concentration of power in the central government.
The following comments and questions are in defense of consumers of conservative talk radio and allied media.
“Conservative bloviators lurking…” Please consider the reasons for the market in criticism of the expansionist and deceitful political class.
You seem to belittle your debate opponent’s world view as a “mashup of anything and everything” from talk radio. Concepts depend on information inputs. “Mashup” suggests undisciplined thought processes. Think it possible that your opponent is capable of discriminating between truth and nonsense sometimes.
Did he tell you that “once any tenet of so-called social justice is accepted,” then it is full bore Marxism or are you assuming that is his belief?
Do you think that his world view is more influenced by conservative talk radio than yours is from subsidized NPR? Do you think one is superior to the other?
You modeled “muddled thinking” in this essay. For example, “everyone’s voice must be heard,” is neither possible nor desirable; we simply defend freedom of speech.
“Freer and more egalitarian…” To achieve more freedom, we need less government. Greater egalitarianism requires more government. The Democrat-media axis has gone far beyond income inequalities and now advocates big government solutions to differences in wealth and other measurements.
The misnomer progressive is another deception to avoid.
Language is an important tool in the re-education of the bourgeois.
Richard, you said, “Thank you for trying to take back the term “liberal”—there is nothing liberating about illiberal push for higher taxes, more subsidies, expanded dependencies, increased rules, and greater concentration of power in the central government.”
You’re welcome!
In response to my words “Conservative bloviators lurking…” and “mashup or anything and everything from talk radio” you said, “Please consider the reasons for the market in criticism of the expansionist and deceitful political class.” and ““Mashup” suggests undisciplined thought processes. Think it possible that your opponent is capable of discriminating between truth and nonsense sometimes.”
We are out of the context of the discussion board and the commentator I mentioned, so you are right to criticize me for criticizing him (gender assumed) here. In order to add back some context (but probably only compounding my original mistake, I will say the following: In the other forum, there are two competing discussion groups. The two boards might easily be characterized as being on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Members on both sides frequently cross over to provide counterpoint and perspective. Neither is what some like to refer to as an “echo chamber”. Good, healthy debate ensues. Bravo all around! However, within the group that one might describe as “conservative” some, not all, strike me as kneejerk knuckleheads. Actually, the same criticism applies equally to the “liberal” group, where some seem to belief the only way to save the world is through socialism. But I digress. In regards to the individual that I criticized in my post, I think I got it right. His prime objective was not to ascertain the difference between “truth and nonsense”. Because he assumed that I am something I am not, his main objective was to belittle anything I had to say. People like that are called trolls. He asked if I consider myself to be a liberal, because he wanted to bait me into an admission that he considered to be damning. I answered his question, both here and there, in the affirmative, but I also attempted to give him some much needed context on what the word means. Furthermore, in case you are wondering, I definately continue to believe that some “conservative” commentators are engaged in rabble rousing to increase their ratings, and I also believe that some of their consumers are less that discerning about the content they are consuming.
To continue, you asked, “Did he tell you that “once any tenet of so-called social justice is accepted,” then it is full bore Marxism or are you assuming that is his belief?”
That is my considered impression, and I am sticking with it. Why else the rampant antipathy some seem to harbor for social justice advocacy?
You asked, “Do you think that his world view is more influenced by conservative talk radio than yours is from subsidized NPR? Do you think one is superior to the other?”
My impression is that some of the knuckleheads get their opinions from extremely questionable internet sources. My impression is, as I have said, that some mainstream “conservative” commentators are rabble rousing for ratings, not mentioning any names (Sean Hannity!). My impression is that NPR is mostly objective. The fact that NPR is subsidized by our tax dollars does make it less objective, but I don’t see NPR as the mouthpiece of socialism. Do you?
You said, “You modeled “muddled thinking” in this essay. For example, “everyone’s voice must be heard,” is neither possible nor desirable; we simply defend freedom of speech.”
Point well taken. I’ll try to do better while, at the same time, still reserving the right to vehemently defend freedom of speech.
You said, ““Freer and more egalitarian…” To achieve more freedom, we need less government. Greater egalitarianism requires more government. The Democrat-media axis has gone far beyond income inequalities and now advocates big government solutions to differences in wealth and other measurements.”
Egalitarianism: the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. If we disagree, we disagree about this: You said egalitarianism “requires” more government. Egalitarianism requires more freedom. N’est-ce pas?
Brother man that was a great article I think you get a Plus.
Thanks Mister Randy!