BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

What is a liberal?

43 comments on What is a liberal?

What is a liberal?
: Since there has been a lot of flailing and foaming and finger-pointing over the use — my use — of the word “liberal” lately, I’m delighted to go to someone who should know for the meaning of the word:

…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.” …

This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man’s ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind….

That was John F. Kennedy speaking to the Liberal Party of New York in 1960, brought to you thanks to Anil’s liberal linking.

And I certainly couldn’t have said it better myself. I’ve tried, often and badly; I call this populism today: a trust in the taste, intelligence, and good will of my fellow man and what that trust means in government, politics, business, art, education, religion, and media.

This is a liberal medium because its owners, all of you, bring to it a sense of purpose and invention and hope and hard work.

But now I have to ask you: Do the people who call themselves liberal these days — and who claim the right to forbid others from calling themselves that — fit Kennedy’s definition? You be the judge.

43 responses to “What is a liberal?”

  1. KMK Avatar
    KMK

    I wish the man were alive today. I can’t help but think his continued influence would have been such a positive for mankind. Great stuff as always Jeff.

  2. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Yes, a great many of those people do. Even if they don’t agree with you on policy issues, and even if they decline to be disproportionately smeared with inaccurate “liberal” stereotypes or dishonestly portrayed as members of the radical left*. And even if they call you on behaviour like that and expect to see some evidence in your posts of any of your claimed “liberalism” insteand of just defensive screeds about how they don’t have a right to question you. Gee, but them public soapboxes come with inconveniences, don’t they?
    * – [ Just as, in fact, many conservatives quite rightly take issue with being portrayed as gun-toting Ann Coulter-parroting KKK-loving democracy-hating chimps (though, of course, some are).]

  3. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    Of course, if JFK were still alive, he’d be coming up on his 87th birthday . . .
    Here in the SF Bay Area, the left-wingers started calling themselves “progressives” rather than “liberals” a year or two ago. That seems to have stopped now, which is fine, because they are neither progressive nor liberal, by my definitions of the terms.

  4. david Avatar
    david

    I think most people want the things defined as “liberal” in this paragraph, but is that what liberals represent in 2004? Hardly. Today’s liberals want big government bureacracies, high taxes, speech codes, a submissive approach to foreign policy, and restrictions on free trade. If you don’t believe me just listen to a speech by Howard Dean.

  5. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    Jeff-
    Mr. Kennedy’s definition of “liberal” is fine. It is the follow up assumption that governmental action is the prime solution for all of those problems where today’s “liberals” run into trouble.
    IMO, most of the vocal “liberals” in the US today are better described as socialists. They believe in a state run society; economy, education, health care, etc., ad infinitum.
    I would welcome a resurgence among liberals of the opinion that while we need government programs, perhaps the better course is to make our current level of spending more efficient rather than creating new programs on top of the old ones. Such a position would permit a bit of negotiation and domestic diplomacy since the current “liberal” objective of a socialist state would be rendered off limits.
    -Regards

  6. Eric Deamer Avatar
    Eric Deamer

    The speech had some good rhetoric but also contained a lot of platitudes. I didn’t get much out of it other than the fact that liberals are nice people, and I don’t doubt that many or most of them are. But, I think this attitude of supreme confidence in their own niceness is one of the most off-putting about contemporary people who call themselves liberal, and maybe it started with speeches like this. The speech reminded me of this P.J. O’Rourke line that liberals convince other people that they’re liberals, when really they’re just kind.
    Actually the speech also reminded me of the Futurama where this alien did a parody of a political speech: “We must move forward, not backward, upward, not downward, outward, not inward, and always twirling, twirling towards the future.”

  7. EB Avatar
    EB

    I was 3 when Kennedy was assassinated, but even though I was only a baby then I am fascinated by his speeches and vision for America…. he was certainly very different from any other politician then or since… his rhetoric soared and I think it matched his intellectual prowess and the rhetoric was not just for “show” to pull out from time to time for State of the Union addresses…. he spoke to something vital and real inside people…. hope, courage, patriotism.

  8. Otter Avatar
    Otter

    Eric — that line is from the 1996 Simpsons Halloween show, btw.

  9. Eric Deamer Avatar
    Eric Deamer

    Otter:
    Sorry, you’re right. My mistake. I remember now.

  10. hugh macleod Avatar
    hugh macleod

    Yeah, well, Tony Blair and his fellow Brits are having the same trouble trying to answer the question “what is a liberal” as the Yanks.
    I see the current presidential race as more a battle between different definitions of “liberal” fighting for supremacy, than any seriously viable battle against the GOP/Bush.

