When did "liberal" become a dirty word; Part II

I feel the need to clarify that I don't consider myself to be liberal. Actually, I call myself apolitical. I vote for the person who I believe best represents me (even if that happens to be nobody). In fact; I don't even vote for parties in federal elections; I try to remain as ignorant as possible of what a given party platform is, and focus upon the individual I'm voting for. That's probably part of the reason why I'd vote for my current MP, if I were actually planning to vote in the next Canadian Federal Election (which I'm not). Not because he's a member of the Conservative party; but because he's doing a decent job as MP.

For my Canadian readers, I also feel the need to specify that when I mention liberals and conservatives, I mean lower-case "l" and "c" respectively; I'm talking about the political view, and not the political party.

And finally, I feel the need to quote someone smarter than me; so I will:

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."

John F. Kennedy said this in what was arguably a more enlightened time; when being labeled as a "liberal" wasn't the political kiss of death that it apparently is today.

But seriously; why is being labeled as a "liberal" such a bad thing? It's such a bad thing, apparently, that they've had to come up with a whole new name for themselves: "progressives." Liberals ended slavery in America; got women the right to vote; got African-Americans the right to vote; they gave same-sex couples the right to marry in Canada and in Massachusetts (and hopefully, coming soon to a neighborhood near you); they created medicare; they passed the Civil Rights act and the Voter's Rights act; they ended segregation.

Now, I feel the need to again clarify, I'm not a liberal; but frankly, many who eargerly label themselves as such have accomplished some pretty decent things. All of those things I listed above: they were actively blocked by conservatives.

In the interest of fairness, conservatives have also accomplished great things. Nixon ended the Vietnam war, Reagan ended the cold war, Bush (Sr.) ended Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and then did something that Bush Jr. hasn't yet figured out how to do: he went the hell home. Nobody likes to send their country to war, but at least Bush Sr. had a decent excuse for doing it.

I've had some people ask me what my political views are: my answer is pretty simple: I do what makes sense. I don't believe that "because it's always been done this way" is a good reason to keep doing it. Sometimes "the way it's always been done" is still a good way of doing things; sometimes it isn't. Either way, I don't belive that we can make decisions based upon tradition. Saying that we need to keep doing something in one particular way because that's worked in the past is, frankly, stupid. For example: I support government-sponsored daycare; something which is viewed as a typically-liberal position, provided that there is a requirement that those using the service have a job while they're using it. Frankly, I'm not gonna pay taxes so that someone out there can unload his or her kid, then sit at home and watch Oprah. But, if provide daycare service to people who are not working because they have to stay home and take care of the kids; we now have people who are making taxable revenue; thereby increasing government income, allowing the government to provide more services like government-sponsored daycare.

I like to call myself a "reasonist." I do what's reasonable; no more, no less.

When did "liberal" become a dirty word?

Before I begin, want to make very clear that I don't consider myself to be a liberal. I don't consider myself to be conservative. I do, however, consider myself to be a free thinker. The simplest way I can think of to put my beliefs is that I don't believe that "because it's always been done this way" is a good enough reason to keep doing it. Which, I suppose, makes me nonconservative, by definition. On the other hand, I also believe in smaller, responsible government; I believe in spending what we have, not what we want to have; all of which are traditionally conservative views. I believe that we need to be careful with our funds, but progressive in the social arena. I believe in a woman's right to choose; but that the husband should be allowed some say in the matter. I believe that government should be small, but not so small that it can fit into its citizen's bedrooms. As I understand it, that puts me pretty much smack-dab in the middle of the political spectrum.

Next, I want to point out that I personally reject the whole concept of labels. I'm Drew MacCannell; I'm not "Straight, White, Male, Biophysicist." Although all those things apply to me, they aren't who I am.

But a lot of people in the political arena, particularly in the US, have been demonizing their opponents by slapping the label "Liberal" on them; but for some reason that I cannot fully ascertain, slapping the exact opposite label carries no such stigma.

One of the worst things that can happen in any political campaign is to be painted as an extremist at either end of the political spectrum; and with good reason: extremists of all political slants are kinda scary. What worries me, is what, exactly, is labeled as "extremist."

