Feb
23
2010
Liberal is….Evil
Author: Gary Hart
“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” Once again we turn to George Orwell to understand the perverse need of some among us to reverse the meaning of words. As the author of Nineteen Eighty-Four knew, totalitarianism begins with the perversion of language.
Thus, it is not accidental that the rise of the new right began with demonization of perfectly sound words like liberal. Hence, Roget gives these synonyms for liberal: magnanimous; benevolent; open-minded; generous; and unselfish.
We describe our form of government as liberal democracy. It embodies principles of freedom, liberty, equality, and justice. Its princples were set forth by John Locke and embodied in our Bill of Rights. We engage in wars to bring this same government to others.
Most recently, a highly intelligent writer, Timothy Ferris, known primarily for his clear elucidation of science, has written a piece entitled: “Conservative is Not Opposite Liberal: That’s Totalitarianism.” To be illiberal, he writes, is not to be conservative; it is, as Orwell had it, to be totalitarian. Ferris correctly says: “Liberalism is an independent political philosophy, with no inherent connection to either the Left or the Right.”
It is understandable that the far right fulminators begin by perverting language. They are profoundly illiberal in every sense of the word. The values of magnanimity, benevolence, open-mindedness, generosity, and unselfishness are anathema to them. Nor is it coincidence that the age of anti-liberalism is one decidedly anti-scientific, whether having to do with our evolution, changing climate, or stem cell research. Totalitarianism has always wanted to control science for its own purposes.
If we restore the true meaning of important words like liberal, perhaps at least a few politicians will not be afraid to use them. As a free man, and a liberal man, I know I am not.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:16 am
[...] To comment, please visit Senator Hart’s blog at http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/. [...]
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:23 am
Liberal is a good thing. It is good to be liberal with your love. It is good when people give liberally to causes in which they believe. It is good when a bartender is liberal in pouring scotch.
What we conservatives object to is liberal government. The difference is that government liberalism is false because it uses other people’s money. You can not be truly generous or unselfish when you are doing so with money that has been taken from other people.
“If I am going to do good with other people’s money I first have to take it away from them. That means that the welfare state philosophy is, at it’s very bottom, a philosophy of violence and coercion. It’s against freedom, because I have to use force to get the money.” –Milton Friedman
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:32 am
Thank you for continuing the struggle, and for speaking truth to power, Gary Hart. It seems as if the forces of evil have been winning for the last couple of decades or more, and I do hope that a new dawn is awaiting us around the corner. I too am proud to be a liberal, a person of conscience and principle all of my life. It has been shocking to see how our language becomes twisted and perverted by the far right fulminators. To them, the word “liberal” is like a cuss word. America was founded by liberals, and only liberals can save America now.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:47 am
The right-wing echo chamber has for the past 20 years or so worked to make “liberal” a dirty word. Now they’re trying to tar Obama with a “socialist” brush.
It’s time for the liberals and progressives in America to create their own echo chamber that works to equate “conservative” with “totalitarian” and make “conservative” a dirty word!
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:57 am
The power of words – or evisceration of words – has become an increasingly popular arrow in the conservatives’ quiver – whether it be the carefully orchestrated inclusion of key words by Faux News when discussing democrats, or, as you pointed out, the Orwellian manipulation of words (such as socialist or liberal).
But it goes well beyond semantic demonization – for decades conservatives have put this into real-world practice with Orwellian political appointments (such as putting industry insiders in charge of the EPA, James Watt in charge of the Interior, etc.).
Add to this a carefully orchestrated emasculation of the journalistic old guard – and you have the makings of the kind of totalitarian nightmare Orwell envisioned.
Thanks for your continued vigilance. Keep up the good work.
Dan in DC
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:15 am
Thank you for your concise real definition and description of the word Liberal…
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:21 am
I couldn’t agree with your comments more.Democrats should be proud to be labeled a Liberal.Those that label themselves as Conservative Democrats are betraying the principles that the party was built on.One can actually be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.The Progressive Democrats are exactly that.
On matters of religion and life style choices,Progressive Democrats respect the identity of others without insisting that they are something less if they chose a different religion or none at all.That’s really between God and the believer.
On matters that affect all of us like governance and economic matters,Progressive Democrats advocate for a responsible approach.What is best for The People, be it health care,judicial matters,taxation or the environment,should be the guiding principle.
Conservatives appear to be radical rather than moderate.They have moved away from their guiding principles into an extremist direction that does not unite us spirit or action.Its time they got “framed” by their own behavior.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:22 am
You write well, just one thing… to state that we fight wars to promote democracy is disingenious at best… wars.. our wars… have been about business, profit and empire. You need to study up on history. Try “The dominion of War” for a start… very interesting read.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:36 am
Great post. We must reclaim our words from demagogues. Proudly proclaim that you are liberal.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:42 am
To this day, when my ex-husband gets angry with me, he calls me the worst name he can think of…Liberal. Language is important. To control the meaning of words is to control how we relate to one another, how we view one another. To equate the word liberal with evil (a debatable word in itself) is to discount kindness, compassion, and reason. As Noam Chomsky points out, the clever use of language can “manufacture” consent around an ideal or concept regardless of it’s validity. At a time when so many American voters seem to base the most important decisions solely on what they hear from politicians and on Fox News, language must be clear and concise. The political right distorts language to their advantage. The left should work hard to restore kindness, compassion, and reason by redefining the word liberal for the American people.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:46 am
Mr. Hart,
The economic and political philosophy of John Locke is still promoted as the bedrock of American experience. It should be refuted. Our present economic catastrophe was promoted by pundits, intellectuals, and financier elites while referencing Locke, his neo-liberalism of the market.
