BEING LIBERAL
Liberal is yet another one of the words I have been pondering quite a bit as of late. My growing disillusionment with the Democratic Party seems to track closely with the ever-increasing fear of this word. I am proud to be liberal; it is something I strive toward being every day of my life. Liberal appears to be a word no one understands, otherwise why would one run from it as so many well-meaning politicians do. Certainly I understand the ramifications of the word in the current political scene, but those attacks on being liberal only appear to reinforce the need to assert the value of being liberal.
Since I have a perpetually growing addiction to dictionaries I decided to go right to the source for this one: the Oxford English Dictionary – which, it should be noted, has some significant lexicographic differences from my Oxford American Dictionary widget.
Let’s look at a few of the definitions that come up in the OED for liberal:
Now, I don’t want to paint too narrow of a picture of this word’s history; it does contain the seeds of its own downfall:
The word liberal does, in fact, present its own rhetorical problematic. We have all assumedly heard endless hours of political rhetoric on unrestrainedly liberal spending, and of liberals as half-cocked, that is unrigorous. Perhaps that has been true: the word is still unfortunately laboring under the history of the reactionary – though profoundly important and meaningful – liberalism of the sixties youth movements. It was not noted for its rigorous policy approaches, nor for its restraint; but that was not what was at hand. Those were essentially protest movements that had liberal desires.
While I understand the efficacy of distancing oneself from this history that surrounds the word liberal within the current political landscape, I fear what is being lost in doing so. Liberal, and the meanings and beliefs that stem from it, is a wonderful word. What is wrong with being generous and open-hearted? We need only turn to the president’s favorite book to find support for these values:
As such being liberal is not a political philosophy, but a value. It is a value upon which one may build an ideology, but one which would prevent the rise of ideologues. I wish I were more generous, more open-hearted. It is often difficult in the face of fear. Yet this is the point of being liberal: to give when it is easy to do so is, well, easy, but the test of one’s values is what one does when it is hard.
Yes, I am highly critical of the president, and it primarily stems from this issue. The president continually reminds us that his job is hard work; of course it is. When his job is the hardest, that is precisely when I find him to be least generous, the least open-hearted. This is my problem with the president, and precisely why I am a liberal. We live in a time of fear – though when hasn’t the world? What we do, what steps we take, what compassion we show is how we will define ourselves. Do we wish to be defined by that fear or by how we act in the face of that fear?
In answering this I turn often to another of the definitions of liberal: “Free from bigotry or unreasonable prejudice in favour of traditional opinions or established institutions.” To be liberal is not to simply turn from or destroy tradition – that is something never to be done easily. It is to question the established answers, to oppose “unreasonable prejudice” that may be holding to an easy answer when confronted by a difficult question – whether that question be large or small.
This has all actually been in my head since my trip to Philadelphia. My last morning in town I was walking down the street with my head down wrapped in a veil of anxiety. I was racing along on my way to get a cup of coffee or something for breakfast and a man asked me for some spare change: he was about sixty, had an artificial leg and a home-made crutch, and no more than three teeth in his mouth. I glanced up, fished around for a dollar, handed it to him and rushed off on my way, never really doing more than glance at him. About a half a block later I was struck with an overwhelming sense of grief: I was ashamed of what I had done, of myself. I had money in my pocket for a gratuitously expensive cup of coffee – even a scone if I wanted. Even worse I didn’t even talk to this man, say hello, shake his hand, or treat him with the dignity he deserved as a fellow human being. I turned around and returned to where this man was sitting: I gave him the eleven or so dollars I had left on me – though I still had my ATM card to get cash for the drive home, which included a cup of tea. More importantly we spent five minutes or so talking, not really about anything – I wasn’t going to demand his story. We just talked about the day; we looked at each other eye to eye; we recognized each other as people. For those few minutes we were two people on the corner: one asking for help the other offering the momentary assistance he had available. Before I left to continue my morning he shook my hand and said thank you; I responded by thanking him and apologizing for my earlier actions.
I’ll never see him again; it isn’t about that. What I did is not really so generous – I don’t want to claim it as that. But it was liberal; it brought that word back to life for me. I don’t want to say that if every person did something like this the world would be a better place; what the hell do I know. But this is the political attitude I want from my leaders. The ability to question the easy answer, to raise their heads up and look again, to be open-hearted as well as generous, to value dignity as well as a dollar. This is what I see liberal as being about; this is what I want to be.
It may be politically dangerous to be ”free from narrow prejudice; open-minded, candid.” The time of liberal philosophies may be over. I have yet to hear an actually meaningful argument to prove this case, though the political left’s apathy towards its own ideals may bury liberal values of its own accord. I, in the meantime, will continue to be proud to be liberal even as I continue to question what exactly that means.
Since I have a perpetually growing addiction to dictionaries I decided to go right to the source for this one: the Oxford English Dictionary – which, it should be noted, has some significant lexicographic differences from my Oxford American Dictionary widget.