  11. lk Avatar
    lk

    There are so many definitions of liberal, why bother using the term, and use of the word can be a hot button for some. It must be terrible for those whose temperature or blood pressure rise when the term is used, or those that throw the word around with derision. It’s getting close to being a Hitler type term – overused and an indication one cannot make a coherent argument(I did not mean to invoke Godwin’s Law here).

  12. EB Avatar
    EB

    Psssst, Eric, sometimes words *do* mean something.

  13. EB Avatar
    EB

    Hugh, the Brits have a party called “Liberal Democrats” apart from Labour, so they shouldn’t have such a hard time deciding whey they come down on issues. They also have a Green Party.

  14. Mikhel Avatar
    Mikhel

    That’s not a liberal, it’s an optimist. And (I hate to tell you folks) conservatives can be optimists, too. Indeed, they often are.
    So yes, that’s a liberal. And yes, it’s also a conservative.

  15. EB Avatar
    EB

    ^^^ Not whey, sorry, where ^^^^

  16. KMK Avatar
    KMK

    Eric – What’s wrong with being kind? How did it get Kennedy into trouble? How a call to be compassionate to your fellow man put you off is confusing. What is the alternative? (glad to see you feeling better) I agree more with where Dann is coming from on programs. I advocate for a few that serve common interests and it would be better served if they pooled their resources and worked together.

  17. Eric Deamer Avatar
    Eric Deamer

    KMK:
    Thanks for the well wishes. I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I was put-off by sentiments of the speech itself or the idea of compassion or kindness itself. I merely meant to say that the speech to me seemed too general and platitudinous to say very specifically what it means to be a “liberal”, other than someone who is optimistic, compassionate, and patriotic. Most of us would like to be those things, but what I think happened at some point, and this is admittedly a very tendentious point, is that many people who were optimistic, compassionate, and patriotic got bullied or brainwashed at some point into thinking that they could not be those things unless they followed exactly the correct liberal opinions of the day on gun control, affirmative action, health care, taxation, opposition to war or whatever. The flipside of this is the idea that those who don’t follow the prescribed “liberal” opinions of the day are automatically assumed to not be good, nice people. However, the actual “liberal” positions have changed radically since Kennedy’s day, yet, perhaps, big perhaps, because of speeches like this many people still have the idea that the “liberal” position of the day, whatever it may be, is automatically the more forward-looking, compassionate, and patriotic position.

  18. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    “many people who were optimistic, compassionate, and patriotic got bullied or brainwashed at some point into thinking that they could not be those things unless they followed exactly the correct liberal opinions of the day on gun control, affirmative action, health care, taxation, opposition to war or whatever.”
    The flipside of this is actually that many (far, far too many) conservatives have been brainwashed into imagining that a certain set of positions on gun control, affirmative action, health care or taxation can be automatically dismissed as “politically correct” and sneered at rather than honestly evaluated. Usually via some chain of associations than runs communism=statism=socialism=liberalism=liberals-are-traitorous-Stalinist-swine-who-want-to-turn-this-country-Red.
    Most “liberal hawks” of course do not fit this pattern, and indeed support for the war does not break down along liberal and conservative lines, as too many from both sides seem reluctant to admit. The average “liberal hawk” has been sold on (some would say “duped into”) the Iraq War as a humanitarian mission, much as Vietnam was originally sold. However, once the “war is good” idee fixee has taken hold, many of these folks seem to develop habits indistinguishable from the average right wing partisan.

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I agree with Doctor Slack.
    Fine, you’re a liberal. Now, when you say liberal, does that mean that you believe that government can help people make things better, or does it mean that you think government is the destroyer of lives, the butcher of innovation and deserves to be drowned in the bathtub?
    For instance, could you describe a major policy issue that you are on the liberal side of the line? Please attempt to avoid issues that the Blogolibertarians agree with the liberals on – I’d love to hear where you stand on something like, say, dramatic increases on taxes for the ultra-rich, or an expansion of the social safety net.

  20. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Today’s liberals are reactionary (defining themselves on what they are against rather than what they are for), bigoted (see Neal Starksman’s rant in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer), and isolationist (needs no explanation). In addition, they have become the party of green eyeshade fiscal austerity.
    This is not your father’s liberal party. This is your father’s conservative party.

  21. KMK Avatar
    KMK

    I agree with you in that quite a few good causes I’ve fought for over the years have been exploited to push party agenda or have just been hijacked altogether. I think it’s happened on both sides of the fence. How or why “we the people” have lost the ability to work with one another is beyond me. I also agree the political landscape has changed as has the world around us. I prefer these definitions of liberal above all others and let the party line fall where it may even if it means voting for a republican.
    noun: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
    adjective: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

  22. KMK Avatar
    KMK

    anonymous at 2:13
    Lets take an example out of real life instead of going for economics 101. A man I worked for 6 years ago during the dot bomb era earned one million dollars as a salary. He was on the clock 24/7. All his employess/consultants were well taken care of. At tax time he had to pay 500,000 in taxes does that seem right? Do you pay half your salary in taxes?