An economic catastrophe hovers the population; economy formation measures must be implemented now to counterattack the collapsing operation of the monetary financier debt based market system.
The economic policy executives of Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F.Kennedy that promoted the government as the protector of the population’s rights, and general welfare are necessary now for assessment, examination; a reference for the immediate, necessary political and economic policies required to protect the population / nation now.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:56 am
A humorist once quipped that conservatives are enamored of existing evils, while liberals wish to replace these evils with new ones. Perhaps an overly cynical viewpoint, but valid in its recognition of the law of unintended consequences.
Today’s conservatives, however, only pay lip service to their supposedly core notion of conservatism. Conserving — preserving the status quo — is hardly their aim. This stoic picture of the stately leader at the helm of the stable ship of state is the veneer hiding the ugly truth of their true intention, which is to commit to a permanent posture of warring at the expense of domestic programs in a flurry of populist-fueled budget slashing.
The problem is that the profits in the war industry are better than in aiding distressed peoples where terrorism recruiting is most fruitful. If you want to spend smart dollars to defend the country, that is your place of emphasis.
This clear abrogation of national duty is venal, for they forget that part about ‘promoting the general welfare’ in our Constitution’s preamble. In fact, if you reread the preamble with a suitably critical eye you can see numerous lapses, shortfalls, and outright failures.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Failures to ensure justice, insure tranquility, promote general welfare, and secure liberty’s blessings for our posterity seem to all be lacking in the opposition’s vision. I would give the GOP about a 2 our of 6 on this, but even their notion of defense is debatable.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:33 am
The problem with terms like “far right” and “far left” is that they suggest that they are endpoints on a single continuum. Actually, political philosophies are multidimensional (or perhaps we should apply only nominal-level measurement to them, meaning that as concepts, they can’t be meaningfully arranged in any order).
In this posting, conservative is not the opposite of liberal, and in fact, there are probably (at least a few) conservatives who are magnanimous, generous, open-minded, etc. We need to combat totalitarianism (or lesser manifestations of the illiberal spirit), no matter in which political philosophy it appears.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:43 am
Couldn’t have put it better! Hear, hear!!
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:13 am
Absolutely! Mr. Hart, your words ring a resounding alarm that should resonate loud and clear across our great land: Classic liberal education, i.e., philosophy, ethics and civics, should be reintroduced in our education system as core requirements. Too many of our future leaders lack understanding and an ability to think critically because many, if not all, are primarily taught to be “technicians” and lack the underlying foundations necessary for forming solid, defensible principles. We might as well be lead by robots, or parrots for that matter. Thank you.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Mr. Hart – I appreciate the message, and commend you for pointing to the manipulation of language as being central to laying the groundwork for totalitarianism. I was not surprised at all to see that recently, Glenn Beck has taken it upon himself to try to smear the word “progressive,” too.
As a liberal, however, I have to call you on something. You say of liberal democracy: “We engage in wars to bring this same government to others.” That is just not true. We engage in wars primarily to further commercial interests, to impose our economic system onto others, and to teach the world a lesson about what will happen to them if they don’t kowtow to America. Please be honest about that.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Thank you, Mr. Hart, for clarifying this. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that those who need the clarification most will not be able to understand it.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:28 pm
I am a ‘flaming LIBERAL’… and damn PROUD to be so.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Mr Hart I think you are a phony disgrace! You helped Dubya Bush and the neo-cons destroy America’s fabric! You sold out hard working Americans to globalist monopolists,exploited terroism for personal gain, and made a mockery of politics. You are interested in filling your pocket book, not the well being of Americans. At the end of the day, nobody cares what you think; Americans have to fix what you and the rest of Washington D.C. have done to America and the world. Enjoy your boats, mansions, galas, and all of your “finer things in life”, you and your loser ilk killed many people to get them. I don’t care what your shallow, materialistic, selfish, childish, opinions desire.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Neither is conservatism…….evil
But the difference is that LIBERALISM is ADMIRABLE while there is NOT MUCH to admire in conservatism . I am a foreigner coming from a conservative country and I ahve always admired LIBERALISM .
WIthout LIBERALISM there would not have even be ENLIGHTENMENT .
Interesting to NOTE that it is the rise of RELIGIOUS RIGHT has caused this HATRED of LIBERALISM .
As you know , the REAGAN REVOLUTION 1979- united the religious sector with the fiscal conservatives and the Hawkish Foreign Policy sector .
and seeing what has happened in America culminating in 2008 It has not been pretty…..and looks REGRESSIVE Back to the future? domestically it has been a disaster…..if the defeat of Soviet Union had not happened there would be ABOSOLUTE DISASTER
of course AS A RESULT OF WINNING THE COLD WAR …..IT LED THE US to become ARROGANT. giving to the rise of the NEOCONS and domestically to that DEREGULATION anti GOV slogan etc. etc.
I would like to make one point which is very important and that is that I TRULY BELIEVE that LIBERALISM Has SUFFERED because the LIBERAL TREND IN PUBLIC CULTURE has become so VULGAR and COARSE that the CONSERVATIVES have USED this as a proof that liberalism is EVIL
SO HERE let us make a distinction between POLITICAL LIBERALISM and Cultural
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:04 pm
CONTD so Here let us make a distinction between POLITICAL LIBERALISM and CULTURAL Liberalism
The cultural conservatives have USED this bad aspect of cultural liberalism to ATTACK all the PHILOSOPHY of Liberalism.