Let’s look at a few of the definitions that come up in the OED for liberal:
2a. Free in bestowing; bountiful, generous, open-hearted.
4a. Free from narrow prejudice; open-minded, candid.
4b. Free from bigotry or unreasonable prejudice in favour of traditional opinions or established institutions; open to the reception of new ideas or proposals of reform.
Now, I don’t want to paint too narrow of a picture of this word’s history; it does contain the seeds of its own downfall:
3a. Free from restraint; free in speech or action. In 16-17th c. often in a bad sense: Unrestrained by prudence or decorum, licentious.
3c. Of construction or interpretation: Inclining to laxity or indulgence; not rigorous.
The word liberal does, in fact, present its own rhetorical problematic. We have all assumedly heard endless hours of political rhetoric on unrestrainedly liberal spending, and of liberals as half-cocked, that is unrigorous. Perhaps that has been true: the word is still unfortunately laboring under the history of the reactionary – though profoundly important and meaningful – liberalism of the sixties youth movements. It was not noted for its rigorous policy approaches, nor for its restraint; but that was not what was at hand. Those were essentially protest movements that had liberal desires.
While I understand the efficacy of distancing oneself from this history that surrounds the word liberal within the current political landscape, I fear what is being lost in doing so. Liberal, and the meanings and beliefs that stem from it, is a wonderful word. What is wrong with being generous and open-hearted? We need only turn to the president’s favorite book to find support for these values:
for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in. I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.' "Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?' "The King will answer them, 'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' [Matthew 25:35-40]
As such being liberal is not a political philosophy, but a value. It is a value upon which one may build an ideology, but one which would prevent the rise of ideologues. I wish I were more generous, more open-hearted. It is often difficult in the face of fear. Yet this is the point of being liberal: to give when it is easy to do so is, well, easy, but the test of one’s values is what one does when it is hard.
Yes, I am highly critical of the president, and it primarily stems from this issue. The president continually reminds us that his job is hard work; of course it is. When his job is the hardest, that is precisely when I find him to be least generous, the least open-hearted. This is my problem with the president, and precisely why I am a liberal. We live in a time of fear – though when hasn’t the world? What we do, what steps we take, what compassion we show is how we will define ourselves. Do we wish to be defined by that fear or by how we act in the face of that fear?
In answering this I turn often to another of the definitions of liberal: “Free from bigotry or unreasonable prejudice in favour of traditional opinions or established institutions.” To be liberal is not to simply turn from or destroy tradition – that is something never to be done easily. It is to question the established answers, to oppose “unreasonable prejudice” that may be holding to an easy answer when confronted by a difficult question – whether that question be large or small.
This has all actually been in my head since my trip to Philadelphia. My last morning in town I was walking down the street with my head down wrapped in a veil of anxiety. I was racing along on my way to get a cup of coffee or something for breakfast and a man asked me for some spare change: he was about sixty, had an artificial leg and a home-made crutch, and no more than three teeth in his mouth. I glanced up, fished around for a dollar, handed it to him and rushed off on my way, never really doing more than glance at him. About a half a block later I was struck with an overwhelming sense of grief: I was ashamed of what I had done, of myself. I had money in my pocket for a gratuitously expensive cup of coffee – even a scone if I wanted. Even worse I didn’t even talk to this man, say hello, shake his hand, or treat him with the dignity he deserved as a fellow human being. I turned around and returned to where this man was sitting: I gave him the eleven or so dollars I had left on me – though I still had my ATM card to get cash for the drive home, which included a cup of tea. More importantly we spent five minutes or so talking, not really about anything – I wasn’t going to demand his story. We just talked about the day; we looked at each other eye to eye; we recognized each other as people. For those few minutes we were two people on the corner: one asking for help the other offering the momentary assistance he had available. Before I left to continue my morning he shook my hand and said thank you; I responded by thanking him and apologizing for my earlier actions.
I’ll never see him again; it isn’t about that. What I did is not really so generous – I don’t want to claim it as that. But it was liberal; it brought that word back to life for me. I don’t want to say that if every person did something like this the world would be a better place; what the hell do I know. But this is the political attitude I want from my leaders. The ability to question the easy answer, to raise their heads up and look again, to be open-hearted as well as generous, to value dignity as well as a dollar. This is what I see liberal as being about; this is what I want to be.
It may be politically dangerous to be ”free from narrow prejudice; open-minded, candid.” The time of liberal philosophies may be over. I have yet to hear an actually meaningful argument to prove this case, though the political left’s apathy towards its own ideals may bury liberal values of its own accord. I, in the meantime, will continue to be proud to be liberal even as I continue to question what exactly that means.
1 Comments:
This is a brilliant and beautiful post. Thanks, man. You should send this one to Salon.com and see if they'll publish it. I'm serious.
Post a Comment
<< Home