OpedNews asserts itself as 'Liberal' in it's logo next to
where it says 'Progressive' and 'Tough.'
No one will argue that being Tough isn't an attribute you want in any
journalists who cover important news. God knows we could use some more of it.
With the professional, highly-paid journalists unwilling to touch anything
resembling serious news out of fear of losing their cushy gig as apologizer and
official ignorer, people willing to publicly say anything about the noose
tightening around our collection necks should be applauded.
For the people who dwell on these servers, I'd also be
surprised if Progressive wasn't a trait most people like to describe themselves
as. Progress seems by definition to be a good thing. A conservative mentality
can be useful to prevent overly rapid change from destroying societal glue but
overall, I suspect most of us want to be publicly advocating the positive and
necessary change and growth our species is always undergoing in regards to
respecting minority elements of it. Gender, race, sexual orientation,
nationality, etc. If progressivism means allowing more people into the societal
decision making process, this seems positive to me. For those who argue
diversity is the dangerous part and believe Sharia Law will conquer the West's
ability to implement democracy if you allow Muslims into it; just remember, the
misogynistic, homophobic version of Sharia Law is incompatible with
progressivism as well. Stick to the laws of maximum inclusion and any mentality
that tries to oppress another is automatically seen as illegitimate from the
start.
I'm wondering something here today though. Is liberalism still a trait that
runs parallel to progressivism? Is it something progressives should want tp be?
From what I remember of my political science studies, US
liberalism is mostly based around John Locke and John Stuart Mill and those
founding fathers who read them. John Locke believed in limited government
intervention overall, neither social nor economic. John Stuart Mill was similar.
Let people make there own mistakes and don't spoil them with nanny-stating that
may destroy their work ethic and sense of responsibility. Government
interference should only involve protecting people's bodies and possessions
from each others violence, whether physical or emotional. Essentially,
liberalism was what libertarianism is today expect that Jon Stuart Mill also
believed cruel words are a type of punishable aggression which I doubt many small-government
advocates would accept. Since none of the old-school fathers of liberalism are
around today, we have no real evidence of what they would say to the notion of
corporate oppression being more dangerous than government. All we know is they
didn't like state oppression. Clearly they would argue that much of the stuff
the government is actively participating in is evil and illiberal as well but
what would they say to the idea that concentrated wealth itself is inherently
dangerous and should be dealt with by a society. Considering they were
intelligent and compassionate theorists, I have no doubt they would despise a
culture where business interests buy elections (94% of the time, richer candidates win elections!)
But all we really have on paper is their fear of
government.
In any case, looking at different countries gives you a pretty immediate
feeling that people use the term differently and often contradictorily. I'm
from Canada.
The Liberals were originally essentially a western farmer party who wanted to
be left alone by the government and by the moneyed classes of the eastern,
aristocratic Conservatives. As an originally highly state-directed county, the
Conservatives represented the old aristocratic system and the strong commercial
interests who knew them. The Liberals believed in maximum freedom from
government and the Conservatives believed in a more structured society where
neither social nor economic aspects were free from social forces using the
government to put controls on society.
Since then, the Liberals have come to represent the eastern provinces, welfare
government, reduced social interference except on issues like healthcare where
people collectively cover the costs, and a generally low level of interference
with business. The Conservatives have come to mostly represent the western
provinces (especially their energy sectors), more social interference on moral
issues but less on nanny-state protections, a reduced welfare state, and
limited interference with capital and business.
Looking at the US,
it seems the country has evolved with the Democrats being similar to our modern
Liberals and the Republicans being similar to our modern Conservative Party.
Degrees differ but they do seem to sync up. In both cases, both major parties
demand economic freedom for big capital while allowing people to argue and vote
over the social aspects. The Conservatives and Republicans both draw election
funds from business since the death of the American labor movement. They are
willing to use social divides like abortion and gay marriage as wedge issues to
force in even greater corporate-favoring agendas while the debate over the
issues gives the appearance of meaningful differences between the parties.