POLITICAL and FISCAL Liberalism remain a good aspect of MODERN life without which we still would be living in DICKENSIAN TIMES.
i would like to present this opinion as a person who has lived and behaved as a stuffy conservative in my private and public life , dressing eating talking behaving conservatively.
I do not have more time to continue this but I hope Sen GARY HART will NOTE IT
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:15 pm
There are two simple facts of life in this country: Liberal policies, beginning with FDR, created the expanding middle class, which is the great achievement of the American civilization, and Conservative policies of the past 30 years that came into fashion with Reagan have that middle class hanging on by their fingernails.
John Kennedy once said that if a Liberal is one who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – then I’m proud to call myself a Liberal. I don’t understand why Democrats, including Obama, are still afraid to articulate that so simply and eloquently. Instead, they are still running away from the Label and hedging on the policies at a time when most people now recognize that the experiment with conservatism from Reagan to George W. Bush has been a catastrophe for everyone except corporate CEOs and Wall St. bankers.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Hart, You are an idiot! Our ancestors came to this country and evetually set the system up as a REPUBLIC! You need to quit reading books authored by some over educated idot and start reading THE CONSTITUTIOn OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA, then Read your bible and understand how you can teach people to Catch THEIR OWN FISH, and finally, attempt to figure out what we have in our White House and Congress, WHO WORK FOR WE THE PEOPLE, which they have forgotten but will soon be learning this is going to change. When you attempt to figure out what we have in the White House and Congress, you may need to look up the words, Progressive, Maxist, Dictator, Muslim, Democracy, Anarchy, Republic, LIBERAl, NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY, CONSERVATIVE and Oh yes, LOOK UP WE THE PEOPLE AND THE AWAKEING OF AMERICA! THE SLEEPING GIANT IS COMING BACK TO LIFE!
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Gary Hart thank you for this timely reminder. Unfortunately, hysterical rants get ratings today, but I’m still hopeful that thoughtful essays like this will still break through.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Thank you for posting this. The double speak of the conservative right wing has corrupted many an institution in this country and perverted many a known truth. I am disgusted by their foul anger and self righteous behavior whenever one of their “principles or facts” are challenged by evidence and history. The re writing of history is their best shot, their bastardization of religion for their own use, is like the Taliban as no other. Thank you for speaking out. You are worthy of praise, keep your voice strong, in the upcoming battles with the right, it will be needed, as indeed all voices of reason. Do not back down, do not succumb to the rot of the right. Someday they will drown in their own quicksand of hate and righteousness.
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Thank you for this article–this is something I have been saying for a long time. The one definition you left out is for ‘conservative’, which, according to my Collegiate version of Websters is ‘Tending to oppose change’ and I would go on to say, in the current political context it can be expanded by adding ‘that provides any benefit to the middle class or in any way improves the lives of any group save the wealthy’. Keep up the good writing!
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:23 pm
The best HuffPo blog entry I have read this year!!! I’ve never quite understood why the right labels everything they don’t like or agree with as liberal. Now, it’s obvious that it’s their understanding of, and definition of, the word liberal is why they enjoy throwing it around so much.
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Another Orwellian perversion of language common in the UK & Canada is the use of the phrase “intelligence services” to describe MI5, MI6 & CSIS when they really mean “secret police”.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:01 pm
I read that article last week and was mesmerized by the double speak but not as acutely vigilant to see it as a direct affront. I’ve been describing the demonization of the word “liberal” as a means of moving the center to the right and equally as a perversion of the obvious. As you pointed out, liberal means generous and open minded while conservative means steadfastly sticking to a status quo. The question is: “How has that small mean spirited, vitriolicly ideological segment managed to control the discourse for the last thirty years. The answer to me is the fear of liberals to tackle religion as politics and to address the real problems of entitlement when they do gain slightly in power. That leaves the door open to “Guns, Gays and God.” That leaves the playing field completely polarized without any hope of doing the job of governance. Thanks for still being there, you dah man. B.Q., Mackay, ID.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Mr Hart: It is right and honorable for a person to be liberal with their own money. I am and I feel good about it. For the government to take my money and for our elected people to be liberal with it is not good. It is not a right and honorable happening. Taking my money and giving it to others is called Socialism and I do not want to see my country turn in that direction.
…….and so it goes~~
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:34 pm
I share your loss at the popular change of meaning of “liberal”. It is such a good word. “Liberty and justice for All” still stands. I went to a Liberal Arts College. I love Libraries. But it was not the act of a single person. Language is like that. Polarization in our nation has many other victims as well.
What we need is an active movement to replace this word with another which is as meaningful. Our complacency here is like our response to those who would return us to the serfs and royalty that our nation was formed to escape. Big business simply loves cheap labor which requires no benefits, will work long hours and can be replaced when they drop dead with another who is eagerly waiting for a job.
And we will get just that the way things are going.
