Let me at the outset make it clear that Rosie O’Donnell and the mayor of San Fran are definitely not liberal; they are defiant radicals, coming neither from the left nor the right but simply dredged from dark illusions of the ego, and in the Shakespearean definition meaning gross or licentious.
The term liberal as political, originated in 19th Century England and ironically by Tory opponents and used as a pejorative — sound familiar? — that suggested “un-English.” Later the term found itself in its own right to mean freedom from the restraints of the state but only if government defied Locke”s three principles of life, liberty and property, and in the business area led to, of all things, laissez-faire! Today, of course, that would mean conservative.
It was not until later in the century and early in the 20th that it took on a utilitarian outlook which was designed to free humankind from misery and ignorance, and the only way to accomplish this was by widening the breadth of governance that would insure an educated public. Obviously this was contradicting its early development predicated on Locke and Jefferson of limited government, although both had stressed the primacy of education. Jefferson had hoped for a natural “aristocracy of virtue and talent.”
Concurrently in the United States, was born the Republican Liberal Party in the 1870s but never took hold because its leader Horace Greeley was viewed as a “visionary crank” — and I suspect most conservatives today still think of liberals as just that. During the New Deal liberal was equated with socialist because it had taken on the “bleeding heart” soubriquet with its egalitarian aim to free the government of stern restraints in order to become paradoxically a civil servant to well-being in common.
Thus, liberals have not been able to elude this contradiction of unadulterated, but rational liberty on the one hand and a strong central government to deliver its vision of a truly egalitarian democracy. This is the reason it has never become an official unitized ideology, such as the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Moreover, in letting utilitarianism — promoting the greatest good for the greatest number of people — seep into its thinking it too often espouses random causes regardless of the cost to what little identity it has left.
What is its identity really as opposed to public perception? Admittedly it is elitism in that a liberal is guided by the principle that until its philosophic aim to forge a populist intelligentsia through sound, morally bound education for the masses is reached, leaders with this kind of insight is imperative, and does indeed show continual criticism of leaders lacking essential sensitivities. Rosie O’Donnell may think she is a populist but she is totally without sensitivity of others because she lacks the breadth of understanding so essential to one who is a serious liberal. She got married in San Francisco because of Bush’s position on the amendment. Implicit in her action is that her marriage was fortuitous and cheapened as a political statement. In addition the image she portrayed on TV showed who was the dominant one as her mate looked as though she had been shot gunned into marriage. [This is one of the reasons I am ambivalent about same sex relationships: I sometimes have anxieties over whether there is an equal volition in such a closed sub-society, or is one so dominated and exploited — not unlike a child — that he/she becomes helplessly dependent? Yet, I suppose, the same thing can be said for straight relationships, but they are usually not alienated from friends and family.]
Anyway, a liberal of stature would — by the way, Kerry suggested that an amendment would be acceptable if it were underpinned with civil union of equal rights— as Representative Franks had done by announcing the issue was self-defeating in that it would add unnecessary antagonism to an already explosive issue. In short, a liberal would chastise the gays for their civil disobedience — this is not a civil rights topic, but a cultural privation like legalization of drugs — over an issue that incrementally they were winning already, if not in semantics, certainly in fact, to wit: New Jersey and Vermont. Further, the judges in Massachusetts who frivolously set off the bomb should indeed be overridden by legislation, provided the same privileges granted a married couple are included for same sex couples, including the right to a divorce. A true liberal by definition is balanced and should hold accountable the other states that have blatantly passed amendments on marriage without regard to the rights of gays. Also the religious wings have exhibited nothing but contempt for the gay style, labeling them unnatural, sinful and defiant of God’s law, and thus a liberal should take public umbrage at their un-Christian behavior.
A liberal, then, is one who is unrelenting in his/her pursuit of justice and enlightened fairness for the good of the whole — including the weak who profess conservatism, yet are continually exploited by their own party.
Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: February 29, 2004.