The Failure of Liberalism (LONG)

[IrateCitizen]

or...

"Why I am a Progressive, and not a Liberal"

I consider myself to be a Progressive, and I often bristle at the idea of being referred to as a Liberal. I had never been able to figure out why, but having known many Liberals and listened to many liberal politicians throughout the last 20 years of my 30 spent in this lifetime, there was always something that just didn’t sit right with me.

Now I have figured it out. It is because liberalism is a stale, failed ideology; one that was destined for failure. And it is currently failing spectacularly. Before the jeers start, let me say that I find conservatism to be at least equally lacking in vision as liberalism, especially in its current and particularly abhorrent incarnation. But liberalism is failing even more spectacularly than conservatism, because at least conservatives have been successful in speaking to the search for meaning that many people have – even if their actions have done the exact opposite.

Earlier in the year, I had an article published in Newtopia Magazine which you can read here, describing my struggle to live a better life – and calling on others to do the same. I had come to the conclusion that my current life track, the one that society had told me since childhood that I should follow – get an education, get a job, make money, get rich, be happy – was a fool’s errand. There was something wrong, and I knew that if I really wanted to be happy, I had to change it. I also wondered aloud what might happen if this personal recognition of mine helped others to recognize the same thing, and in doing so excited them to make similar changes.

But what I came to realize was that the article was lacking an overall vision, a connecting theme. There was something that just wasn’t quite there, and I couldn’t put my finger on it.

Then, at a yard sale of all places, I happened to pick up a copy of the book The Politics of Meaning by Rabbi Michael Lerner, the founder of Tikkun. In reading Rabbi Lerner’s book, I began to see my personal dissatisfaction in the broader terms of a phenomenon affecting countless multitudes of people in the industrialized world, here in the US in particular. After all, we are a country that, despite staggering wealth and a high standard of living by economic terms, has an equally staggering 25% or more of its adult population clinically depressed.

We are looking for this “meaning” simply because we cannot find it in our daily lives. We live in a culture in which we are preached to about the glories of free-market capitalism, through which self-interest is heralded as the noblest of ideals. If everyone operates in narrow self interest, the market will grow to its maximum potential.

In the wake of this, however, we are leaving a trail of destruction. Over half of all marriages now end in divorce. We are gobbling up the earth’s natural resources and destroying the environment on a bunch of junk we don’t need, and we won’t stop out of fear that it will “hurt the economy”. We live in wealthy, suburban communities where we don’t really even know our neighbors. We work long hours, believing that more money will make us happier, and we miss seeing our children grow up in the process.

Where is the meaning in this kind of life? Is there really a pot of gold at the end of that rainbow, or are we all condemned to general unhappiness through most of our lives? And why does it signify the failure of liberalism?

One of the great victories of conservatives over the past 25 years has been their ability to speak to people’s search for meaning. They repeatedly invoke words such as family, community and values. And it’s also important to note the way in which they’ve embraced religion in the form of the Christian Right. Of course, while they’ve talked about such broad concepts – I mean, who could be against “family” or “values” – they have supported the very selfish free market that has only exacerbated the feelings of disconnect experienced by the majority of the population. But by simply throwing out those campaign slogans that invoke a sense of community or values, they tap into this very sense of belonging to a greater purpose that most people crave. Then, they buttress their power by giving them scapegoats for why their problems aren’t solved.

Liberalism, on the other hand, has become a philosophy of guilt. It is an ideology in which different groups compete for the title of “most oppressed” so they will be worthy of the greatest entitlement to “level the playing field.” Groups who can’t demonstrate their oppression are then not entitled to any assistance, leading to resentment on their part toward those who are receiving greater entitlements. Perhaps nothing could better explain why working-class Americans have increasingly embraced the Right – their concerns were never given top consideration within the liberal framework, because there were always more oppressed groups out there whose problems were more deserving of attention.

The overwhelming problem with the philosophy of liberalism is that it does nothing to address the core problem of self-interest. It’s a philosophy of extreme contradiction. On one hand, we are supposed to embrace the idea that the economy works best when everyone is pursuing his or her self-interest. On the other hand, we are going to solve all of society’s problems by just lifting up the oppressed of society to compete in this market on more level terms. On one hand, we are taught to take what we believe to rightfully be ours, to function in a system in which people are viewed not as people, but rather as something to simply be used. On the other hand, we are compelled to contribute to the well-being of others. If it seems contradictory, that’s only because it is.

Then there is the adoption of self-interest within the various movements of the “oppressed”, themselves. First, we had the labor movement, which fought for respect for the working class of America, but became somewhat racist and embraced militarism in order to pursue its self-interest. Then, we had the civil rights movement that energized a vast segment of the population based on its initial values of love, caring and compassion – MLK’s “dream” of a greater, more inclusive society – that has since become concerned with securing entitlements to compete in the free market. Another example is the feminist movement that did the great work of changing the basic way in which we view gender relationships with regards to the value of certain contributions to society, and then became a movement concerned with securing the capacity for women to better enter the market themselves.

Note, I am not denouncing any of the gains made by these movements, for they all made unbelievable contributions to our society. But what cannot be ignored is how all of them eventually embraced the philosophy of self-interest, when they achieved their greatest successes by instead focusing on the values of respect, cooperation and community.

It is the failure of liberalism to wholly denounce the philosophy of self-interest that has led to its decline. It has failed to move us from recognizing that there are issues in our lives that are at least as important, if not more so, than the economic “bottom line”. In failing to champion the connection, sense of belonging, and meaning in our lives, they have failed us.

Now, I am certain that there are people reading this who would say that I am advocating the dismantling of capitalism and the replacement of it with socialism. That is hardly the case. I have an equal dislike of state-run socialism or communism as I have for the economics of selfishness so prevalent in free-market capitalism. I find it to be absolute folly for anyone to truly believe that by changing an economic system, we can really change our lives for the better. While some short-term gains may be achieved, in the end they will be overrun by the same manifestation of selfishness.

What I advocate is that we begin to have the courage to make changes in our lives. We begin to get involved not just in “causes”, but rather in strengthening the bonds between us. I am a spiritual person, and what could best be called “God” is a central part of my life. I believe that all people are in some way a manifestation of God, a filament of the same life spirit, and therefore to be respected and treasured. By realizing this central part of my life philosophy, it is impossible for me to happily embrace an ethos centered on selfishness. I cannot simply use people as a commodity for my own advancement, if I view them as being as worthy of love and compassion as myself.

While this attitude does not require anyone to adopt the same spiritual beliefs as I have, it does require that people simply look inside themselves for the greatest source of meaning in their lives. Is it money? Power? Fame? Or is it that longing for a feeling of love and community, a sharing of ourselves in order to collectively lift each other up as people of value?

Times of crisis have often brought out the best in people, and it is always in times of crisis when people lose sight of this delusion of self-interest being the key to happiness. It is in those times that people join together and work together toward a greater good. It is in these rare moments that many people finally feel a sense of true purpose.

Liberalism has failed to provide this sense of purpose. That is why I do not consider myself to be a liberal, and why I reject it as just another manifestation of the politics of self-interest. I long for a politics of meaning – and although I don’t know if Progressivism could be described as the movement behind this search, if it is, then I am proud to call myself a Progressive.

