Can the personal be seperated from the political in liberalism?

[Armstead]

This is a broad question, after listening to a great speech by Tom Franks (What's the Matter with Kansas?) on the radio, and all this yak-yak about whether the Democrats should more "liberal" opr more "moderate."

One of the reasons that liberals get tarred is because of personal, rather than political matters. You know, we're all pot-smoking, sexually promiscuous hedonistic, effete, latte drinking protesting nutballs and part of the Great Liberal Conspiracy to undermine family values. Liberals also want to take away everyone's guns, make everyone have an abortion, never fight a war, kowtow to America's enemies, blah,blah,blah....

But are the issues and personalities of lefties central or peripheral to what being a liberal really means?

To my mind, they are peripheral in the sense that being a liberal is really about money, power and basic equity. I care less whether a person is a gun-toting, Bible thumping, anti-abortion traditionalist but "gets it" in terms of corporate power, workers rights and those power and money issues.

In other words, one's personal values and lifestyle matter less than whether they understand the basic dynamic of economic polarization, concentration of power and economic justice.

But does that abandon the civil rights aspects of liberalism? Does being more receptive to unifying with those who are anti-abortion mean that the liberal side would be abandoning women's rights? Are those things mutually exclusive?

More importantly, is there a way to be consistent enough to garner support for the liberal position on those divisive social issues while also being open enough to people who have different "personal values" but might agree on issues of money and power.

I dunno. Just thinking out loud and wondering if anyone has throughts about it.

[Warpy]

1. Part of the problem has been the Democratic leadership

because for decades, they've gone after the pot smoking, effete, hedonistic, promiscuous, latte drinking yuppies and ignored their hardworking and grotesquely underpaid traditional party base.

Check out the DLC programs. They'd all be fine ways to approach things had the middle class not been destroyed and the working class pushed into real poverty. They're yuppie programs, every single one.

While the leadership ignored the 30 year disaster the working class has faced, thanks to the oil shock inflation, high interest rates for over a decade, the destruction of unions, and wages that have never recovered when indexed for inflation, the GOP promised tax cuts. Sure they were bait and switch, but they were SOMETHING.

Unless the party starts to address class issues and economic justice as well as social justice, they'll be relegated to powerlessness, and they'll richly deserve it.

[mr fry]

5. interesting point

"Unless the part starts to address class issues and economic justice as well as social justice, they'll be relegated to powerlessness, and they'll richly deserve it."

i would say that before this happens the "rich" leaders of the party need to let those that truley represent the the class to which they are not a part lead us ut from under this sea of red

[mr fry]

2. agreed

actions and solutions .... will always take the day over words and labels .... those who make films will always be heard over those that criticize films ... for the people will ultimately judge for themselves

[yurbud]

3. you're right, economics is more important than lifestyle issues

What the DLC has done is flip that, or rather, been conservative on economics and liberal on lifestyle issues: be gay, have an abortion, and smoke pot, as long as we can consolidate the media and exploit workers overseas.

I agree with the lifestyle stuff, but it shouldn't be front and center. What good will gay marriage do you if you are living in a cardboard box with your new spouse?

[Armstead]

7. Good point about flipping issues

Being left on economic matters is never talked about when the discussion is about going "left" or "moderate."

That relates to my question though. Is it possible to be clearly liberal in terms of that core of economic and power issues, while leaving the personal issues open to debate?

[omega minimo]

11. Will this budget be the wake up call?

for red staters and farmers or other Bush voters who are gonna feel the harsh effects of his policies? Are they already aware, as of the past week's news, of how his budget hangs them out to dry?

It is possible, as you suggest, to be clearly liberal in terms of core economic and power issues-- it's' been done before. Some believe that only when people really start hurtin on a personal level will they "get it." But what about a human rights component that ties global exploitation with the disenfranchisement of American workers? This is an open secret-- why don't Liberals work it?

Michael Moore has always tried to show this. So what if we get slapped with some MM cliches?

What we're dealing with is perception-- the salt of the earth folks are aware of the evils of outsourcing and mega-corporate synergy. Partly folks don't want to believe how bad, how mercenary it really is. It is comforting to believe the fairy tales.

And the cognitive dissonance! They actually are trying to sell the idea that Bush is the "next FDR" while he dismantles the FDR legacy.

:crazy:

[Upfront]

4. Heavy

Regarding your last question, Howard Dean thinks so, and so do I. You have nailed a big issue. Hope we have the answer.

[Stunster]

6. Amen, brother

I am a Roman Catholic who is conservative on personal morality and doctrinal theology.

I'm also a flaming democratic socialist.

Moreover, I'm the latter, because I think that free market capitalism is inconsistent with Catholic social ethics and with what God has revealed to us in general about how to live and organize society, in and through God's Son, Jesus Christ.

