Posted on 11/28/2003 9:33:49 AM PST by clintonbaiter
According to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, a liberal is someone broad-minded who is not bound by authoritarianism or orthodoxy. Ah, brings to mind benevolent images of the ever-tolerant Paul Begala, doesn't it?
Did someone say open-minded, independent, and understanding? Must be talking about that moderate James Carville -- when he's not interrupting, berating, and screaming at people who disagree with him, that is.
You see, Begala and Carville are liberals in not the dictionary sense but the political sense. They are liberals: leftists who are known as liberal, but are really dogmatically rigid about imposing their interventionist views on everyone else. Luckily, not all liberals are as frightening to look at as Begala and Carville. That's an unfortunate coincidence. But most liberals do share the paradoxically small-minded Begala and Carville traits: they want to severely restrict individual freedom in almost every realm. They have no tolerance for dissent. And their favorite weapon is a most illiberal one: if you don't believe what they believe, they label you "morally bankrupt." Or "evil." Or "Pat Buchanan." [Cue creepy music.]
Sadly, liberals have shown themselves at their least liberal when it comes to speech, the very means of intellectual expression and debate you'd think a liberal would cherish. For example, over the past twenty years, liberal American universities have adopted stiflingly restrictive speech codes in the name of multiculturalism and tolerance and generally shown themselves to be incapable of abiding departures from the prevailing liberal orthodoxy. Hence, Duke University recently shut down a faculty member's web site because the guy dared to support taking powerful military action against terrorism.
Meanwhile, feminist liberals blow a gender-neutral gasket when you suggest a look back at history to inform a discussion. For one thing, they insist on calling the past herstory, which inevitably holds up the debate while everyone stops to giggle. When talking resumes, feminist liberals label any appeals to the wisdom of dead white males misogyny (just because the people happen to be pale, male, and dead folk) and start objecting to terms such as seminal as being phallocentric, which just makes everyone uncomfortable. But more seriously, liberal feminists pride themselves on their efforts to silence dissenting opinions. NOW has been on a "Flush Rush" campaign to have conservative Rush Limbaugh thrown off the air since at least 1995 simply because they don't like what he has to say.
Luckily the most radical phase of the political correctness revolution of the 1980's and 90's seems to have passed -- at least in the real world, if not on college campuses where respectable conservative speakers are still regularly shouted down rather than rationally questioned or debated. But the general liberal tendency to try to stifle dissenting voices is, unfortunately, still with us. Hence the paradox: the same liberals who support affirmative action in the name of creating diversity and reaping the benefits of an infusion of different perspectives are the most vicious and unthinkingly personal attackers of people who hold divergent views about racial preferences. (And, if I may shamelessly plug my alma mater here, nowhere is this truer than at Stanford Law School. So, stop asking me for money, Stanford, it's payback time. You're not getting a penny.)
The truth is that when it comes to most spheres of life, liberals simply cannot stand liberty. It sounds good and all, but too often it gets in the way of having things the way they want them........
(Excerpt) Read more at iconoclast.ca ...
I don't know that the party's over. And you can add libertarians to the bunch that don't know how to debate facts; instead they resort to name calling, tossing slogans, and besmirching the messenger.
The word "liberal" should be tossed in favor of the word "leftist".
Not bad...But I prefer to call them:
And you can add libertarians to the bunch that don't know how to debate facts; instead they resort to name calling, tossing slogans, and besmirching the messenger.
Ouch! I'm fairly "libertarian" and I try my best not to resort to the tactics that you mention. I certainly don't "name-call" or "besmirch" other FReepers though "tossing slogans" is another matter...
There are definitely some "bad apples" around here who wear the label "libertarian" just as there are always bad examples in every group, including among "conservatives". I've gotten into some heated and nasty debates with individuals that have a very similar political philosopy to mine [such as other "libertarians"] and had reasoned and entertaining discussions with individuals that held very different opinions [such as "conservatives"]. I think that it is more a matter of personal conversation style rather than just ideology...
That is exactly what they are.
The term at the turn of the century (19th to 20th) was Lib-Lab. Before that, liberal meant the party that thought the government that governed least, governed best. This was laissez-faire politics.
Then, at the turn of the century, a strange thing happened--liberals formed an alliance with laborites. The popular term back then was Lib-Lab. But it didn't stick, and now what we call "liberal" has nothing to do with it's original meaning. It is anything but liberal in the classic sense.
Calling today's leftist a liberal is to live in a world turned upside-down. I try to avoid the use of the word. I prefer leftist or socialist.
Agreed. All good points. Thank you, stripes1776!
Here is a link regarding the current [mis]use of the word "liberal" if anyone is interested in this issue:
Ending the Liberal Confusion: How Socialist John Dewey Switched Labels - by Jim Peron
I'm all too familiar with the type. They are basically losers who really cannot do well in the real world so get self-righteous and blame the system for their own inadequacies. Other liberals tend to be incurable co-dependents, the kind who live for others to the max if you believe what they say about themselves, but they really want control....they know what you should eat, believe, think, drive, smoke, drink, say. Do it their way or else. They're ready to sue every American corporation for extreme reasons, like Oreos aren't good for you. Basically, they are either lawyers who stand to make a bundle or commies who want to bankrupt American business, all in the name of "caring."
BTW,are you planning to attend the Puget Sound Freeper Potluck Dec 6?
I used to work with a guy like that.
Half the time he was telling me that Bush had stolen the election, was cutting side deals with major corporations (Enron, etc.) and manipulating the public to win support for the war. The other half of time he was explaining how uneducated, unintelligent and inarticulate Bush was.
So according to my coworker, Bush is a Machiavellian genius that can't be trusted to tie his own shoes. It just doesn't add up!
You are probably right. There is no use trying to rationally discuss politics with people that hold such extreme prejudices...
Thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of the central role John Dewey played in redefining liberalism to mean socialism. I have never liked his ideas on education.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.