Copyright 2023 by Wes Peterson
Liberal is NOT a dirty word
Although it’s common on the right to disparage liberals, I’d like to clear up a misunderstanding. Over time, our words change. That’s the nature of language.
Kindly give me a moment to explain.
The title I’m using was inspired by an article by Richard Haass that appeared on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. Haass blames populism, and nationalism for the demise of liberalism. I think he’s mistaken.
I think we can get an idea of what’s really going on if we consider our history.
The founders (flawed though they were) of our nation (flawed though it is) were liberals, radical liberals. Between our Declaration of Independence, and our Bill of Rights, we have the most eloquent expressions of liberalism that the world had yet seen.
Our forebears rejected the oppressive notion of monarchy and instituted a government of, by, and for the people. Underpinning it all were the radical premises that the people could be trusted and had a right to govern themselves.
The very first amendment in our Bill of Rights, recognizes essential freedoms. I chose that word carefully, “recognizes”, not “gives.” Words matter. The authors of those essential documents were writers, educated, and highly literate. If you doubt that, go back and read their other writings in The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. They wrote deliberately and eloquently. They wrote well.
Scour the Bill of Rights and see if you can find words like “give,” or “grant,” or any other hint that the founders thought that our rights come from the government. They didn’t think that at all. That’s a very illiberal notion. What you’ll find, instead, are clear boundaries, and prohibitions on the government from restricting our preexisting rights.
That wasn’t merely liberal, it was downright radical in its day. And it defines the kind of liberal that I consider myself.
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press; the idea that the people could be trusted to choose better ideas over bad ones. If there is a more core principle in liberalism, I’m waiting to be persuaded of it.
And it is dying, if not already dead.
We are told that “the left” is more liberal than “the right,” and I have grave doubts about that.
It’s not the laptop, stupid
Much smoke and froth surround the recent exposure of the “Twitter files.” People think that “the right” is salivating over salacious pictures that might be there. People on “the left” are going ballistic that nobody has a right to post pictures of Hunter’s package on the Internet.
“Elon Musk is anti-Christ.”
“Musk is a hero. “
Silliness.
What we know is that Twitter, a private company, formed a committee, or working group, to control what was said, or allowed to be said, on their platform. Twitter’s sandbox, Twitter’s rules, right? It’s likely that Twitter broke no laws, so what’s the big deal?
The big deal is that it stinks to high heaven “anti-liberal.” The people at Twitter may like to call themselves liberal, but they are not. Liberals do not appoint their unelected selves as democracy’s moderators.
Oh, yes, I get it. In their heart of hearts, they likely thought their intentions were good. “Must stop Trump at any cost!”
I say that the cost is too high, the cost is the very heart of liberalism. Besides, are you crazy? Just look at the opening you’ve created for “Orange Man” and “The Right!”
thank you. well said
I think it's best to examine how much of the founding father's work is interpreted in a zeitgeist that no longer applies. The Federalist and especially the Anti-Federalist papers are hardly tomes supporting what we modern Americans would consider civilized behavior. We no longer have government supported slavery. We no longer require property ownership as a condition to vote. We no longer deprive females the right to volte. We no longer allow segregation of public establishments. Jews are no longer deprived of membership in social organizations. The items cited here are but a tiny list of changes brought about by what in modern jargon would call liberal democratic government. And in fact these freedoms would not be in place unless a liberal democratic government, through laws, gave them to the population.