[IrateCitizen]

1. I know this is long, but I'm hoping SOMEONE will take the time to read it!

:kick:

Oh, yeah... if you DO read it, please give a response, even if it's just a :kick:!

[Iverson]

2. I read the whole thing.

Reading is fast. Reflection and response is slow. Maybe the same is true for others, which would lead to believe in error that your post got no attention.

[TrogL]

3. I've read it

I'll flame you when this migraine goes away :evilgrin:

[IrateCitizen]

17. At least give me the courtesy of an advance warning, TrogL...

... so I can put my flamesuit back on! ;-)

[TrogL]

32. OK, here goes

Near as I could make out (through the pain) the crux of your argument is "It is the failure of liberalism to wholly denounce the philosophy of self-interest that has led to its decline."

There is nothing wrong with self-interest per se. The problem is self-interest to the exclusivity of all else.

Carnegie of Carnegie Hall was a steel magnate - one of the "robber barons". When I come into the city and go to the big concert hall, its main foyer is covered with corporate logos and the names of big-name individual donors. The same with the local YMCA and library.

In the 'good old days' (which probably never existed) a businessman was proud of the number of people he employed. These days he's supposed to be proud of the number of people he 'downsized'.

Here's an analogy to how I see it:

Conservatives want a few people at the top to be able to afford to own an SUV and everybody else walk down the potholed street. They want to preserve their way of life through heavy-duty policing (by conservatives) and gated communities.

Liberals want everybody to be able to afford to own a compact car or minivan and have a gleaming asphalt road to drive it on. They see economic opportunity in both the high volume sales of low-cost product, and the ability to manipulate the economy through infrastructure-based work projects. With many people employed, crime drops.

Reality is probably a middle ground. There needs to be the economic incentive for conservatives to do their thing (just who do you think ends up winning all those building contracts) but conservatives need to be made to understand (or have it forced on them) that without the physical insfrastructure to move goods and peoples, and the economic infrastructure to provide some sort of market, they're just taking in their own laundry.

[camero]

74. Self interest to the exclusion of all else

That is what we call greed. And it must be curtailed if we are to survive as a nation.

[AliceWonderland]

4. Interesting essay

though I don't know what any of it has to do with being a liberal.

[IrateCitizen]

7. Because liberalism is just another branch of the politics of self-interest

And therein lies its greatest failure. While many self-described "Liberals" are probably also searching for a Politics of Meaning, and want to place compassion, caring and cooperation as core values of our society -- they are defeating themselves by embracing liberalism, due to its embrace of self-interest as the primary motivating factor in society. This self-interest is the exact opposite of a society based on caring, compassion and cooperation.

[Q]

5. This looks like a mantra from the DLC...

...and reading the first couple paragraphs shows me that I don't need to read any further.

- So-called 'progressives' are the bane of the Democratic party. They stand for nothing except themselves and 'winning' in the name of mediocracy.

[JanMichael]

10. You've completely missed his point.

Totally, wholly and entirely...

[StandWatie]

11. it's not..

:shrug:

[IrateCitizen]

12. This has nothing to do with "party", Q...

I don't want to judge you by your response, but this tells me just about all I need to know:

...and reading the first couple paragraphs shows me that I don't need to read any further.

Nothing like a spirit of openmindedness to engage in discussion, eh? :eyes:

[Terwilliger]

44. it has a lot to do with party

Q's party

[prolesunited]

14. I think you DO need to read further

You missed the whole point of this essay, which in no way supports the DLC. Talk about a closed mind!

I like a lot of your posts, Q and many are spot on, but I think you're out of line here. IC has put a lot of thought and energy into this and to dismiss it without even reading it is quite unfair and doesn't reflect well on you.

BTW, there's so much here, I could hardly wrap my mind around it here at work. I'll reread it when I get home and post to this thread later.

[Rich Hunt]

27. I don't think you know what a "progressive" is...

To people who know their political history, "progressive" has a very specific meaning.

Do you think the Progressive Caucus cares about nothing?

Progressive politics are about reforming democracy - taking democracy back from big business and corporate interests.

[buddhamama]

6. i read it

i also remeber your article in Newtopia Magazine.

it has to be internalized and examined, reflected upon.there's a lot being said in your writing.

thank you for sharing,IC.

[JanMichael]

8. Interesting.

I'm in a rush, work stuff, so I'll just have to:kick:

PS~ Cooperative Commonwealth?

[chadm]

9. Great post

I feel the same way as you...although I was hoping you'd define more precisely how you think Progressivism could fill this vacuum.

I believe Progressive politics is all about improving quality of life, not just wealth. Quality of life includes money, purchasing power, etc., but more importantly a person's sense of purpose in a community, living in a clean, pleasant environment, having enough time to enjoy life, etc. I believe this philosophy is best represented by the Green Party...and is completely foriegn to the money-driven Democrats and Republicans.

On a side note, I have spent considerable time in Eastern Europe in the early 90's, and know what it is like to be part of an authentic, meaningful community (if only briefly). It saddens me to see that decline with American influence / propaganda.

It isn't some elusive theory, quality of life is something that is well understood in places like Canada and Scandanavian countries. We Progressives need to start a Quality of Life movement that focuses on the attainment of balance in our lives and in our environment.

[JanMichael]

13. dupe

...

[chadm]

18. I've spent time in Slovakia annually

Usually only 3-4 weeks at a time, once per year, with my wife's family.

So you were lucky enough to live there, huh? I'm still trying to take that leap.

[Iris]

65. I love hearing this.

I had a friend who dated a man from Slovaki and when she went to visit his family, all she could see was what the DIDN'T have (which were the "right" material possessions.)

[JanMichael]

16. OT- I was in Krakow, PL 92-94 & 97-00.

Where were you?

[denverbill]

15. No, sorry, but I don't buy it.

Liberalism isn't about 'self-interest'. Liberalism isn't 'a stale ideology'. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word. Philosophy of guilt?

Liberalism-
political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

Where in that definition do you see 'self interest' 'stale ideology' and a 'philosophy of guilt'?

[chadm]

20. of course the essay misses a lot...

but I think it makes the point that it doesn't appeal to people's sense of meaning and community as well as it should.

[IrateCitizen]

21. Not in the dictionary definition, denverbill. It's about it's application

I'm speaking of the way in which liberal politics has been practiced. It is a politics of self-interest, just not in the same way that conservatism is about self-interest.

It's failure to embrace a true politics of meaning has led to its decline.

[denverbill]

37. Well, there might be kernels of truth there.

However, if you ask me, the entire conservative philosophy is based on self-interest, from unbridled laissez-faire capitalism, to the I've got mine tax cuts, to the lazy-welfare-mom social spending cuts.

You talk about Christian family values, but the most important Christian values are to love your neighbor as yourself and to do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Conservative philosophy is all about helping yourself and letting others fend for themselves. Conservatives see the huge disparity between black employment and income and see lazy blacks who can solve their own problems by working harder. Liberals see the same situation and at least attempt to rectify the problem by passing anti-discrimination laws, pushing for better school funding for poor districts, etc.


On one hand, we are supposed to embrace the idea that the economy works best when everyone is pursuing his or her self-interest.

That's capitalism.

On the other hand, we are going to solve all of society’s problems by just lifting up the oppressed of society to compete in this market on more level terms.

That's socialism.