  23. John Smith Avatar
    John Smith

    Not to poop the principle party, but worth a reminder of the particular purpose the Liberal Party was invented for..

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Today’s liberals are [X]”
    See, at any time I see some self-identified non-liberal talking about what they think today’s liberals are, X is almost always wrong enough for them to have to be either a) out of touch with reality or b) just stone lying. This is why anti-liberal screeds are of slim to no effectiveness in converting the “liberal” to Your View Which Must Obviously Be Right As An Idiot Can See.
    You, Reid, appear to be a textbook case of a.
    1. You don’t know what “reactionary” means. (That rather goes to prove Starkman’s point, really.)
    2. You obviously know nothing about the myriad liberal policy alternative organizations and the concrete positions of anyone left of you, which makes nonsense of your claim if we did accept your definition of “reactionary.” Of course if you select your news sources just right, you can blissfully insulate yourself in that ignorance. Just confine yourself to reading rightwing blogs and watching Fox. (Another point in favour of Starkman’s reading, come to think of it.)
    3. Having said all that, I wouldn’t defend Starkman’s argument as anything more than bleak humour, but if you insist on taking him literally I will then challenge you to show how anything he says about the stupid is worse than any of the stock stereotypes of “liberals” we’re normally treated to by folks like yourself.
    4. “Green eyeshade fiscal austerity”? Maybe you’re talking about Bush’s conservative critics, hmm? Of course, if “liberal” is just an all-purpose partisan term of abuse for you, to be swung like a dead cat at anyone you perceive as an enemy, you wouldn’t know the difference.

  25. Angus Jung Avatar
    Angus Jung

    “It must be terrible for those whose temperature or blood pressure rise when the term is used”
    Oh, I’m sure the O-Dog will be okay.

  26. rivlax Avatar
    rivlax

    Take away and JFK references and read that quote to people who call themselves “liberal” today and they’d assume you were quoting some wild-eyed conservative or at least a libertarian. The frequent use of the word “individual” would alone send them into apoplexy. The problem with liberals today (and I’m a reformed one myself) is that they don’t give a damn about the common man. In fact, they hold him in deep contempt. Everything the common man holds dear, the liberal elites despise (Wal-Mart, hunting, fishing, eating beef, patriotism, a good no-message movie, mobile homes, NASCAR, country music, just to name a few). Ted Lowi should have written “The End of Liberalism” today rather than 30 years ago.

  27. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    “The problem with liberals today (and I’m a reformed one myself) is that they don’t give a damn about the common man. In fact, they hold him in deep contempt. . . Everything the common man holds dear, the liberal elites despise. . .”
    Coulterisms like the phrase “liberal elites” are immediate red flags for me. And anyone who seriously thinks your taste for country music* is a barometer of your affection for the “common man,” or that “liberals” don’t like “no-message movies,” deserves what they get. It’s harder to and harder to sympathize with people who get robbed blind and openly mocked on a daily basis by the effete, arrogant aristocrats of the core Republican lobby (white wine and Martha’s Vineyard, anyone?) — and then convince themselves these people are populists because they like beef and know how to wave a flag. S-factor indeed.
    A more serious assessment of the political landscape is that it’s pretty much evenly divided. Which means no one, liberal or conservative, should be hasty about claiming to speak for the “common man.”
    * Which has what, 15% of the market share? Hardly makes it the choice of the majority of Americans, hmmm?

  28. lk Avatar
    lk

    Some would have it as – “Liberal vs. Conservative. Two separate camps, at odds with each other.” I think the political spectrum is a bell curve, with the bulk in the middle, and those that describe it as a battle are at the far ends of the spectrum, and can be described as wing nuts, many of whom read this blog and comment in it.

  29. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    “You don’t know what “reactionary” means”
    Duh, maybe it means “characterized by reaction” as oppose to proaction. If you don’t like that, try dictionary.com:
    reactionary
    \Re*ac”tion*a*ry\, a. Being, causing, or favoring reaction; as, reactionary movements.
    And, I rather think that proves the antithesis of Starkman’s so-called point, as does the rest of your incoherent bilge.

