This forum
is for moderates and liberals
Quite a while ago I started a discussion with the moderator of another liberal thread on exactly what constitutes being a liberal. She wasn't interested in the discussion, because for her a liberal was a person who thought the way she did. Maybe you would be more interested in the issue?
I raise it because I think there are two very divergent strands of liberalism which tend to get lumped under one term and shouldn't.
Whjen I was in my political phase, the people one associated most with liberalism were Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, I.F. Stone (unless you considered him an out-and-out communist), JFK (though not Bobby, at least not then -- people tend to forget that he was a quite active participant in the McCarthy commie-hunt until he fell out with Cohn). For me, one of the primary voices of liberalism was -- and is -- Nat Hentoff.
Liberalism seems to have morphed quite a bit from those days, not, IMO, in ways that are always positive. For example, Hentoff made a strong liberal case for opposing abortion, and IMO his understanding and application of liberal principles is still compelling. But liberalism seems to have gotten to some extent hijacked to special interests (so, of course, has conservatism, only different special interests, though there are some dual special interests such as Enron), to the extent that the desires of the special interests overwhelm the concepts of principle and principled belief.
Is this a discussion that interests people here? |