And I've got news for you. If you don't believe in the level of socialism implied by the above, you aren't even progressive. Many liberal programs from the minimum wage, to the right to bargain collectively, to progressive taxation are based on helping the lower class at the expense of the upper class.

[IrateCitizen]

43. I wish I could articulate all of this a little bit better...

... perhaps I would have if I had taken more time. In any case, I feel like we're missing something in the exchange, talking past each other.

You talk about Christian family values, but the most important Christian values are to love your neighbor as yourself and to do unto others as you would have them do to you.

I don't disagree with this, except for the fact that what you're describing aren't "Christian" values exclusively -- but rather are a common thread through all the major religions of the world. That lends me to believe that they're even more important than if they had just been "Christian values".

Conservative philosophy is all about helping yourself and letting others fend for themselves. Conservatives see the huge disparity between black employment and income and see lazy blacks who can solve their own problems by working harder. Liberals see the same situation and at least attempt to rectify the problem by passing anti-discrimination laws, pushing for better school funding for poor districts, etc.

Note, I am not bemoaning any of the things you listed. It's just that, well, it's all missing something. The question is, how do we create the society in which we no longer have to rely on such measures to coerce a "level playing field" in a system based completely on self interest? How do we encourage the people in our society to adopt values like respect, community, cooperation and compassion as at least as important as the "bottom line" that is embraced to the exclusion of other values?

And I've got news for you. If you don't believe in the level of socialism implied by the above, you aren't even progressive. Many liberal programs from the minimum wage, to the right to bargain collectively, to progressive taxation are based on helping the lower class at the expense of the upper class.

I never said that any of the above are bad things. I'm just saying that there is something lacking, something that prevents us from ever moving past the same fights. I see that "something" as a sense of meaning, a sense of interconnectedness with our fellow man that has been squashed into the ground by the ethos of selfishness that dominates our society.

[denverbill]

54. Yes, you're probably right.

Note, I am not bemoaning any of the things you listed. It's just that, well, it's all missing something. The question is, how do we create the society in which we no longer have to rely on such measures to coerce a "level playing field" in a system based completely on self interest?

OK, maybe I'm starting to follow you now. We'll see:). The problem with society is that there are problems with society. Conservatives look at the problems and do nothing, liberals look at the problems and do something, right or wrong.

The struggle between the 'level playing field' and self interest is like the struggle between rich and poor. Absent some utopian or communist dream state being implemented, it's always going to be there. If Americans suddenly became the most respectful, compassionate people in the world, eventually, someone would figure out a way to abuse our compassion and respect.

Under pure socialism, you have a problem with lack of competition, both by employees and employers. Why should I work hard if I earn the same as someone who is lazy? Under pure capitalism, you have the problem of widely varied wealth distribution, to the point where some starve while others consume beyond any point of reason.

I don't think there is an easy answer. It's going to be a never-ending give and take between those who want to keep more of what they earn and those who want to raise the standard of living for the poor.


How do we encourage the people in our society to adopt values like respect, community, cooperation and compassion as at least as important as the "bottom line" that is embraced to the exclusion of other values?

Good question. You know, when I was growing up, it seemed like every TV show I watched had some moral to the story. Whether it was the racist Archie Bunker getting his come-up-ance for his racism, or Kung Fu fighting for the downtrodden, or the Waltons dealing with their daily problems. Now, about all I see is tit jokes and survivor reality shows, where people learn the best way to get rich is to screw your neighbor over. But, profit comes first I guess. If morality sold advertising, we'd see nothing but Waltons.


I never said that any of the above are bad things. I'm just saying that there is something lacking, something that prevents us from ever moving past the same fights. I see that "something" as a sense of meaning, a sense of interconnectedness with our fellow man that has been squashed into the ground by the ethos of selfishness that dominates our society.

Well, yes, that's true. In the 1700-1900, people were literally interconnected. 90% of the population were subsitance farmers. If you didn't help your neighbor, you couldn't expect their help when you needed it either. They mostly all went to the same churches. Everybody knew everybody. You can't, imo, ever get that back in a city like Denver, or even Des Moines or Boulder. It takes a small town to be a community.

The only way to eliminate selfishness in a society based on capitalism is to either penalize selfishness or reward selflessness. Maybe we should tax people who don't contribute enough to charity at a higher rate than those who do, or 'pay' people to do charity work with a tax deduction.

[Iris]

67. thanks denverbill

When I read this, I couldn't collect my thoughts enough to reply coherently but you have said what I would have liked to say.

Basically I believe the philosophy of liberalism is not necessarily something that can necessarily translated into political action. I think it's such a shame that "liberal" has become a word with negative connotations - to the point that an unknown number of students have probably forgone "liberal studies" for a "business administration" degree, which in my mind, is as useless as the general populace thinks the liberal arts are.

[chadm]

28. You're right, it isn't "about" self-interest...

it just so happens that most Democrats happen to be very self-interested.

This is exactly how I view Democrats.

[denverbill]

40. Which is why you are a.......

Christ, conservatives are all about self-interest, not Democrats.

It's not in my self-interest to pay higher taxes to support social programs I'm don't need right now, is it? If I'm employed and making more than the median income, unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid don't help me one damn bit. If I was only interested in myself, why the hell would I favor those programs?

I'm white. If I'm self-interested, why would I favor affirmative action? How does that help me?

Crybaby, whining conservatives are the self-interested ones. What the hell do conservatives believe in that shows any concern for anyone other than themselves?

[Iris]

68. So, I assume you think self-interest is ok.

Otherwise, why are you here?

[democracyindanger]

19. I read it

You define what being a liberal is--according to you--and you hate it. You define what being a progressive is--according to you--and you think it's better. :shrug:

A political philosophy that does away with self-interest? What you're looking for is a commune.

[IrateCitizen]

23. Nah, not really...

A political philosophy that does away with self-interest? What you're looking for is a commune.

What I'm looking for is a political philosophy that embraces something besides self-interest. So are a lot of other people, IMHO -- a hypothesis that is bolstered by the fact that voter turnout continues to decline while membership in activist organizations continues to rise significantly.

People are looking for a sense of meaning besides a marketplace based on raw selfishness. Both Liberalism and Conservatism have failed to provide it for them. Is that something that we should just shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh well, we can't change it," or should we try to form something better?

[democracyindanger]

35. Well, here's what you do

First, you get everyone to agree not to be self-interested. Do that, and then you can have your alternative to a "marketplace based on raw selfishness." When you stick a couple hundred million people inside some artificial borders and expect them all to get along, they're going to be self-interested. That's reality. Politics is the means to manage that natural selfishness for the greater good. In other words, you're not going to find what you're looking for outside of communism or a commune.

And if you're looking for a sense of meaning, try religion. Seriously, I think what you're really looking for is Zen Buddhism. Subordinating the Self to the All, and so forth.

There's nothing wrong with liberalism. It hasn't failed us. It isn't broken. We just haven't been working very hard at it. You're free to jump ship if you want--thanks to Liberalism.

[IrateCitizen]

39. Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think I'll take you up on it.

I'm not saying that self-interest can be eliminated. It is an intricate part of human nature -- if we had no self interest, we'd be ants or honeybees.

What I am saying is that we live in a society BASED on self-interest, or better yet, it's extremist sibling selfishness. Just look at who is lionized in our society. It's not the firemen, the policemen, the schoolteachers, the nurses and doctors toiling in the ER, the child care workers. It's the swashbuckling, cost-cutting CEO. It's the star athlete who scores the $120 million contract. It's the movie star who gets $20 million per picture.