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Mr Allen, I’ve always considered myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal. However, liberal economic policy and irresponsible economic policy are two different things. If you look at the Republicans over the last 30 years no one has been more irresponsible economically the the Republicans. They have increased the debt over 1000% since 1980. We can debate the concept of a progressive tax structure all day but the Republicans created a regressive tax structure by giving huge tax cuts to the wealthiest segment of society with the promise of the wealth “trickling down” to the middle class. Well, it was a disaster for ur country with the wealthy becoming wealthier, the middle class becoming poorer while the National Debt & Debt/GDP ratio skyrocked. When properly managed, taxing the wealthy (of which I am a statistical member) at a higher but graduated level feeds the growth of the middle class. Irresponsible tax cuts did not grow the middle class because the wealthy did not spend but instead invested huge sums in tax deferred financial instruments or overseas opportunities.
As for the word liberal, it comes from liberty. That the Republican Party has attempted to stain this term only makes sense given the hypocrisy they now demonstrated via demagogues like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Goldwater, Rockefeller and Buckley must be weeping in their graves at what has become of their once great GOP.
Tobin Threadgill
Evergreen, CO
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Good for you!
I had custom-printed bumper stickers made up last year that say, “Liberal Patriot.” (cafe press).
So there.
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:13 pm
To Jim Allen, Out tax money is taken from all of us to be used for the public good. It is a political choice to spend on defense and police only, or to combine out funds for other public goods. For example, for me, using public to fight poverty and hunger is much more valuable and noble than individually giving charity to his favorite charity. That is what liberal and progressive government will tend to choose. My wife from Europe never experienced the kind of charity giving to feed the hungry etc that we have here. She was amazed that so much was not done by government and left to charity. All the people in Belgium, et al, do contribute to the public good and society is better for it.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Thanks to all for your comments, interesting as always. To those who complain about “government” being liberal with their tax dollars, I have two responses: first, spending has always gone up under conservative administrations; and second, under our Constitution only one branch of government can authorize spending. That is the Congress which is composed of 535 individuals elected by a majority of voters in their States and districts. The president cannot spend money the Congress has not authorized. Even under Republican controlled Congresses spending has gone up. So, as Pogo famously said, we have met the enemy and the enemy is us. When I say we are trying to bring liberal democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, I am merely repeating what presidents and military commanders have claimed.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Senator, I have only one major disagreement with your argument. You wrote, “We describe our form of government as liberal democracy. It embodies principles of freedom, liberty, equality, and justice. Its principles were set forth by John Locke and embodied in our Bill of Rights. We engage in wars to bring this same government to others.”
Wars bring nothing but destruction. They are the worst tool for bringing anything as constructive as democracy. And it is the height of arrogance and presumption for any culture to believe it has the right, let alone the ability, to “bring” a form of government to another culture. Our Founders adapted ideas from Locke and other thinkers to the 1776 culture of 13 Atlantic Ocean colonies. No one “brought” it to them. Expose other cultures to our ideas, but allow them to adapt those ideas they see fit to adapt to their culture in their own organic way. Neoliberalism, like neoconservatism, seeks only to dominate by force and violence. Democracy arises from the people them selves.
February 24th, 2010 at 12:15 am
Years ago, the great Chicago columnist Mike Royko wrote a column about what it meant to be liberal and he used adjectives similiar to yours. Why has the right made the word liberal sound like something nasty?To me, being tolerant and open minded are good things. Perhaps that is why the far right now uses words like “Socialist” and “Communist” to describe any thinking that does not fit into their narrow view. Even words like “progressive” are twisted to mean something evil to the wing-nuts. Isn’t the opposite of progressive “backwards?”
February 24th, 2010 at 12:46 am
Dear Gary,
Kudos for noticing & supporting Tim Ferris’ Huffington Post on the true meaning of the term `Liberal’. We all need to trumpet our moniker to the mindless, conservatives who disparage us with it, not unlike the epithet “communist” was hurled our way 6 decades ago.
February 24th, 2010 at 8:07 am
A number of friends have gotten a good laugh out of Cliftonchaviz account of my great wealth and my coziness with the neoconservatives.
February 24th, 2010 at 8:33 am
This is an excellent viewpoint. Those that are so fond of using the word liberal as if it were toxic, needs to use a dictionary and find the true meaning.
February 24th, 2010 at 10:24 am
We label something and believe we have made a true accomplishment and contribution. Label a child ADHD or bipolar, refuse to examine his underlying personal issues and those in charge have done their job, we refuse to do the hard work of understanding. It is always the other guys fault. The problem is not a matter of principle but of perception. We wish to pretend the problems we face today were not self evident 30 years ago. We were given the option of dealing with these problems or run up bigger debt and bigger deficits. We chose to pretend everything was great, we just needed to work harder to borrow and spend more. That was the republican idea, not the conservative idea. 10 years ago we chose more of the same. We wish to eat whatever we want, refuse to exercise and be healthy. Watch the news. The problem is we are raising fat stupid people and that is incurable. When asked the define ignorance, apathy and indifference the average person will respond “I don’t know, I don’t care because it does not matter” and never realize the irony. We elect democrats to complete control of the gov’t as they could reasonably expect and still their incompetence is the Republicans fault they can not get anything done. It is not the people running the proceess of Gov’t that is the problem. The problem is the process we have adapted to deal we governing. Damn those conservatives!
February 24th, 2010 at 10:30 am
[...] 2010 February 24 tags: Politics by r.e.c. Former Senator Gary Hart defends the word “liberal” from its mischaracterization by the right: Most recently, a highly [...]
February 24th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Mr. Hart – Thanks for the clarification of what was meant by spreading liberal democracy; it was hard to tease that out, because 1) I have not read a lot of your writing, and 2) the tone of the rest of your piece came across as serious and straight forward.
