To me a liberal is a person who judges things on their merits and not on dogma.
Don't know a nonharsh way to say it, koan, but when you don't consider the arguments of "moderates" and "conservatives" as genuine arguments to be addressed on their face rather than dismiss them as inhumane, that's coming from dogma. No other way to say it.
To move away from dogma and judge things on their merit, a very noble aim, you must consider arguments without dismissing them in terms of some hypothetical somewhat sick motives you attribute to them.
Let's say, just for starters, that "moderates" consider serious negotiations produce a wider consensus and results with more longevity than dogmatic, in your face ones. Thus, they look for the political center.
And let's consider, for starters, that "conservatives", worry deeply about the possible totalitarian threat inherent in strong government, one in which the citizens are so dependent for fiscal support they will not fight for zones of personal independence. For instance, a government that threatens to take away social security and medicare from citizens with the wrong views or the wrong residences, can easily cow them into submission. So the argument goes.
Those are reasonable positions, ones that argue mustering other concerns. To do so is not dogmatic. To dismiss them as inhumane is dogmatic. |