Our society idolizes those who maximize material wealth, no matter how we do it. We allow ourselves to be talked into the idea that the key to happiness is getting rich. We don't give those occupations that don't contribute to bottom-line profit-oriented wealth the same respect as those that do.

I'm simply saying that we should strive to be a society that values empathy, compassion, cooperation, etc. as much as we value selfishness and material wealth. And I see liberalism as a philosophy that has contributed to this cult of self-interest over all.

I guess the major difference between our POV is that you're viewing things through a lens that accepts things in their current state, while I view things through the lens that view what could be. You defined politics as follows: "Politics is the means to manage that natural selfishness for the greater good." I'd tend to agree more with the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, when he said, "Politics is about the importance of people's lives." It's recognizing the value of every person, and helping further the values that do so -- and selfishness does not contribute anything in this regard.

[Nederland]

52. Question

What I am saying is that we live in a society BASED on self-interest, or better yet, it's extremist sibling selfishness. Just look at who is lionized in our society. It's not the firemen, the policemen, the schoolteachers, the nurses and doctors toiling in the ER, the child care workers. It's the swashbuckling, cost-cutting CEO.

I'm not completely convinced that this is true. I guess it depends on how you determine who in our society is getting "lionized". If the measure you use is have much money they make, then I guess you're right. However, that measure sort of runs contrary to the rest of your post. I would suggest looking at Prime Time TV as a measure of who our society "lionizes". Compare the number of shows we have about CEO's to the number of shows we have about fireman, policemen, schoolteachers, doctors and nurses.

I'm not sure either is a good measure...I'm just sort of rambling here.

[IrateCitizen]

63. I'll give you an example, Nederland -- Jack Welch

During Jack Welch's tenure, he took a company that was largely centered around electronics design and manufacturing -- and helped make it into one of the most dominant corporations in the world. GE now owns media outlets (NBC), financial services (GE Capital), and a host of other industries and services. For all of this, he has been lionized as the ultimate CEO -- leading to a multimillion dollar book deal for his autobiography, From The Gut; along with being held up as the paragon to which all business executives should strive to be.

BUT...

Some of the social costs in Welch's rise were a bit darker. Living in NY, I am well aware of the fight he has put up to clean PCB's from the bottom of the Hudson River -- PCB's that were dumped (albeit not on his watch) with the full knowledge that they were cancer-inducing agents. It was also Welch who earned the name "Neutron Jack" during the late 1980's and early 1990's for the ruthless manner in which he eliminated manufacturing jobs in order to boost the stock price -- something he had a vested interest in, considering his options compensation. This is the same Welch who made the infamous comment, "Ideally, you'd like every plant you own to be on a barge," referring to the idea of actively seeking out the region with the lowest environmental standards and no labor organizing rights to manufacture your products -- and then be free to pick up stakes and leave when any environmental standards or labor organizing begins to take shape.

The question in all of this is, what is of greatest value to us? I'm not going to laud or condemn Mr. Welch, because I don't know him -- but he has made it apparent from his management style that he is not someone who views people as assets, as something to be treasured. Rather, he views them as a cost, and inconvenience to be minimized in the quest for maximum wealth creation. And this kind of attitude is only reinforced within our society.

Some would seek to criminalize such behavior. But I would say that the problem goes much deeper, to a question of what values are held highest in our society. Enacting legislation to help curb these types of actions may be a first step, but it is far from the end-all, be-all cure for this problem.

I don't doubt that we are seeing more shows about cops, firemen, health care professionals, etc. -- but I don't know if that's a result of a newfound respect and appreciation for what they do, or the finding of a source of high-impact storylines. But I still don't see the same respect afforded these people that is given to the rich and powerful in society -- although the former is a group that contributes far, far more to the social economy than much of the latter.

[democracyindanger]

60. Fair enough

And I agree, we should strive to be a society that places the values you mentioned above all else. I just think blaming liberalism for society's inability to reach that state is like blaming a hammer for not pounding a nail down. I don't disagree with what you want, but liberalism, at its core, bestows on you the freedom to pursue new solutions--like progressivism, whatever that may be.

Being a 'progressive' isn't an alternative to being a liberal. If you're a progressive, you're automatically a liberal, whether you like it or not. Just my two cents.

[Nederland]

22. For the first time

I am reading a post of yours and have virtually nothing to disagree about. Oh, minor quibbles here and there, but nothing significant :)

In all, a very good post.

[IrateCitizen]

24. Where's the pod?!?!

I feel like I should run to the window and make certain the sky hasn't turned yellow and the sun blue, because I fell like I'm living in Bizarro World!!! :D

[Mairead]

25. "Love me, I'm a liberal"

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every coloured boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the AFL-CIO board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New Republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the Democratic Party.
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

[blindpig]

36. EXCELLENT! WHERE IS THAT FROM?

[library_max]

46. It's from the 70's

by a guy named Phil Ochs. Proof that this sneer at liberalism by people too pure for real politics is nothing new.

[MSchreader]

61. "Real politics" = status quo

While cowards flinch and traitors sneer
I'll keep the red flag flying here!

Martin

[IrateCitizen]

64. The "red flag" is far from a solution, Martin...

Seeking to replace one "ism" with another will not solve the root cause. The former Soviet Union was a prime example of this -- the Leninists seized power for the "good the proletariat", and then proceeded to abuse and consolidate this power for their own benefit.

"The animals looked from pig to man, and man to pig, and could not tell which was which."

One of the problems with communism in most of its implementations is that it has simply replaced one ruling clique with another. And since the fall of the USSR, many of the old party bosses have simply transformed themselves into business tycoons.

What I'm saying is that none of these problems will be taken care of until we adjust our hierarchy of values as a society. And it's something that we need to focus on, because any changes outside of it will only be temporary stopgap fixes -- leaving the same battles to be fought only a generation later.

[IrateCitizen]

70. If you're getting this defensive, I've obviously hit a nerve...

Proof that this sneer at liberalism by people too pure for real politics is nothing new.

If you characterize this as a sneer, I'd love to see what you'd call it if you were really on the wrong side of my acid pen!

The fact is that I presented a philosophy in which I attempted to identify some of the many ways in which liberalism is actually its own worst enemy. I do not denounce many of the gains that it has produced. What I question is why we end up fighting the same battles every generation. Could it be due to the fact that liberalism may be lacking in something? And if we could rectify that problem, could we not be more successful in creating a better society and a better world?

Nah, probably not. It's much better to give into cynicism and attack those who dare to challenge your sensibilities.... :eyes:

[ieoeja]

26. And why I am NOT a Progressive

It appears that you and the religious right share a common belief in the purpose of government: to make better, happier people. I believe government should be there to protect and to safeguard our rights ... even the right to be worthless and miserable.

[prolesunited]

29. So everyone who is

"worthless and miserable" chose that path? :wtf:

I think you really need to walk in some other people's shoes for awhile. I'm not disagreeing that there are some people who choose to live like that, but there are plenty of others who are just doing the best they can do to improve their lots in lives and are struggling against the odds.

[ieoeja]

41. Of course no one chooses to be miserable.

But I am not particularly fond of the idea of government assisting people in finding spiritual happiness whether by force (the Religious Right) or gradual persuasion (as this article appears to me to be describing).


