On Liberals, Conservatives, and "Flabby Centrists"
Christopher, as you ready yourself to prove the "liberal bias" of Time and Newsweek(Ho, Ho!), do remember that there is no universally accepted definition of what a liberal is -- or of what a conservative is, for that matter. These are words we use for lack of anything better ("left" and "right" are even worse), but they are woefully imprecise, and often fail to describe any individual human being accurately.
1) What is "liberal"?
Most people in America these days would probably say that whatever it is, it is bad. Self-styled "conservatives" have been successful in their effort to turn "the L-word" into a pejorative term. For example, one of the things that proved to me that Dukakis was a real dud was his frantic effort to convince voters that the "L-word" did not apply to him. What he should have done, in my opinion, is say something like: "Sure, I'm a liberal. And proud of it!" And then explain why. He could not possibly have done any worse in the election, and he would have been more honest.
Today, most people whom you would probably call liberals,pedal away from the designation, preferring often to characterize their views as "libertarian." (On the order of: "I am socially liberal, but fiscally conservative," blah, blah, blah...)
At the same time, I submit that most Americans, while shunning the self-designation of "liberal," in fact are liberals. That is to say, they accept the fundamental liberal principles on which this country was founded. They believe that "all men are created equal," and that they have certain inalienable rights; they believe that government rests upon the consent of the people, that it is obliged to honor and protect the freedoms of the people, etc., etc.
So, in practice, what do people mean when they say "liberal"? Well, they certainly do not mean "liberal" in the classic sense (which today would be called "conservative"). They can mean any number of things, but pre-eminently the following two:
a) "Liberals" are tolerant or -- this all depends on one's point of view -- too lax and unprincipled in matters of morality, and on racial and religious questions.
b) "Liberals" are "tax-and-spenders," especially on social programs. Corollary: "liberalism" can eventually lead to "socialism."
One problem here, of course, is that the term is often expanded to include true socialists (of either the Marxist or homegrown varieties), and other "left-wing" radicals, all of whom on principle reject the label "liberal." For them, "liberal" is usually a term of abuse, just as it is for self-described "conservatives."
2) What is "conservative"?
I submit that there are relatively few classic conservatives in this country. Originally, a "conservative" was someone who accepted the status quo, and who opposed change, as disruptive of it; someone who wanted to "conserve" or "preserve" something with which he was satisfied.
Many people today who call themselves "conservatives" really are "reactionaries" (people who want to go back to some past Golden Age, by eliminating things in the present they regard as "corruptions"), or "radicals" (people who want to introduce major changes in society, changes that would be radically new). In any event, these folks are usually very dissatisfied -- or claim to be -- with the status quo.
So, in practice, what is meant by the term "conservative"? In my view, that is even harder to determine than what is meant by "liberal." I personally can't think of a definition that would include both a Rockefeller Republican at one end of the spectrum, for example, and a Pat Robertson supporter at the other. Anyone else care to try?
3) Does party affiliation or voting behavior tell us much about an individual's "liberalism" or "conservatism" on any given issue?
Short answer: Not much. Voting for a party, or for a candidate of a party, does not mean one accepts the full platform of the party/and or candidate. Most voters don't know what that full platform is, anyway (and the candidates often don't remember it, either).
4) Otherwise put: if you are "liberal" or "conservative" on one issue (say, social spending), does that mean you are "liberal" or "conservative" on another (e.g. the Kosovo intervention)? I think the Kosovo intervention is a key case in point. Here, there was the "Administration position," or the "flabby centrist" position (thank you, Edward Herman, for that wonderfully apt designation), which was attacked both from the "liberal" direction and from the "conservative" direction.
It is especially difficult to establish any necessary connection between domestic policy and foreign policy views. During the Cold War, for example, we had a "bi-partisan" foreign policy consensus. Even now, whenever the President (whoever he is) commits us to some major military venture abroad, the Congress usually ends up rallying around him. But since no real new consensus has emerged in the general public, objections to the country's foreign policy course emerge all along the political spectrum, with no discernible relation to party affiliation.
5)"Flabby centrism"
IMO, this, for the most part, is what prevails, in the actual policy arena.
Joan
|