For fun, I’d like to link to an Orwell essay on Politics and Language (in which he argues that the point of corrupting language is to corrupt thought):
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit
Let us hope that the IQ of the American public ticks up a few notches, and more of us start paying attention to politicians’ perversion of language– no matter which party they belong to.
February 24th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Ultimately, the case for increasing taxes paid by those with the greatest ability to pay them without suffering is the salve that will soothe our fiscal wounds. Nobody with a kind heart wants to have to choose between guns and butter, between defense and promoting the general welfare with domestic programs. Even if we reduce spending, our tax income will still likely fall short of being able to balance the federal budget. So tax revenue must be enhanced. Nobody wants to be singled out to pay more taxes.
Many would not have a problem paying more in taxes if they felt that (1) they were not being unfairly targeted, and (2) if they felt that the taxes they paid were being put to good use. Those in the top income demographics oppose progressive taxation, and yet they have the greatest amount of disposable income — i.e., the greatest ability to absorb a reduction in net income without a significant decline in standard of living. The sentiment I discern from upper income earners is that they worked hard to get where they are and they did it without any help from the government, so why should the government take away their hard-earned money? This argument is fallacious in that it ignores the fact that one cannot make money without having a market in which to sell one’s product. Only the presence of a society with money to spend can allow any one of us to prosper. And so one never claws one’s way to the top without having some form of consumer base. Taking steps to insure the long-term stability of this fertile economic environment should be a top priority for all entrepreneurs — this is simply enlightened self interest. And so paying a little more in taxes is a way of preserving the economy that allows individuals to flourish — if the money is spent wisely.
Wise spending is not one of the traits associated with government programs. Some of the charges of profligate spending are valid and some are not. Waste needs to be removed and erroneous charges of wanton spending need to be refuted. People need to believe that the system can be saved, and they need to believe that their contribution will matter. Perhaps a reissue of some type of war-bonds needs to occur to help keep interest rates required for debt servicing to remain low. When China threatens to dump their US Bond holdings unless we abandon Taiwan, we will need to be there to pick up the slack.
February 24th, 2010 at 10:57 am
I have for years read the definition of liberal and conservative to people and when I finish the liberal defintion all the conservatives say”that’s Me”then i read the conservative and they say ,oh no that’s not me ,sorry to say Americans sure do need to get thier definitiond staight but that is asking alot of a society that only knows it’s sports stats,keep the good work going gary ,i voted for you and am proud to be a LIBERAL,I shall never stop being all I can be
February 24th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
I might agree with Mr. Hart IF what liberals believed today was, in fact, open-handedness, freedom and giving. Unfortunately, they (liberals) do NOT believe in any of those things. Oh, I suppose one could say they are “open-handed”–as long as they are giving other people’s property away. They most assuredly do NOT believe in freedom–except the freedom to kill one’s offspring while still in the womb (or nearly so). Today’s American liberals are all about control–control of what we eat, what we drive, where we live, what we drink, whether or not we smoke, what we can say that disagrees with them, how we can express our religious convictions. Realizing that THEIR definition of liberal has been self-immolated, they are now calling themselves “progressives,” as if gaining totalitarian control of every American’s life and fortune is somehow “progress.” Phooey!
February 24th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
I wonder what did George III’s press thought about George Washington? Liberal or conservative? I bet he was labeled as liberal. I would dare to say that the founding fathers were a bunch of liberals if we use the definition of the cons. what have the conservatives accomplished in our history? Just conserving what liberals gave them and then trash them at every turn? Conservatives are Con artists, aren’t they? Their leaders are the sophists of our times and their followers have air flowing through their ears. Smile.
February 24th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Dad,
Thanks for forwarding me the article.
Gary Hart’s article begins by providing clear examples of Orwellian thought control: “”War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” He then states an universally accepted maxim, which argues the aim of totalitarians is “to reverse the meanings of words,” and that “totalitarianism begins with the perversion of words.” However, no sooner does Hart cite the conspicuously unassailable, than he commits a presumptuous leap in logic – he asserts that the sole instigators of such doublespeak are none but the political right: “the new right began with demonization of perfectly sound words like liberal.” Now, were this premise an ironclad fact, so be it. However, except for the demagoguery, what scintilla of justification or evidence does Hart provide? As we shall, absolutely none.
Please here me, I am not talking here about Hart producing a thorough, systematic examination of the manner in which he contends the “far right…reverses the meanings of words.” Not by any stretch. I understand the limits of Hart’s article, both in terms of intent and editorial space. I am merely asking that Hart offer us a single sample or instance where “the far right” has “reversed the meaning” of the word “liberal.” I know of none. From my perspective, “liberal” is a far more damaging appellation than any Orwellian replacement. Why on earth would any right minded soul wish to substitute a missile for a peashooter? Shooting down the loony ideas the left perpetrates on America is best accomplished by merely declaring them as “liberal” – it’s the matchless weapon of choice for the “far right” and is employed at every pertinent opportunity.
No one is saying that “liberal” does not embody the more enlightened qualities that Hart associates to liberalism. Liberals, to be sure, intend the best. But here is also the catch. I cannot think of a solitary example in history where the simple desire for a “magnanimous, benevolent, open-minded, generous and unselfish” society naturally guarantees it. When the “far right” encounters the tenets of liberals and overwhelms them with reason and wisdom, it’s not for what they intend but rather what their their good intentions wreak upon people – their policies have caused untold suffering and there doesn’t seem to be any end in sight. Mind you, this is coming from a recovering liberal – I believe I know from where I speak.