Actually, I know quite a few people who sort of do choose to be miserable. If everything is going right for them now, they will constantly dredge up old wounds to fret over, though they can usually find some minor irritant in their life to blow out of proportion.

As a devout atheist, my failure to procreate -- and I certainly don't want to start this late in life -- could haunt me. My marriage was a failure. I am becoming obsolete at work. And I just plain don't like most folks. So I have plenty of reasons to be miserable. But I am not. I WAS miserable for quite a few years. But then I realized being miserable was no fun, so I stopped.

[prolesunited]

48. I don't expect the government

to be responsible for my happiness. I agree that it is not their responsibility. However, it does have a responsibility to create a climate in which it is possible to obtain.

Let's start with the basics: food and shelter. In the current economic climate, homelessness is on the rise, particularly of families, and women and children. Food pantries are running out of stock because families are relying on them to live on from paycheck to paycheck. We need jobs that pay a living wage and affordable housing and government can play a role in that.

What about health care? Can you be happy if you can't afford to see a doctor for treatment or pay for prescriptions? If your children are in crumbling schools receiving inadequate instruction in overcrowded classrooms, will you be able to find peace of mind? What if you can't even find a job because your industry just outsourced all of the jobs to another country?

These are just some of the things that I have come up with on the fly. My take on this is that the underlying foundation is weak because it is built upon a faulty premise. The search for happiness and fulfillment — however YOU want to define it — cannot even be possible until basic needs are met. Instead of working together to ensure this happens, we are pitted against one another chasing illusions of happiness and fulfillment.

Happiness IS a choice, but if you are hungry with nowhere to live or working two jobs to make ends meet, many of your choices already have been made for you.

[IrateCitizen]

66. You've tapped the surface of it with this statement:

Instead of working together to ensure this happens, we are pitted against one another chasing illusions of happiness and fulfillment.

And that, in and of itself, is one of the major sources of general unhappiness. Additionally, when over 25% of the adult population is living with some form of clinical depression, it's a little more than just a few unhappy souls here and there -- it's a growing problem.

While much liberal legislation has helped to increase opportunity, it has always come back to fighting the same battles in each generation, because we have not changed the fundamental values under which we live. If we were to work together a lot more, we could eliminate a lot of these problems. Instead, most of us are reinforced in the idea that happiness is only another major purchase away -- ignoring the fact that our unhappiness may be a result of not getting to see our children grow up, our marriages falling apart through neglect, and the unquenchable pursuit of wealth as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

[IrateCitizen]

30. I think you're misunderstanding me, ieoeja...

First off, what I am not talking about is as much a government philosophy as it is a societal one. Government comes to reflect the society in which it functions. Ours is a society of self-interest, one which thinks that happiness lies in a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. This would help explain why the Democratic Party is just as fervent of an advocate of "free markets" as the Republican Party, especially among the "New Democrats".

What I advocate is speaking to the need of ALL people to feel a sense of community with those around them, a feeling of respect as human beings. This is something that is severely lacking in our society. It's about developing a society that holds compassion, caring and cooperation in the highest regard; rather than trumpeting the economic gains and wealth creation of selfishness as the highest of ideals (evident by the lionization of the wealthy in our society).

Finally, if you think that I really have a lot in common with the religious right, it's apparent that you didn't read the article I linked to. I actually had a highschool friend who is a born-again give a rather negative response to it after someone else had forwarded it to him!

ON EDIT: Of course, what I'm describing here is not really an effort of simple electoral politics -- it's an evolution of society that would have to occur over several generations to ever be realized. But I also think that the path we're headed down now -- regardless of whether it was Clinton or Bush in the WH, in many regards -- is a very unhealthy one.

[ieoeja]

38. Only equation with the RR in one fact.

I have no doubt the Religious Right would hate your specific desire to change society from its self-interest paradigm. You are, however, talking about the spiritual well-being of people. You do have that one fact in common with the Religious Right, even if your definition of spiritual well-being is completely opposed to theirs.

I think government should (mostly) stay out of that. I do, however, like your thought that this needs doing over generations (while the Religious Right thinks it can simply be implemented by force). You are talking social evolution which Liberals DO accept and to which Liberals DO adjust even if we do not LEAD.

[IrateCitizen]

31. Well, I think my thread has been successful, based on cheers and jeers

I guess the cheers must be people who feel the same way I do about general malaise with our society.

While the jeers may be those whose preconceived notions of the status quo feel somewhat threatened by a challenge to its viability.

In any case, if it's prompting a wide range of opinions, I must be doing something right! :D

[Karenina]

42. Excellent post, Chris!

Frankly, I think the "labels" have become like sound-bytes, and most tend to respond to their pre-conceived ideas of the word associations, rather than responding to content, context or explanation. I can never just read your post and content myself with a knee-jerk response. My process is to read, re-read, and if I'm in doubt about your process, to ASK FIRST before assuming anything!

I need to take some time with what you have written. In meine kleine Welt, that's a GOOD thing!!! :loveya:

[dkamin]

33. agreed

i completely agree with this post.

the prominence of ayn rand's ideology in our society is nothing short of depressing. that the ideas of cooperation and community have been derided by conservative elitists as communist is despicable (i'm particularly recalling how rush limbaugh called the NE patriots communists for foregoing individualized introductions before the Super Bowl couple of years ago, the idea being to emphasize that their accomplishments had been achieved together).

every single major religion i know of emphasizes empathy, community, and helping others, while decrying selfishness, often as EVIL (noun, not adjective). the GOP/libertarian freakshow/ayn rand acolyte movement would have us believe that all of the great accomplishments of america have been due to selfishness. i disagree vehemently, as have all the truly great men and women of history.

at the same time, i'd note that i've never met someone who followed this ayn rand/libertarianism outlook and was happy in their lives. in fact, most of the time they were pathetic losers. ayn rand herself was miserable.

[newyawker99]

51. Hi dkamin!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Rich Hunt]

34. wikipedia is on the money

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Progressive is a term often used by those on the political left to describe their beliefs. This term is preferred by many over the more traditional label in American politics, liberal, because of the frequent association of 'liberal' with the centrist politics of many Democratic Party politicians (such as Al Gore) in recent years. The term "progressive" is thus used to avoid confusion between centrist and genuinely left-wing views.

[library_max]

45. Okay, I read it. Here's a [long] response.

"Liberalism, on the other hand, has become a philosophy of guilt. It is an ideology in which different groups compete for the title of “most oppressed” so they will be worthy of the greatest entitlement to “level the playing field.” Groups who can’t demonstrate their oppression are then not entitled to any assistance, leading to resentment on their part toward those who are receiving greater entitlements. Perhaps nothing could better explain why working-class Americans have increasingly embraced the Right – their concerns were never given top consideration within the liberal framework, because there were always more oppressed groups out there whose problems were more deserving of attention."

This is completely and utterly a straw-man argument. As an earlier poster said, you define liberalism as that which you do not like, progressivism as that which you do like, and then extol the superiorities of progressivism. In spite of the large number of words, that's not an argument.

Even worse, this is only a slight variation on the conservative smear of "culture of victimhood," "bleeding hearts" etc.

