Watchyoucallinme?
: Roger L. Simon is bristling at being called a liberal (because he’s trying to erase such definitions from the dictionary). Actually, I wish he’d wear the label with pride and help redefine what it means along with other sensiblelibs (such as yours truly, of course). Without the sensible ilk of Simon and Michael J. Totten calling ourselves liberal, then all we’ll find in the dictionary under the word is this.
6 responses to “Watchyoucallinme?”
-
I’ve been tempted to just start calling myself a centrist, but then you have to go and write stuff like this, so I just don’t know.
The whole labelling this is ridiculous, but I don’t want “liberal” to become synonomous with pacifism just yet. Or ever, for that matter. But at some point, and I don’t know where that point is, my differences with the peacenik crowd may just become too much for me.
And there’s nothing wrong with just being an independent centrist… -
Ironically, I’ve become far more comfortable with the label as I’ve drifted toward the center (on foreign policy and trade, anyway).
I think Layne said it best:
(Just in case Alterman is reading this and wants to put me on some kind of pro-Isreal or pro-Nazi list or whatever, I will again say for the record that I’m a liberal. Not a leftist, not an anti-American … just a plain old-fashioned American liberal.)
Then again, when I hear Howard Dean’s prattling about the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” the independent centrist thing doesn’t look so bad either. -
I don’t mind the label at all. I’ve never been afraid of it. I just don’t like the reactionary (and yes it is reactionary) Bush=Hitler peacenik movement that is actually leftist and is trying to steal the good name of liberalism for itself.
I would say “let them have it,” but it doesn’t suit them. -
All these terms — liberal, concervative, even libertarian — are starting to lose meaning for me. This may be be a good thing, Jeff. Change is good, as they say in “I Ching.” (see, I still have some of the old hippie in me!). Oh, Hell, I’m not sure. I think have to write a book about this to figure out. One thing I do know — things are changing at warp speed.
-
We could do with a great many more “sensiblelibs”. Too many of the current collection are socialists; either advocating a sort of kinder and gentler national socialism (private ownership but government control) or outright communism (government ownership, government control, poverty for the masses, wealth for those that run the government).
Their complete and utter failure to recognize the value of economic liberty is astounding. Rivaled only by their complete faith that the “next” government social program will finally fix everything.
A sensible liberal, IMO, is someone with whom you can negotiate and arrive at a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Limiting the size and scope of government while advancing the cause of liberty for all.
The modern liberal leadership seems to have more of a desire to pursue power at any cost. The deadlights of their “progressivism” shine brightly in their eyes. Foreboding the senseless, wanton destruction of wealth and the spread of mass poverty that would come if they ever achieved all of their political objectives. -
A real liberal is fiscally conservative – it is not my money.
A real liberal is socially liberal – it is not my life.
Liberalism is about leaving others alone to live their lives as they choose.