Regardless of whether my opinion of the “liberal” is accurate or not is immaterial – I can find no rationale for Hart to blame the “far right fulminators” for “perverting language.” For decades, the “far right” has not fought against the goodness of the liberal’s charge, but rather how they go about effectuating their good intentions. Admittedly, the liberal picture the “far right” attempts to paint can at times be struck with too wide a brush – I’ve been guilty of this myself. However, such exertions speak more about endeavoring to have one’s voice heard amid a sea of competing prescriptions than it does for “totalitarianism.” Not to mention that only an abject zealot would maintain that the use of hyperbole is the exclusive ammunition of any singular political faction. I am not excusing contentious amplification but only acknowledging it – and no one side owns the market in this arena.
Hart continues: “It is understandable that the far-right fulminators begin by perverting language.” Again, we understand Orwellian thought and appreciate Hart’s ability to cite examples of such, but since when does simply quoting the philosophical ruminations of another automatically make it analogous to the target of one’s objection? Considering that it was so effortless for Hart to specify Orwell’s paradigm (and Orwell’s novel is not the issue in question), how much more elementary should it have been for Hart to supply not one or two examples, but a host of specimens? How else is the inquisitive, fair-minded reader to best comprehend the precise transgressions of the “far right”? However, we see not a single illustration to support Hart’s contention.
Strangely enough, Hart persists and throws yet another low-blow at the “far right” by venting: “The values of magnanimity, benevolence, open-mindedness, generosity, and unselfishness are anathema to them.” This is nothing short of astonishing! Hart bases the entire thrust of his diatribe on the evil of those on the “far right,” who Hart accuses of “demonizing” other philosophical perspectives, while he simultaneously expresses his demonizing interpretation of the “far right’s” heart and point of view. In other words, Hart furnishes the lexicons at Websters with the quintessential definition for hypocrite.
This only goes to illustrative my belief that while conservatives engage in addressing ideas, liberals attack people. After all, Hart does not discuss the merits of conservative ideals but only that they are without “the values of magnanimity, benevolence, open-mindedness, generosity.” And let us not forget that “unselfishness are anathema to them.” So much for arguing substance. And who is it that inhabits the “perversion of words”?
If all this were not dizzying enough, Hart then levels yet another punch to the solar plexus’s of the “far right”: “Totalitarianism has always wanted to control science for its own purposes.” Yes, I kid you not – I’ve quoted him verbatim. Hart accuses the “far right” with “controlling science” – proving once again that those who point a careless accusatory finger routinely have three fingers pointing right back at themselves. Rarely has mankind witnessed a more concerted effort to alter the course of humanity solely predicated on the “data” of science than today’s liberal coteries – a “science” that as been touted as “conclusive” and “moral” long before the scientific conclusions were set and dry. A science, we are now discovering, that has ever increasingly been adulterated by personal aspiration and political agenda. A science that has been used as a tool to transform, regulate and control social systems all across the globe – all “for its own purposes.” And Hart has the temerity to finger the “far right?” OMG
You see, here we are again, exposing the liberal’s most frequent tactic of choice: diverting attention from their own perky subterfuge by zealously denouncing it in others. While our dear liberal friends draft wide spectrums of regulations ranging from “hate-speech legislation” to the “fairness doctrine,” the “far right” is actively engaged in fending off such blatant attacks against our inalienable liberties and upholding the constitutional rights granted therein.
Conservatives don’t employ Orwellian phrases. Were they bona fide and material, you, Mr Hart, would you would have uttered them here, plainly and openly. Far from the “demonization of perfectly sound words like liberal”, conservatives do not and cannot coerce Americans into viewing “liberal” as anything other than it primarily deserves. Both sides simply present their case and await the verdict – a verdict from fair-minded, freedom loving Americans.
I am genuinely elated that Hart desires to cease employing the newly adopted term, progressive, and “restoring the true meaning of important words like liberal.” As a conservative man, I welcome the opportunity to debate him and anyone else who is not “afraid” of who they are and is able and willing to do battle on the field of competing ideas. Just come prepared – not much else would please me more than to prove my perception of liberal as a philosophical virus, infecting body and soul – and I expect Hart to do hist best to place his best punch where it would do me the most harm. Let the clash begin, but please, let’s not fool ourselves – both sides have a point of view and each is compelled and justified in doing all they can to win. Ka-Pow! Zgruppp! Vronk!
Mark
February 25th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
[...] Read more @ Matters of Principle [...]
February 25th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Very well said.
I have often thought that the root of “liberal” comes from the root of “liberty”, i.e., “to liberate.”
In that sense, it is quite possible that our Founding “Fathers and Mothers” most likely also equated the word “liberty” with “patriotism.” (”Give me liberty or give me death” is just one important historical footnote on the thoughts a true patriot (Patrick Henry) recognized was a principle that would be needed for our security).
As an attorney, I am often troubled by lawyers using the term “prestigious” in describing other lawyers or their firms, since the root of the word “prestigious means an “illusion” as in one who practices prestidigitation, i.e., magic tricks and deception.
Those who practice in the art of deceptive use of language, ultimately trip on their own words, as they become intoxicated with their illusions and sometimes delusions of grandeur.