The US is currently in the midst of a political quagmire as they try to decide who will step into Sandra Day-O'conner's seat on the Supreme court. Bush has nominated Harriet Miers; which is actually a far more reasonable choice than I'd dared to expect from our illustrious president; her lack of judicial experience notwithstanding. Her political views seem to be largely middle-groundish. She's in favor of gay rights (although she hasn't voiced any opinion on same-sex marriage yet); she's danced around the issue of abortion; she seems to favor separation of church and state. Although, I hasten to add, she's got no judicial experience; ergo it is nearly impossible to determine her views on many issues simply because we have no rulings to base such an assessment upon.

Far more interesting that Miers' actual views on the issues is the reaction of Bush's conservative base. Somewhat surprisingly, a number of Conservative groups; not the least of which being Focus on the Family, have been absolutely adamant that Miers is not what they're looking for. They went on to invoke current sitting justice Antonin Scalia by name, announcing that they wanted another justice with his views installed.

Now, I'm scared.

Antonin Scalia is quite possibly the single most terrifying Supreme Court Justice currently sitting on America's highest court. To describe him as conservative is a massive understatement of his actual views. He has repeatedly voted against Roe v. Wade, and has risen several times against the separation of church and state, the rights of minorities (including gay and lesbian couples). He was one of only two who voted against the supreme court decision that a gay man could not be arrested for sexual activity within his own home.

And what really scares me is that asking for another Scalia on the supreme court seems to strike much of the political clout in the US as perfectly reasonable.

How did it happen that being even marginally liberal somehow meant that you hated everything that America stands for; but being radically conservative didn't? How did it happen that being slapped with the label "liberal" was the ultimate kiss of death for your political future, but being slapped with the label "conservative" wasn't?

As previously mentioned; my political views sit, as I understand them, pretty much in the middle; but in the US, I may as well be a radical left-winger. There's a view which is becoming scarily prevalent, that you're either conservative or you're not. It seems as if it's suddenly becoming acceptable to shift to the extreme right wing, to the level of extreme protectionism, homophobia, and barely-veiled racism, but if you shift to the left of Alan Keyes, you're a radical leftist.

Suffice it to say, my trip down to the states this christmas will be interesting.

Ponderings of a Radical Left-winger.

I've always considered myself sort of apolitical. Entirely apolitical, actually. Conservative, Liberal, whatever. I didn't vote in the last Canadian federal election because it was basically a choice between moran A or moron B. Although, I confess, my opinion of my MP has gone up a few points since he decided to come down in favor of gay marriage, against the official position of his party; and the bulk of his riding. Good for him.

I did, however, vote in the US election last year. Although, admittedly, neither candidate was a particularly good choice; it was pretty clear to me that Bush was a bad one. Not to put too fine a point on it or anything, but Bush frankly scares me. I didn't vote Democrat because I have any particular love of the Democratic party. I didn't vote Democrat because I hate the Republican party. I voted for Kerry because I hate Bush. There's a difference. There's something really scary about the single most powerful man in the world thinking that he owes God for getting him out of alcoholism and a couple of DUI indictments. Bush, who came in under the label of "compassionate conservative" has shifted significantly to the point of being a "Right Wing Freak of Nature."

Actually, come to think of it, the whole political spectrum has shifted to the right in the US. As I mentioned before, I consider myself to be a middle-of-the-road political type; but by many people's standards (I'm related to quite a few of them), I'm a frothing, radical, left-winger.

How did it happen (and, not to put too fine a point on it, it has happened) that you could shift as far as you want to the right of the political spectrum; to the point of blatant homophobia, extreme protectionism, arduous Bible-thumping, and barely-veiled racism; and still be part of the mainstream; when if you shift to the left of Alan Keyes, you're a radical left-winger.

Seriously, let's take a look a what I, apparently a radical leftist, believe in: I believe in providing health care for our citizens, especially children; I believe in allowing two people of the same gender to have legal recognition of their relationship; I belive in allowing women the medical option of teminating their pregnancy; I believe that it's abhorrent that in order to be a serious candidate for presidency in a country which is supposed to have separation of church and state, you have to be a religious person; I believe in fairness and equality for all citizens, regardless of race, religion, age, gender or orientation; I believe in not allowing the elderly to rot after they retire, in providing them with some help in their declining years; I believe in my right to cry when I watch Bambi without being called a pansy; I believe in my right to do what makes me happy, provided that I harm nobody else; I believe in the right of someone else to announce at the top of their lungs that they think that everything I believe is stupid; and most of all, I believe that the purpose of law is to protect one's rights, not to limit them. If these things make me a radical left-winger by someone's very warped standards, so be it; I also believe in their right to slap that kind of a label on me.