Yes, it is true, to be a liberal, you have to care about people other than yourself. Isn't that just terrible? You actually have to consider the general welfare of other people!! Imagine that!
I don't understand why people complain so much about liberals. The basic definition of a liberal in American Politics is one who supports government intervention on economic issues to promote the social welfare of this nation, yet prefers less government in personal matters such as religion. Everyone in this nation complains about taxes, yet no one is thankful that their streets are paved, we have excellent public education, and social security (who knows for how long, though). And for anyone who is about to compare our public schools with those of Europe or many financially successful Asian nations, don't forget to compare schools in terms of how much of the population is actually getting up to a high school diploma or even a college degree, NOT just about who gets the better test scores. Many Japanese school systems are now trying to relax their rigorous course and studying schedule so that students can have extra-curricular time for activities, such as music and sports, and not just learning how to get the highest test scores on a standardized achievement test.
To be a liberal means to respect everyone's right to believe or not to believe in religion. Prayer in schools should not even be a discussion; it is unconstitutional. You can pray any way and any where, just not during a function that is funded by the government. That probably sounds ridiculous to some people, but as a Muslim that grew up in America, if you want to know what if feels like to be excluded and not considered, just think about every public educational function, whether it is a sporting event or just a regular morning in class at high school, where almost everyone in the gathering is praying, except for me. I don't disrespect people's religious beliefs. I also don't get up in the middle of class to do my five daily prayers that a devout Muslim would do. Even if I am not being forced to pray, I am still being forced to sit through the religious rituals of another group without my own choice. You, see that's what the whole liberal theme is about, choice. (I won't even open the whole pro-choice debate, because I would not be able to stop typing.)
I guess my point is that I would rather associate myself w/a political party whose major backing isn't a religious organization. I believe in a political ideology where the plight of the poor is not ignored by government. So that now that Republicans cheer about welfare being reformed, and that the poor are now at work, they ignore the fact that most of these jobs are low-paying jobs that have little room for moving up and kind of success ladder and leave almost no time for these parents with children to even go to college or finish high school so that they can one day leave their low paying job and find an even better one. In some places, such as West Virginia, there aren't any jobs for any of these welfare recipients to go to. i.e. the rich still stay rich and the poor are still poor. But hey, as long as the Republicans look statistically successful, why should anyone question that?
Another thing I can't help but wonder is why after over 200 years of democratic existence, people still want to define the success of this nations on the basis of procedural democracy. Even if we look at the laws and the processes of this nation, we can't deny that the right to vote has been denied to many people, (women, African Americans- even after the Civil War, one can't forget the Jim Crow laws of the South) for most of its existence, but at least since the Civil Rights and Women's Movement and the passage of the 26 amendment, every adult citizen has the right to vote. The success of our nation also depends on the policies that come out of it. Well, I do not want to support a party that narrowly define family values and ideals, and thus ends up making policies that support these narrow-minded notions of society and family. Was it not a conservative who said that the purpose of the women's movement was to encourage women to "leave their husbands, kill their children, and become lesbians"? That has got to be the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. people are so afraid of change. Why? Because when you change the structure of a traditional nuclear family (father=bread-winner, mother=caretaker), you change the roles of power. And there are a lot of people in the majority who are scared of admitting their unconscious privledges in society and do not want to give up their power. Thus, you get all this backlash toward anyone who questions the social norm. What I guess is the misconception here is that just because one has this power due to societal roles, doesn't mean that they asked for them, and thus shouldn't feel attacked or offended when people are questioning them. However, it doesn't mean that they should be the accepted norms of society just b/c things ended up that way.
Basically, that's why I have a liberal democratic attitude. Because, there are inequalities that aren't going to otherwise be addressed and also because I refuse to associate myself with people like Rush and Pat Buchanan and the conservative religious preachers who were screaming their anti-gay, you-better-love-Jesus-or-you-are-going-to-hell-you-sinner, discriminatory propaganda in front of one of the busiest areas on my university's campus during National Coming Out Week. As annoying as it was, it was freedom of speech, so I didn't really have the authority to do anything, which is what this country is about, I suppose. |