February 28th, 2010 at 12:28 am
We do NOT wage wars to bring democracy to other countries, as you stated in your column. First of all, it’s none of our business to decide what kind of government another nation has. Secondly, our motives are not so grand — Iraq -oil; Afghanistan/Pakistan — a foothold in the Middle East. We are like any other empire in history — becoming imperialist in our military presence throughout the world.
The munitions and mercenary armies are taking away money better spent on infrastructure here — not there. Every person in America could have free health care with money (let alone lives) wasted there. We are fighting the Taliban, not Al Qaeda (the intended target). It’s all insane. But don’t delude yourself that our motives for making war are altruistic. Not one American life (or Iraqi or Afghan) should have been lost by all this imperialist insanity. No one wins.
February 28th, 2010 at 1:10 am
Revisiting Hart post on Huffington, I noticed Mark’s comment—at least three times longer than Hart’s original. I guess he considers himself what passes for “intellectual” in conservative circles. This kind of verbosity is typical among conservatives to give the appearance of philosophical thought. Practically speaking, they have never lessened government power or spending. They are shocked—shocked!—that their elected representatives would use tax money to promote the general welfare, but have no problem with imperial militaristic adventures resulting in the deaths of many thousands. Likewise, they have no problem with anti-democratic, totalitarian big business victimizing the public. In the Gingrich, Reagan, W. Bush era modern conservatism sold out whatever rationality it might have had to religionists and has become just one thing: an attack strategy.
February 28th, 2010 at 8:48 am
I wear the name “Liberal” with great pride.
February 28th, 2010 at 10:23 am
Thanks for writing this Gary, it’s so true and it’s been happening since the Reagan administration. Matter of fact and if memory serves, it was Reagan who started it and the fledgling conservative media took the ball and ran with it. The message was simple… everything that was bad about society was the fault of liberals. Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat. The old maxim that says that if you a lie often enough it becomes the truth was never more applicable. Oddly enough, people stopped calling themselves “liberal” and jumped ship to “progressive” which I feel was a big mistake. As David Crosby so eloquently said in Almost Cut My Hair.. “I feel like letting my freak flag fly”. Never backpeddle. Never back down. When they call you a liberal you reply “You say that like it’s a bad thing” or something just as in-your-face. Now we see that Glenn Beck is attempting to achieve the same result with “progressivism”. Yeah right. Go ahead and demonize progress. That’ll be a tough sell.
February 28th, 2010 at 10:47 am
“If we restore the true meaning of important words like liberal, perhaps at least a few politicians will not be afraid to use them.”
Yes! By all means, let’s restore the true meaning of the word “liberal”, as it has always been a thorn in my eye that the American Left had appropriated the term to themselves somewhere in the 20th century and made it to mean the exact opposite of what it originally meant (and still does everywhere else in the word). If you were looking to accuse people of behaving in “Orwellian” fashion, Senator Hart, you needed not look further than to the history of your own political movement.
I’m actually flabbergasted by the fact that no one else has brought this up yet..
February 28th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I wrote a piece on this subject in 2006:
(This was published on the Huffington Post and in Chicago Tribune on October 10, 2006 and in the Philadelphia Daily News on October 16, 2006.)
Liberal Values
October 8, 2006
For most of the past four decades, “liberals” have been in retreat. Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Republicans have controlled the White House 70% of the time and Republican presidents have made 86% of the Supreme Court appointments. In many quarters, the word “liberal” has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe…
To view the entire article, please visit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/liberal-values_b_31218.html
February 28th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
There is a post made here, responding to Senator Hart’s article. that is the perfect example of the conduct by the right that the Senator complains of. See the post submitted by Mark, at 7:50 p.m. on 2/24.
Mark tells us that “Conservatives don’t employ Orwellian phrases.” He says that Conservatives haven’t engaged in demonization, and suggests that they are just honest perveyors of the truth.
What an absurdity. The Republicans have employed the Republican Lie, that is, the affirmative, intentional, pre-ordained use of blatant lies regarding the most important of matters in their effort to mislead the American people, on a regular basis for more than a decade. Indeed, the Republican Lie is the single factor most responsible for their recent political “successes”.
The Republicans go so far as to hire experts whose specialty is the political lie,their darling consultant Frank Luntz perhaps the best known example, although their resort to the so called conservative think tanks and other reposits of right wing ideologies for this purpose have been frequent. Not only have they used the Republican Lie on a regular basis; they are proud of it. They genuinely believe it to be an acceptable part of politics in America.
Those knowledgeable of the facts and endowed with the slightest bit of objectivity will know this as the truth. The fabrication of the phrase “healthcare death squads” is but one example among hundreds that we need not list here.
The Republican Party lies to the American people, not just in small ways or just on occasion, but on a regular and routine basis because they’ve made it a tool of choice. It has been their conscious choice, and it is displayed thoughout the media on a daily, even hourly, basis. The phenomenon simply could not be more blatant, more obvious or more odious. It defines that character, or lack thereof, of the Republican Party.
Why, the very fact that these people continue to refer to themselves as conservatives is a lie, for they are anything but true conservatives. The truth is that they are radical rightists whose social and political views can only take the nation backward.
Regarding Mark’s post, we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is simply misguided, that he genuinely believes the line he has served up; however, it is worth noting that Mark ends his commentary with the declaration that each side is “…justified in doing all they can to win.” I wonder if Mark would include lying to the American people as a matter of policy and practice in his justification of the Republican philosophy that the end justifies all means. We can only hope not.