Also, it is a retread of the fallacious equivalency argument. If it is squalid and mean-spirited for the rich and powerful to act primarily on their self-interests, then it must be squalid and mean-spirited for the poor and oppressed to self-interestedly try to pull themselves out of the mud, and squalid and mean-spirited of liberals to try to help them.

This is just like the fool's cry that women like Roseanne making fun of men is the same as men like Dice Clay making fun of women. When the slaves laugh at massa, it's a pittance of justice, the least he can allow them to do. When massa laughs at the slaves, it demeans both him and them. There's no equivalency, so why pretend there is?

In the same way, self-interest on the part of people who already own and run everything is evil. What do they need that they don't already have? They should be thinking about giving something back. But encouraging people who have nothing to strive upward is noble. The natural result of their success tends to be giving something back, because they know what the bottom was like.

A big part of what is wrong with this country is that the have-nots identify with the haves instead of with themselves, Archie-Bunker-like. A lot of working people who have the most to gain from organizing are the most anti-union people you can find because they have bought the propaganda. People who pay most of their taxes in sales tax get indignant about income tax, or even more indignant about the "death tax" which neither they or their descendants will ever have to pay!

An antimaterialist "politics of meaning" is a politics of irrelevancy. What does politics decide, exactly, that fits into your framework of love and sharing and community and values? Doesn't politics decide how the money will be spent and how the law will read and who will interpret it? In other words, purely material matters?

The Christian Right you extol is totally a puppet of the corporate right which runs the Republican Party. They are promised everything and given nothing. Are they your model for progressivism, changing only the ideology and the emphasis on coercion?

And finally, the idea that liberals "use" minorities and other downtrodden people "for their own advancement" is a LIE, an insulting LIE, and a deeply and thoroughly Republican LIE. The most charitable conclusion I can draw is that you've heard too much Republican propaganda and have been victimized by it.

[bloom]

53. I don't go along with the business of "liberal is a bad word"...

Sounds too much like Rush Limbaugh - no matter how many words you throw into the salad.

I agree with this:

"As an earlier poster said, you define liberalism as that which you do not like, progressivism as that which you do like, and then extol the superiorities of progressivism."

To me it really doesn't make that much difference. The original poster did not convince me.

The weikopedia (sp?) definition made sense to me.

[IrateCitizen]

73. Look, I'm not trying to paint a "word" as bad...

I'm just trying to point out that there are some big flaws in the philosophy of liberalism as it has been practiced over the years -- and without recognizing and rectifying these flaws, we will be fighting the same battles each generation.

At the heart of it, IMHO, is a lack of general meaning. Do we seek only to lift up those not fortunate enough to win the uteran lottery, so that they can compete within the same ruthless free market as everyone else, and amass material wealth? Or do we truly want to change society for the better by shifting it from an ethos of selfishness to one that prizes cooperation, compassion and empathy (even if self-interest will always be a part of the equation, it is NOT the same as selfishness)?

That is the point I'm trying to make here -- to shift our society from one in which everyone is looking over their shoulder for someone trying to take from them, while they look to take for themselves to one in which people relearn the joy of working together and helping each other.

[IrateCitizen]

71. I can see you've completely missed the point I'm trying to make

First, I don't see how you can make the assertion that I was presenting a "strawman argument" with regards to the white working and middle class embracing the right -- unless it's just a tactic to flippantly dismiss the point I was making. We have seen the decline of liberalism because it fails to address the most basic issue of values.

Case in point is Bill Clinton's sales pitch for the Americorps program. He pitched it to Congress as a program to "allow college students to repay student loans". While this may be true, it presents a dangerous values judgment -- that the people involved in the program are merely self-interested, and the whole reason for getting in the program is to repay student loans.

While I'm not denying that it could be one reason, perhaps a better pitch could have been given -- one that could have challenged the basic paradigm of our values hierarchy. Clinton could have stood up and said that one of the main purposes of the Americorps program was to provide young people with real opportunities for valuable public service -- and in doing so, could help teach young people how to help contribute to and build responsible, caring communities. It could teach young people the real world value to cooperation.

In short, it could be a step toward reinforcing the values system that liberals should be not only embracing, but shouting from the rooftops.

This eventually brings us to the point that respect for others, as fellow human beings, can evolve as a core value in our society. It is a core value in EVERY MAJOR RELIGION around the world -- and also is at the heart of secular humanism. Now, we can continue to reject this manifestation of spirituality that is a basic part of who we are as human beings -- or we can realize that greater society is based on values, and aggressively promote the values we believe in. If we don't, the Right will still be promoting their bastardized values of intolerance, selfishness and blame.

Your rich/poor argument is a complete misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that it isn't right to try and help those who are not lucky enough to win the uteran lottery. What I am saying is that these programs are not enough -- not unless we want to continue fighting the same battles each generation. What I am saying is that we need to change this ethos of selfishness -- and instead promote one in which we learn to value each other as human beings, rather than always looking for how to best sell ourselves to improve our position, or how to use others in the same manner.

You said the following:
A big part of what is wrong with this country is that the have-nots identify with the haves instead of with themselves, Archie-Bunker-like. A lot of working people who have the most to gain from organizing are the most anti-union people you can find because they have bought the propaganda. People who pay most of their taxes in sales tax get indignant about income tax, or even more indignant about the "death tax" which neither they or their descendants will ever have to pay!

Why do you think that is so? Could it be that they have been taught an ethos of selfishness and cynicism, and therefore are afraid of losing what little they may have to the "other"? The key is changing this paradigm, getting these people to work together. But it will always be resisted as long as this selfishness remains at the heart of our society.

An antimaterialist "politics of meaning" is a politics of irrelevancy. What does politics decide, exactly, that fits into your framework of love and sharing and community and values? Doesn't politics decide how the money will be spent and how the law will read and who will interpret it? In other words, purely material matters?

It was the late Paul Wellstone that said, "Politics is about the importance of people's lives." This definitely encompasses the points you raised above. But it also implies a little more. It implies that all people have value as PEOPLE, and if that is the case, then it is clearly immoral to ignore them. But the answer lies not in simply helping them achieve the opportunity to compete within the same arena of unabated self-interest. The answer is a combination of lifting them up AND emphasizing the correct values within our society.

The Christian Right you extol is totally a puppet of the corporate right which runs the Republican Party. They are promised everything and given nothing. Are they your model for progressivism, changing only the ideology and the emphasis on coercion?

This statement implies one of the biggest failings on the Left, IMHO -- and that is the immediate rejection of ANYTHING mentioning spirituality, values or religion as the domain of the Right. These are things around which many, many people base their general life philosophy. If we continue to fail to address them (in an objective, rather than subjective manner), then we cede this ground to the Right (who will use a very subjective approach). Values and spirituality are not bad words from which we should continue to recoil like a vampire from garlic or the Cross.

And finally, the idea that liberals "use" minorities and other downtrodden people "for their own advancement" is a LIE, an insulting LIE, and a deeply and thoroughly Republican LIE. The most charitable conclusion I can draw is that you've heard too much Republican propaganda and have been victimized by it.

While I've heard plenty of Republican propaganda over the years, believe me, I reject it fully. But the way in which you attack my views as some form of heresy in this last paragraph tells me that I've hit at something at the heart of your belief system, and your immediate reaction is to cast it out without serious consideration. While you may cast it out this time, I can only hope that someday it may provoke you to ask some questions -- many of the same questions I've been asking myself over the past couple of years, and seeing my political beliefs evolve into more of a moral life philosophy as a result.

