Okay, now I have one for you.
I don't think we finished the last one. It doesn't look like anyone is interested in discussing this subject. On the last issue, the student demonstration over wages, you posted your personal take on it but didn't really characterize what exactly about your position or the students' position was inherently liberal.
Is support for the UN still central to liberalism today?
I guess so.
I really don't have much to say about defining liberals as I am not one. You, who may or may not be one, and I, certainly not one, can't define what a liberal is. We're not the right people.
And then there's the methodology. There are some issues usually associated with liberals, but I don't know that a compilation of issues tells us anything about what a liberal is. Knowing that a liberal supports the UN and increased pay for Harvard janitors means what?
What is the underlying liberal principle that manifests itself as support for the UN?
Regarding Harvard, what is the underlying principle there? Economic justice, whatever that means. The position, stated in the article, that all jobs should pay enough to enable someone to support a spouse and three kids, IMO, is absurd. Is that what economic justice means? Or is the liberal question at Harvard just one of organizing for higher wages, the basic principle of unionization? Or is the salient question whether Harvard is treating the little people with appropriate dignity? Now, I fully support that last one. Does that make me a liberal?
I don't see much future for this discussion.
Karen |