February 28th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Liberal =:
A womans right to choose.
An individuals rights to own a gun.
All citizens right to vote.
February 28th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Gary,
Thank you for reminding us of the importance of the politics of language. However, should we proclaim freedom as one of our core values?
If language is to serve as a medium for clear communication, words need to have clear meaning. What does freedom mean? The clear, common-sense meaning of freedom is the absence of limits or, conversely, the ability to do whatever we want. Is that our goal—the absence of limits? Is a life without limits logically possible? Or, is our goal to establish a just, non-violent society? Isn’t our goal to find reasonable, equitable limits on behavior, not to eliminate all social rules?
If we want to create a democracy, we need to abandon the false rhetoric of freedom and, instead, embrace the values of justice, peace, and democracy.
Jesse Chanley
February 28th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
[...] Thus begins a brief essay by former Senator Gary Hart on the meaning of liberalism. Think about Glen Beck and the Tea Party when you read it. It can be seen at http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=404 [...]
February 28th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Liberal seems to have gone out of style in the 70s because of its correct identification in many white racist minds with favoring rights for black people. This is still an unforgiveble sin in many parts of the country, particularly the South. Liberal politicians, who once happily embraced the name, dropped it to enable themselves to pick up some of the mildly racist white swing voters.
It was a classic failure of nerve from which the liberals..er Progressives – have not recovered.
February 28th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
The opposite of totalitarian would be a sort of amalgam of liberal and libertarian. Liberals and libertarians both recognize the importance of liberty, but have somewhat different views on the nature of liberty and very different views on the threats to liberty and the means of safeguarding liberty.
I’m a liberal.
February 28th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
To all my right wing friends,
I’d really like to thank you and the rest of the right wingers for helping me, and probably millions of others, get past a problem of which I was once truly ashamed. You see, the name Barrack Hussein Obama used to conjure all sorts of negative emotions. I was very uncomfortable with it being so… Well, you know, foreign. It was scary to think that an Arab person ::shudder:: might become President of the United States – and then might suddenly, by royal decree or something equally unconstitutional, institute sharia law and force us all to wear ugly blue potato sacks and towels on our heads. And really, I have nothing in my jewelry box that would even remotely accent that style! I mean, what’s a girl to do?
Of course, that was just silly of me, but xenophobia is an insidious fear, usually based on a lack of facts and racial prejudice. But when you, or someone like you, generously continues to repeat the name Barrack Hussein Obama, eventually the sting of it disappears. Sort of like when Republicans desensitized America to the negative connotations inherent in the word “liberal”. A word so wrought with danger and vile purification of the human soul that any sane individual would naturally run from anyone describing themselves in such terms. Like a creature who’d somehow slithered up from the nether regions of Hell to pounce upon an unsuspecting nation, fangs dripping with ichor and the blood of innocent American babies.
So, thank you, my friends. You have done, and continue to do, a great service to your nation. You expose us for what we, in our heart of hearts, sometimes are: backwards, petty, ignorant and fearful. You, and you alone this day, have made it possible for me to proudly state:
I am a Liberal and I love Barrack Hussein Obama.
February 28th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” George Washington
March 1st, 2010 at 12:43 am
The definition of Liberal was not changed by the far right or conservatives of American politics but rather the big government (inherently totalitarian) practices of those who clam the term as their own description.
Most such people tend to tell themselves that they are ” magnanimous; benevolent; open-minded; generous; and unselfish” but:
Using government(force) to make other people to bare the burden of your “generosity” and sacrifice does not make you “magnanimous”.
At the same time using the same big government(force) to impose upon everyone a specific such “social policy” does not make you “benevolent”.
Refusal to allow other people to openly debate “proven science” like “global warming” does not make you “open-minded.” nether does for that matter insistence upon the forceful implementation of YOUR way in a collectivized big government(force) system.
Giving away the money taken from other people using government(force) does not make you “generous”.
Giving less charity from your own pocket and your own time in favor of using government(force) to take it from someone else’s does not make you “unselfish”.
Indeed using government to accomplish all theses things makes you “totalitarian”.
As our First President George Washington pointed out:
“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant — and a fearful master.” -George Washington, 1797
_________________
March 1st, 2010 at 10:49 am
To “Monorprise” and others, it must once again be pointed out that liberals do not “use government” any more than conservatives do. The American people vote for one party or another to achieve certain objectives. In recent decades both parties and both ideologies have spent vast amounts of taxpayer dollars but for different purposes. I doubt that “Monorprise” seriously objected to the vast costs of the two current wars, though they were “using government” to achieve the stated objective of creating democracies in two nations that didn’t have it. When I wrote that this was our stated objectives in those wars I was merely repeating what our political and military leaders gave as our reason for fighting those wars.
March 4th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Senator Hart, I agree that conservatives use government just as much a liberals. Both parties have been fiscally irresponsible, and yes it was because those who elected them, as well as special interests who contributed to their reelection demanded it. In that I believe we are witnessing the selfish side of human nature . . . but that is another subject.
While Liberals and conservatives are not opposites, they differ greatly in their view of legitimate use of government.
Conservatives strive for equality under the law.
Liberals strive for equality enforced by the law.
There’s a huge difference, and it begs the question . . . Which of those two would the founding fathers say is the legitimate use of government?
March 19th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
This is the perfect blog for anyone who wants to know about this topic. You know so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I really would want…HaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a subject thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just great!