[swinney]

47. PROGRESS=IMPROVEMENTS=BETTER STANDARDS OF LIVING

Have not all major improvements(inventions) been progressive?

The improvements can be used to destroy standards of living.

Heat=pollution
Auto=speed can kill
Better crops via insecticides can create ill health

most standard of living improvements have side effects.

Agarian to Industrial to Technological.

Walk-two wheel carts-auto

Heat with coal or wood--one room--heat entire home with oil or gas

hand fans--revolving fan--air conditioning

Walk-ride-fly-

Polio disabilty--cure

Progressivism means to -MAKE THINGS BETTER.

Liberalism is confused with Progressivism.

Liberal means do it. Options to choose. Do it. Whatever "you" choose. Within laws.

[starroute]

49. Social Darwinism vs. non-zero-sum games

I think where you're ticking a lot of people off is in suggesting that conservatives and liberals share the same underlying philosophy. Most liberals don't want to hear this. But the inescapable fact is that they do.

That philosophy is essentially one of Social Darwinism, as worked out in the robber baron era of the 19th century -- the belief that life is all about competition and eliminating your rivals, that in such a universe only the strong deserve to survive, that naked self-interest is the mechanism behind all social progress, and that altruism and help for the weak only serve to hobble society.

The main difference between conservatives and liberals has been that conservatives play their Social Darwinism out in the most ruthless manner possible -- even to the point of genocide -- while liberals always try to leave a little space for human decency.

In particular, liberals work hard to find wiggle room within the general structure of Social Darwinism. For example, while conservatives may see the poor as their evolutionary inferiors, who need to be eliminated from the gene pool before they drag everyone else down, liberals are likely to argue that the poor are merely disadvantaged, and that with the help of free school breakfasts and college scholarships, they could be as good competitors as anyone else. But in making these arguments, liberals never challenge the basic premises that personal strength and ability to achieve are ultimately the only true measures of success. (That's what Clinton's welfare reform was all about.)

In recent years, a genuine philosophical challenge has emerged to Social Darwinism -- but it's still out there in the realm of theory and hasn't yet made it to the level of practical politics. That is the idea of non-zero-sum games.

Social Darwinism assumes that all games are zero-sum: The more there is for you, the less there is for me. For some people to be winners, others have to be losers. If I have 50% of something and you have the other 50%, it's to my advantage to kill you and take your share, because even if 25% is destroyed in the process, I'll still wind up with 75%.

But it turns out that zero-sum games aren't where it's really at, not in nature and not in human society. The far more basic principle is that when everyone cooperates, the pie gets bigger. If you and I each have 50% of something and we work together, we can both wind up with 75% of the previous total.

Competition still has a role in non-zero-sum games -- but only to the extent that it fosters innovation and helps the pie to grow. The sort of uncreative competition that only picks someone else's pocket (and perhaps drops half of what was there in the mud) becomes a no-no. (This is why the file-sharers are right and the RIAA is wrong.) And war, which invariably diminishes and degrades the total available resources, becomes a maximum no-no.

Within a non-zero-sum philosophy, the traditional human virtues of altruism and generosity are no longer philosophical orphans. They are restored to a position at the center of an ongoing progressive and evolutionary development. What is more, that new progressive vision -- which seamlessly unifies all of biological evolution, all of human history, and a vision of a more rewarding and more complexly interwoven future -- has the potential of giving direction to a society that over the last forty years has increasingly lost its way.

[library_max]

50. Liberalism does not play zero sum games

Liberalism obviously believes that the more for everybody, the more for everybody. That's why we try to help people less fortunate than ourselves. And as far as strength and ability to achieve are concerned, exactly what are we supposed to be helping people toward - weakness and the inability to achieve? Nirvana? What?

Zero-sum games are the quintessence of modern conservatism. They are why it is so GD mean - everything you lose, I presumably gain. Such games are anathema to liberalism.

[Rich Hunt]

55. "achievement"

It's the lack of skepticism toward the concept of "achievement" that's the problem. The notion of "achievement" or "merit" is a social darwinist concept. It presumes that anyone can "achieve" a certain position in society, instead of recognizing value in all positions of society.

Also, regarding the "help people" language - progressivism is about democratizing politics and democratizing access. It is about grass-roots self-empowerment, not about "getting help".

[maggrwaggr]

59. damn, Starroute, great post

I couldn't agree with you more.

To me, the purpose of the government is to keep things as fair as possible. Sort of like the referees in basketball games. Without the referees, the dirtiest players, the dirtiest team, wins.

This is what regulation is all about. People act like children, especially in capitalism, and somebody has to make the rules, like "you don't play over there." "You don't hit". "The garden is off limits". "You don't piss in the drinking water". "Let everyone have a turn".

This post isn't really a good response to yours, Starroute, but here's where I'm going:

When I talk to right-wingers, like the ones who are in my family, who are actually good and well-meaning people (believe it or not!) I find that we actually agree on a LOT of what is wrong in society/world/America.

We just have EXACTLY opposite ideas of how to fix it. I mean night/day, apples/oranges.

I think the biggest problem facing our world is the de-spiritulization of our culture (did I spell that right?).

Life has no meaning in our culture. What were we told to do after 9/11? GO SHOPPING. That's fucked up.

There is no maintream support in our culture for anything spiritual. Except from the right wingers "christian" idiots.

Nature abhors a vacuum. What have progressives OR liberals offered up as spiritual food for a starving people?

Gay rights? Vegetarianism? Yoga? That doesn't cut it with your average Joe.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. So are you saying we should invent a religion?

The basis of the original argument seems to be that we have little 'spirituality' these days, so that we act purely from self-interest - and that liberalism enthusiastically takes part in this.

But IrateCitizen denies that he wants a socialist answer to this. Instead, he wants people to find their motivation from inside themselves. For him, this means a community in which we all strive to help each other as much as possible.

Personally, I think many people's inner drives include a lot of competition. Look at how much we play games. We make up situations purely for the purpose of winning. It's more a male thing than female, but it's not exclusive. So I think that if you leave people to their inner motivations, you'll get a world a lot like today.

So, if you do exclude socialism (ie changing the rules to aid those with less), you seem to be left with giving some 'spiritual food', as maggrwaggr suggests. Does this mean making up anything, as long as it puts a smile on the face of the masses? Isn't this what organised religion has been for several thousand years?

When I hear the word 'spiritual', I reach for my ... science textbook. The idea of a spirit is always so unclear, and it seems to boil down to wishful thinking: "if only we had something that connects us all; if only my thought processes would go on after I die".

Look at what the real world is - huge, and with a lot of potential for fun. A major part of the fun is to be had with other people, so it is worth cooperating and helping them. The best thing we can do as a social policy is educate people, so they have abilities, and see the choices (and limits). If your fun is helping other people, then I'd suggest there are very few people in the developed world who really need your help - it's the countries without enough food, and where disease still kills vast amounts, that need aid. And they aren't looking for spiritual meaning, they're after material things. That's where politics, and liberalism, should be heading, in my opinion.

[IrateCitizen]

69. It's not about the establishment of a religion...

It's about embracing the core values that run through almost EVERY religion or life philosophy in the world (and often the ones that are most ignored). Among them, are: sharing, cooperation, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, empathy for others, compassion.