What I'm thinking, though, is that in both Locke and Mill's times, it was the
government that was most capable of controlling and oppressing people.
Liberalism meant protection from the whims of your often unelected rulers. It's
easy to see, though, that an emphasis on protection from government in the US
has left the citizens open to assaults from capital. Pollution, government
corruption via bribes and campaign funding, the stripping of resources,
financial concentration, economic crises, etc. Overly powerful business with a
messed-up incentive structure that they helped shape has caused a good number
of problems for humanity.
The pundit rhetoric on MSM news in the US
describes every event that is 'left-wing', welfare state-ish, politically
correct, government-driven, etc as liberalism. That's not what it means though.
Being forced to wear seat-belts is the opposite of liberalism. Having to buy
health care under Obama's plan is the opposite of liberalism. Having the
government force you to do anything is the opposite of traditional liberalism. Personally,
being from Canada,
I believe in laws like mandatory seat-belts because it allows us to sustain our
national healthcare system more cheaply. This means I'm not a liberal by the
traditional definition. In the US,
both parties are economically liberal and the Democrats tend towards classically
liberal in that they allow social freedom as well.
I realize terms change and are used differently over time
but if liberalism no longer refers to allowing total freedom from interference
in every sense, the word has lost its coherency. Neo-liberals are bad. We all
sort of inherently know this. Their economic system puts as much moral emphasis
on preying on each as it does on cooperating. Neo-Conservatives are just the
next step when they try and rally the troops around supporting economic aristocracy
by bringing in a few social issues they know some people will support. Liberals
are drawing from a tradition that essentially gives birth to modern
neo-liberalism when followed to its logical conclusions. Basically, what I'm
suggesting is that supporting liberalism by the name liberalism is to be
supporting total economic freedom for everyone. If you've been seeing the same
world I have been for the last decade, corporate freedom is the most dangerous
thing facing humanity.
I think it's time to throw Liberal from the title. Economic liberalism
outsourced the manufacturing jobs, economic liberalism allows the hiding of
funds in pretend banks on the beach, economic liberalism forces us into a race
to the bottom to pick up the scraps. Not to say the market and its incentive
structure doesn't have its place. It does and some Scandinavian countries have
demonstrated how to use it properly. Still, you'd be a fool to say our current
neo-liberal market world economy is creating maximum benefits for all in a sustainable
fashion. Social liberalism remains a good thing but it is inherently tied to
economic liberalism which we cannot afford anymore. Progressivism as a movement
properly acknowledges this and only claims to be socially liberal.
Let's be Tough Progressives. Traditional liberalism has come to be contradictory with progressivism in this era of corporate money dominance. We must make it so nothing is off the table in regards to increasing
human rights. This must be thought of in the context of realizing we must directly help those in need while avoiding
creating groups unable to care for themselves due to excessive welfare and zero
expectations since that could be considered an assault on human rights as well. John Stuart Mill
was definite on this point. I'm not someone who tends to scream about Caddy-Driving Welfare Queens because I feel the system does much more good than harm but progressives need to take critiques of the welfare system seriously. Getting people to an equal standing must be seen as goal
number one and it can take some tough love. But that's the key. It takes love
and we've seen that neo-liberal capitalism breeds none of it amongst those who
have the most influence. People can no longer pretend that moving capital
around in ways that denies people decent lives and destroys communities,
environments and lives, is a basic freedom that the forefathers in their love
for liberalism would have approved of. The world is finite. Communities will
have to make decisions that favor their interests even if it means freedom of
capital can't be totally honored.
John Locke admitted that his justification for private property can only work "at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others." There is not as much and as good for everyone anymore; those with the power are rapidly trying to gobble up what's left. It's time to fight for human rights first. Property rights beyond what is needed to sustain oneself will be offered second.
1