[Armstead]

8. Exactly

That was one thing Franks pointed out in his speech.

The "traditional values" that social conservatives complain about were not undermined by liberals. Rather they were undermined by rampant free-market forces, who destroy the social fabric, raze communities and promote debauched morality if it'll sell.

[DerekG]

14. Nice to hear from another Christian socialist

Astoundingly, there are some who fancy me a conservative merely because I don't believe in sex outside of wedlock; alas, their delusion is brought to an end when I tell them that it is for this very reason I support gay marriage (a position shared by George McGovern).

[omega minimo]

9. Both Tom Frank's work and the "framing" concepts

address how the lifestyle images were encapsulated and packaged for propaganda/political consumption.

I work with someone I consider openminded, well-informed, aware of the "basic dynamic of economic polarization" (or at least open to connecting the outsourcing/jobs/exploitation dots). She is one of those who still somehow falls for the prepackaged precepts-- shorthanded for busy people through the mainstream media.

I think it's relevant to avoid either/or thinking. I'm not convinced about fighting wrong wing brainwashing with re-framing think tanks. What if we look at where this came from, what was the motivation? What if we call the tactic for what it is instead of trying to placate or imitate it?

Have you heard of the Wise Use movement of the early 90's? This is where the rabid wrong wingers started using effective, successful environmental movement techniques to achieve the opposite goals. They developed deceptive naming and framing-- and when that didn't work, intimidation and violence-- to oppose grassroots environmental efforts. The techniques have become familiar to all, from phony "public interest" front groups for industry to the "Clear Skies Initiative" or the subdivisions and new streets named for what USED to be there.

While we discuss cozying up to the anti-abortion mentality, let's remember the death, destruction and mayhem that has been perpetrated over the past two decades by the anit-choice leaders. Not to mention the mind-f---ing, mental anguish and intimidation of countless women (and loved ones).

Since the abortion issue is such a touchstone and you mention it here, I would like to point out:

The discussion about finding common ground regarding abortion tends to involve parsing lots of attitudes about various situations and hypothetical scenarios.

Why can't we cut to the chase and say that the issue was upheld by the Supreme Court as a Constitutional right to privacy and sovereignty over one's body and reproductive health? What part of "it's none of your business" don't these people understand?

:kick:

My initial response to your question was that your post is fishing around in the waters of plurality-- which our system of government was based on. The freedoms and rights that we cherish allow us basic freedoms of thought and lifestyle and INFER that we extend that same freedom and right (generously or with a stick up the b___) to others.

My answer would be to reidentify the Democratic party with INCLUSION, inclusivity and tar the Republicans with EXCLUSION, exclusivity.

Liberal means inclusion and acceptance of others' rights and points of view that you (ed.) may not agree with.

[Armstead]

10. Pluralism is a core liberal value

IMO one of the most appealing aspects of liberalism is its' pluralism and diversity. Or in simpler terms, "live and let live" and "Viva la difference."

That's ultimately what the abortion issue, for instance, boils down to. It is not promoting abortion or supporting abortion. It is the more neutral "People have a right to an abortion."

That's similar to issues like censorship. The liberal position is not "pro-porn" but it is saying you have the right to read porn just as you have the right to read the Bible.

That doesn't mean promoting (or opposing) any of the freedoms that are championed. But it does lead to a political Catch 22, because unscrupulopus opponents (i.e. Republicans and conservatuve) can identify that with the rights liberals defend.

The issue is how to broaden it out so that we can defend those pluralistic values, without being limited to them.

[omega minimo]

12. A start could be: Never underestimate the audience

Sidestep the Catch 22 traps set up. Don't engage endless pontification-- which may be useful hashing out differing ideas-- that ignores the larger point that IS a common value. Isn't that what we're reaching for here?

Folks can share their views on a certain subject (free speech) and agree to disagree (freedom of religion) and respect the (privacy) of an individual's decision.

Why "defend those pluralistic values" when they are codified in the Constitution? Democrats can reclaim the document and champion our freedoms.

Instead of potentially pandering to conservative views, let's stand up to them. A lot of this energy comes from the bitterness over "Viet Nam" -- shorthand for the whole "free love" era. Why coddle some dried up control freaks who are pissed cuz they missed the party?

The glass chewers who want to (have done) turn the clock back on the social progress of the previous decades have identified the social progress with the public hedonism. They coexisted-- they are not the same thing. By fighting the lifestyle battles and playing dirty tricks, they are undermining those core Democratic social values without even trying. (Frank's point).