In short, I guess it could be summed up in valuing other human beings as just that -- HUMAN BEINGS.

This is not the creation of religion. It is at the core of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and even secular humanism. It is simply embracing the values that are common between all of these philosophies, along with countless others.

Now, I'm not surprised by the visceral reaction to any mention of spirituality by my fellow members of the Left. But spirituality is part of what people are, like it or not -- even if you're an atheist (and I know plenty in my UU fellowship!), you have a set of values that you live by. Since these values are a part of society at large, whether you like it or not, they must be discussed. And if we refuse to discuss them, it is one more talking point that is ceded to the Right Wing -- and there is no doubt that they will bastardize the word "values" to mean something completely different than what we know it to mean.

As to your last paragraph, I tend to think that there are countless people in the developed world that need help. In fact, I think this statement is pretty telling of where your misconception lies:
"If your fun is helping other people, then I'd suggest there are very few people in the developed world who really need your help - it's the countries without enough food, and where disease still kills vast amounts, that need aid. And they aren't looking for spiritual meaning, they're after material things."
Food and medicine are not what I would classify as "material things." They are necessities of life. But your preoccupation with "material things" implies to me that you have bought into the idea that more "things" will bring you more happiness. The fact of the matter is that many of the people who live in these developing countries that so need our help are probably considerably happier than many of the people here -- and the source of their happiness is the considerable social bonds they have with each other, something that is rapidly disappearing here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. OK, I was thrown by your use of 'spirituality'

To me, spirituality is about souls, and higher meaning - that there is something beyond this existence - powers and universes of which we know nothing (or strange hints only). You seem to mean it to be ethics, morals, and consideration of society. I can buy into that (gosh, what a give-away, I'm obviously a capitalist at heart to use that metaphor).

That's also why I talked about material things - ie things you can touch, rather than ideas, or things beyond the realm of our physics. Food and medicine are definitely material to me. I'm saying that few in the developed world need help, because we do have enough of material things like food, and medicine (or could do if they gave up some things that are in fact luxuries). But the life expectancy in many countries shows there's a long way to go before the whole world get's up to that level.

It was maggrwaggr who seemed to want a new spirituality (eg religion, or some supernatural belief) - I was hoping they might expand on it.

One more thing, IrateCitizen, you say "over 25% of the adult population is living with some form of clinical depression" - have you got a reference for that?

Thanks for your thought-provoking posts.

[IrateCitizen]

79. Reference for depression statistic

I think I may have misstated -- but I distinctly remember hearing from several different sources that the number of people with some kind of clinical depression may be as high as 25%.

In any case, here's what I found.
http://www.nmha.org/ccd/index.cfm
Every year more than 19 million American Adults suffer from clinical depression.

[IrateCitizen]

80. On definitions of spirituality

To me, spirituality is about souls, and higher meaning - that there is something beyond this existence - powers and universes of which we know nothing (or strange hints only). You seem to mean it to be ethics, morals, and consideration of society. I can buy into that (gosh, what a give-away, I'm obviously a capitalist at heart to use that metaphor).

Believe me, I think that spirituality is also about souls, higher meaning, the grandeur of the universe around us. To me, I find one of the deepest, most profound experiences of spirituality to be the realization that all things are interconnected.

It is from this kind of realization that the values I listed spring. What I am saying is that, if you see another person as a fellow creation of God, or another manifestation of the life-spirit coursing through all of creation, then it is much more difficult to maintain an ethos of extreme selfishness toward others -- there is almost a natural tendency to feel a connection with them instead.

This was perhaps one of the greatest strengths of the civil rights movement in the 1960's. It is important to remember that most of the leaders of the movement came from the Southern Black Churches. The de facto leader, MLK, was a minister. This is no coincidence. The way they tapped into the national conscience was by calling on others to live up to the most basic teachings of Christ, the same ones that are prevalent in the rest of the world's major religions -- loving your neighbor, the Golden Rule, and so on. For the AIMS of liberalism to succeed, it has to be founded in meaning. THAT is the point of the essay I wrote above, and what I have been trying to impress throughout this thread.

[Nederland]

75. Competition

Although I know you mentioned it, I think you are downplaying the effects of competition. Its true that cooperation can increase the size of the pie slightly, but it pales before the effects of innovation. Cooperation can resuolt in small increases in productivity on the order of 10% or maybe 20%, but innovation can result in productivity increases on the order of 100%, 1000% or 10000%. In that respect, its hard to understate the importance of competition. Without competition, there is no incentive to innovate. In fact, without competition, there is significant incentive to not innovate.

What I see as a model is a system whereby we has groups of individuals working togther in cooperation, but competiting against other group of people working in cooperation. This bring you the best of both worlds: cooperation and competition.

[rman]

78. to much focus on labels

Many people who'd call themselves liberal, don't have much of a clue about the underlying philosophy.
To most people politics is the reality of every day life. No time for philosophy, but all the more time for the practical side of things: The Issues. Like, not being able to pay for health care, and not expecting that privatisation of healthcare will improve this.

So for instance, most liberals don't want ever more 'liberal' regulations for corporations. Maybe these people are not liberals according to some philosophers definition, but they might well vote for a candidate who wants to put a stop to 'corporate self-regulation' and stuff like that.
That candidate is likely not going to be a Republican, but it doesn't matter much if that candidate is being labeled progressive, liberal, socialist or what have you.

[JanMichael]

56. What an great thread!

There have been some actual dissenting conversations without exploding into attacks.

Very nice.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. Lots to digest here, but your essay brought to mind

a couple of phenomena that have bothered me:

1. Liberals who claim to be for the environment and for racial and eocnomic justice but who refuse to take public transportation because it's "inconvenient" or because "people who ride the bus are losers."

2. Liberals who believe in equality of opportunity but send their kids to private schools and do nothing to improve the local public schools

3. Liberals who do nothing to counter the influence of the commercial pop "culture" on their children.

4. Liberals who donate to Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, and every other advocacy organization but dismiss concerns about downsizing and corporate-led globalization.

5. Liberals who make snide remarks about "mouth-breathing trailer trash" (For once--or possibly twice-- in my life, I agree with Carlos!) when these are actually the downtrodden of society, mired in a counterproductive cycle of depression, self-sabotaging behavior, and more depression.

I think our achievements and success have to be tempered by the question, "If I succeed, will it be at the expense of the well-being of the larger community?"

[prolesunited]

58. Interesting points

I've enjoyed this thread immensely.

:kick:

[gristy]

76. Liberals who...

The characteristics, behaviors, and views you list are for the most part either antithetical or irrelevant to any claim that the person who holds them is a liberal. I don't know why you view these people as liberals. Because they say they are?

[rman]

77. self interest

"The overwhelming problem with the philosophy of liberalism is that it does nothing to address the core problem of self-interest."

Yes it does.
Unless you'r talking about some different form of liberalism then i am. To me "liberal" means pretty far left, certainly left of the middle of the road, and certainly to far left to have been of any significant political influence during the last few decades.

The promotion of the persuit of self-interest is a Republican/RW thing, if anything.
The left would rather point out that all things we call society, with all the benefits that it brings (or could bring) people, are the product of *cooperation* rather then competition in the race to satisfy self-interest. "Don't be so damn greedy or you'll ruin it for us all"