  30. Stephen Moore Avatar
    Stephen Moore

    The Appeal of Howard Dean
    by Stephen Moore
    09/15/2003
    SEVERAL YEARS AGO an obscure Democratic governor from the politically inconsequential state of Vermont was the guest speaker at a Cato Institute lunch. His name was Howard Dean. He had been awarded one of the highest grades among all Democrats (and a better grade than at least half of the Republicans) in the annual Cato Fiscal Report Card on the Governors. We were curious about his views because we had heard that he harbored political ambitions beyond the governorship.
    Dean charmed nearly everyone in the boardroom. He came across as erudite, policy savvy, and, believe it or not, a friend of free markets–at least by the standards of the Tom Daschle-Dick Gephardt axis of the Democratic party. Even when challenged on issues like environmentalism, where he favored a large centralized mass of intrusive regulations, Dean remained affable…
    …He left–and I will never forget the nearly hypnotic reaction. The charismatic doctor had made believers of several hardened cynics. Nearly everyone agreed that we had finally found a Democrat we could work with. Since then, I’ve watched Dean’s career with more than a little interest and we chat from time to time on the phone…
    Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

  31. rivlax Avatar
    rivlax

    Doctor Slack just made the case for my argument. Arrogant and ad hominem. That you think Ann Coulter originated the phrase “liberal elites” is instructive. Ever read any political science?

  32. Joshua Scholar Avatar
    Joshua Scholar

    Perhaps the problem is that liberals aren’t elite enough… we let the smelly masses walk though the door and proclaim themselves to be liberals.
    Well no more, you’re all fired.
    I’m not allowing anyone to call himself liberal anymore but me.
    I don’t want to hear another word.
    Shh!
    Shhh! That was a preemptive “Shh.”
    Just know I have a whole bag of “Shh” with your name on it.

  33. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Doctor Slack just made the case for my argument. Arrogant and ad hominem.
    Ooooh, this game is fun. I like this game!
    “No, you’re arrogant and ad hominem.”
    “This isn’t an argument! This is just contradiction!”
    “No, it is isn’t.”
    “Yes it is!”
    “No, it isn’t!”
    . . .
    Hmmmm. On second thought, maybe I’ll pass. Just three words for rivalx: pot, kettle, black.
    That you think Ann Coulter originated the phrase “liberal elites” is instructive.
    Jimi Hendrix didn’t originate “All Along the Watchtower,” either. Hey, it’s a compliment to Thrax, and one of the few she deserves. Take it in the spirit it’s tendered.
    Duh, maybe it means “characterized by reaction” as oppose to proaction.
    You excerpted dictionary.com pretty selectively, didn’t you, Reid? Here’s what I get when I go there:
    “re

  34. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    What???!!! The second definition in a dictionary is not a valid definition? Damn. Looks like we can’t have professional boxing anymore. Man, we better get busy… we’ve got a whole host of new names we’re going to have to come up with!
    My whole friggin’ point is that today’s liberals have taken the place of yesterday’s conservatives. Is that just too difficult for you to grasp? Reaction – ary: one who reacts. See? Jeez, labelling you with the “S” word is an insult to stupid people.

  35. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    The second definition in a dictionary is not a valid definition?
    Still shucking and jiving, dude? You’re caught. Both definitions are there in black and white in my post. Neither matches yours, which was a lie. Don’t compound your mistake.
    The moral of this story is: if you want to use a neologism, identify it as such. Be honest that you’re using an eccentric definition of a term. Tell people why this is, so they can evaluate your logic. Don’t try to do what you’ve attempted here: it’s really…
    well…
    stupid.
    Reaction – ary: one who reacts.
    Yeah, and conservatives conserve. And liberals liberate. And trees… tree, I guess.
    Stupid wordgames don’t excuse or rehabilitate stupid falsehoods. Stop now, dude. Trust me.
    My whole friggin’ point is that today’s liberals have taken the place of yesterday’s conservatives
    Yeah, too bad you can’t actually support your argument for that point.

  36. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    You are clearly a moron and there is no use arguing with you.

  37. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Apology accepted.

  38. Tom Grey Avatar
    Tom Grey

    “It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith.” – JFK.
    Bush haters do NOT have this faith. Most control freak/ big gov’t types don’t have such faith.

  39. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    “Bush haters do NOT have this faith.”
    Ever hear of projection?
    “Most control freak/ big gov’t types don’t have such faith.”
    You mean the sort of control freak/ big gov’t types who believe in operating through shadow governments? Arresting people and holding them without trial? Creating huge new bureaucracies instead of improving the functions of existing ones? Who are in the habit of accusing their fellow citizens willy-nilly of Treason, Slander, Arrogance, Bias, or anti-Semitism?
    People like that?

  40. Joshua Scholar Avatar
    Joshua Scholar

    Doctor Slack:
    Yes the second, third, fourth, fifth etc. definitions in a dictionary are valid.
    The problem was not Reid’s usage of the word “reactionary” the problem was your ignorance of that usage.

  41. Ross Mayfield Avatar
    Ross Mayfield

    Liberal should be used at the beginning of a sentence, and if you don’t use liberal there, use Liberal here.

  42. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    The problem was not Reid’s usage of the word “reactionary” the problem was your ignorance of that usage.

  43. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Italics off.