[Armstead]

13. Control freaks

>>>>>Why "defend those pluralistic values" when they are codified in the Constitution? Democrats can reclaim the document and champion our freedoms. Instead of potentially pandering to conservative views, let's stand up to them. A lot of this energy comes from the bitterness over "Viet Nam" -- shorthand for the whole "free love" era. Why coddle some dried up control freaks who are pissed cuz they missed the party?<<<<

Unfortunately those values have to be defended because they are under attack. Alas, the dried-up control freaks are taking control.

I don't think it's a matter of having to pander to conservatives. Most people don't want to be under the thumb of contropl freaks, even if they may be personally conservative. Most people don't see social issues in a political context. I think the majority subconsciously agrees with the liberal position on tolerence, even if they might disapprove personally with some of the manifestations of that.

The problem is the control freaks are the ones in the driver's seat. And they are being pandered to by the right wing who are using the intolerance of the minority by allying with them to advance an economic and power agenda. They also are making intolerance more wiidespread.

So, unless the tolerant but apathetic majority wake up, they will lose the freedoms that are important to them. That's why it makes perfect sense for someone who doesn't really like the idea of, say, homosexuality to recognize that gay rights is really about their own rights. The tricky part is getting that through to people.

That's one of the dilemmas facing liberals.

[Armstead]

15. kick

Here's anotehr interesting take on this from a recent speech by David Korten

http://www.pcdf.org/2004/imperialpolitics.htm

...Let’s start with a crucial fact. Apart from members of the corporate plutocracy, most Bush voters did not vote their economic self-interest. Pundits say they voted their moral values. Actually, I suggest they voted their psychology: their longing for meaning, identity, and community in a world of family and community breakdown. Demagogues of the far right have turned this positive and healthy longing against feminists, gays, and lesbians as the scapegoats for a very real crisis caused by a brutally unjust economy in which a growing percentage of available jobs pay less than a family wage and offer no benefits.

For the media to suggest that only Bush voters were voting their moral values is surely quite odd. Economic justice is a moral issue. Leaving trillions of dollars of debt to our children to repay is a moral issue. Destroying God’s creation to make money for rich people is a moral issue. Killing tens of thousands of innocent people for a lie is a moral issue. These are all moral issues at the heart of Christian teaching. Perhaps we should say so in our public discourse.

Manipulation of human emotions for dark ends is nothing new. Imperial rulers have for 5,000 years played to desires for meaning, identity, and community with stories of imperial god kings, heroic nationalism, and dangerous foreign enemies. These stories are carefully crafted to legitimate the power of the rulers, caste them as the courageous father protectors of the national family, and gain the voluntary submission of the oppressed by embedding in the public mind an image of a dangerous world divided between the worthy and the unworthy, the good and the evil. The right wing in America has mastered this story telling art.

To understand what really happened in the election it was necessary to tune into the right-wing media, particularly the right-wing radio talk-shows. The strategy of the Far Right was elegant in its simplicity. It turned on defining two words — “liberal” and “leader.”

Rightwing commentators and talk-show hosts have for years been repeating versions of the refrain, “liberals are elitist snobs who look down on ordinary people, have no values, hate Christians, criticize America, and side with evil terrorists.” “Liberals hate Bush because he is a Christian.”

The rightwing definition of “leader” is based on the metaphor of the strict father who acts with moral certainty based on Christian biblical teaching, rules with an iron hand, does not negotiate with his lessers, and has no need to explain or apologize for his actions.

Much of the Bush campaign was devoted to defining Kerry as a “wishy-washy liberal.” To those uninitiated in the rightwing definitions of “liberal” and “leader,” this seems a substance-free, almost silly, claim. To the initiated, however, the terms “liberal” and “wishy-washy” communicated a powerful psychological message: “Kerry is an elitist snob who has no values, hates Christians, looks down on ordinary people like you and me, and lacks the moral backbone to protect the national family from its evil enemies.” “Bush is a God fearing Christian guided by the moral certainty of biblical text and called by God to guide and protect the nation as a resolute father leader in a war against evil.”

Since the early 1970s, a dedicated alliance of corporate plutocrats and religious theocrats has been laying the foundation of their takeover of U.S. political institutions by building a powerful network of right-wing think tanks, media outlets, and churches. The think tanks frame the language and the stories of the public discourse. The media outlets and churches disseminate the language and the stories. And the churches turn out voters. This infrastructure has proven a powerful vehicle for advancing a Politics of Empire based on division, fear, manipulation, and domination. It is a bullying politics reminiscent of a childish playground brawl that substitutes name-calling and character assassination for problem-solving and undermines the credibility of our political institutions. The challenge before us is to displace the politics of Empire with the politics of Earth Community based on inclusion, possibility, and partnership — an authentic values-based, problem-solving politics of mature adulthood consistent with the moral teachings of Jesus....