Liberal Values Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

The previous post on the column by David Brooks leads back to a topic I’ve discussed many times here–the realignment of the political parties. As discussed earlier, the Republicans have abandoned previous ideas of freedom and small government. In recent years, especially as traditionally leftist economic policies have been abandoned, the left has increasingly been redefined as those who oppose the policies of the Bush administration including the war, suppression civil liberties, pandering to the religious right, and erosions of check and balances on government. Howard Dean is considered far left for his opposition to the war while his fiscal conservativism is no longer considered a defining characteristic. (See related post on Dean below the fold). The major predictor of one’s political party affiliation has become how frequently one attends church, with those attending multiple times a week being more likely to be Republicans and supporters of the agenda of the religious right.

Glenn Greenwald makes an argument similar to the argument I have been making on the realignment of the political parties. It comes as little surprise that he sees the party divisions similar as to how I do concerning his stress on civil liberties as well as the checks and balances in government. Greenwald also discusses David Brooks’ column and writes:

I have argued several times before that the radicalism of the Bush presidency and the neoconservatism on which it is based has resulted in a fundamental political re-alignment. As Brooks points out, the issues that shape our political spectrum and determine one’s political orientation have changed fundamentally — Brooks contrasts today’s predominant issues with those of the 1970s in order to demonstrate this shift, but the shift is just as drastic even when one compares today’s predominant political issues to those that drove the key political dispustes as recently as the 1990s.

There is one principal reason for this shift — the Bush presidency and the political movement that supports it is not driven by any of the abstract political principles traditionally associated with “liberalism” or “conservatism.” Whatever else one wants to say about the Bush presidency, it has nothing to do with limiting the size, scope and reach of the federal government. The exact opposite is true.

On every front, the Bush administration has ushered in vast expansions of federal power — often in the form of radical and new executive powers, unprecedented surveillance of American citizens, and increased intervention in every aspect of Americans’ private lives. To say that the Bush movement is hostile to the limited-government ends traditionally associated (accurately or not) with the storied Goldwater/Reagan ideology is a gross understatement…

As a result, to be considered “liberal” or “leftist” now means, more than anything else, to oppose that agenda. All of the people now deemed to be on the “left” — including many who have quite disparate views about the defining political disputes of the 1990s — have been able to work together with great unity because all energies of those “on the left” have been devoted not to any affirmative policy-making (because they have had, and still have, no power to do that), but merely towards teh goal of exposing the corruption and radicalism at the heart of this extremist right-wing movement and to push back — impose some modest limits — on what has been this radical movement’s virtually unlimited ability to install a political framework that one does not even recognize as “American.”

Related Posts:
Libertarian Democrats or Liberalism Reborn
Rangel Moves Democrats in Wrong Direction
Conservative Bloggers and the GOP Candidates
The Delusion of Republican Libertarians

Plus some related posts I wrote for Light Up The Darkness in 2005 are under the fold.

Putting aside the well publicized distractions of a couple of public statements which were not the wisest, Howard Dean is laying out what appears to be a strong plan for future government action per this report in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Dean is urging Democrats to spread a message of “individual freedom” and “fiscal responsibility,” two longtime conservative mantras he says Republicans have squandered by racking up governmental debt and legislating so-called “moral values.” He notes that, “we don’t need Republicans interfering with our lives.”

Dean also said, “I’m tired of being lectured on moral values by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. They can’t lecture us on moral values. This is the party that has the moral high ground and we ought to say that every day on the ground.”

Dean pointed out that having having such a message is necessary to keep Republicans from setting campaign agendas and forcing Democrats to respond defensively. This looks especially important after a recent campaign in which Republicans, with the aide of the right wing noise machine, regularly distorted John Kerry’s positions and then campaigned against their own distorted reports rather than Kerry’s true positions and record.

Dean also spoke of running a fifty state national campaign. This includes putting four DNC-funded field directors in all 50 states for four-year commitments to organize, mobilize and conduct outreach efforts.

Following the election there has been considerable discussion among liberals as to clarifying what it is that Democrats believe. I believe we are in the process of a realignment and redefinition of the meanings of liberal versus conservative. We’ve seen the south move from being solidly Democratic to solidly Republican. With socialistic economic theories being discredited in practice, the old definitions based upon economics have eroded, with many of the strongest proponents of capitalism now being on the left while many on the right, including the current GOP leadership, have abandoned support for the free enterprise system and small government in their practices if not rhetoric. Social issues have become the more meaningful distinguishing features of the two parties, with church attendance (or lack of attendance) being the best predictor of an individual’s vote.

With many people working on statements of principles for which Democrats and liberals stand, one group I found of interest was The Principles Project which is working on a 500 word statement of principles. While not affiliated with the Democratic party, an article in the Washington Post does show these connections: The honorary co-chairmen are Reps. Harold E. Ford Jr. (Tenn.) and Janice D. Schakowsky (Ill.), as well as David Wilhelm, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) sent the group a letter of support, saying that “an effort like this can help us better define shared commitments.”

Their statement stresses principles such as defending dignity based upon the belief that all men are created equal. They endorse strengthening democracy by measures such as transparency and tireless vigilance against corruption and abuses of power. They support promoting progress, including innovation and entrepreneurship along with cultivating the arts and science, and ensuring a quality education for everyone. They note that America’s security requires an effective military, as well as commitment to enduring alliances, and stress the importance of preserving our belief in democracy and human rights in pursuit of global objectives.

While there are items I would have stated differently, it is a good start at a cohesive statement of general principles which most liberals could support. With the right wing noise machine regularly dominating the media with their hatred, opposition to progress and science, xenophobia, homophobia, racism, and blind support for a government which becomes increasingly more intrusive in our lives, it is important to have such clear statements of an opposing viewpoint.

One problem Democrats have had in recent years is in allowing the Republicans to get away to labeling the positions of both sides. Thus we have seen Republicans labeling themselves as the party of capitalism, despite advocating a form of crony capitalism which is as distinct from true capitalism as socialism is. Republican have labeled themselves the party of small government, while every elected Republican President has enlarged the size of government (and too few Democrats have pointed out that the important distinction is what the government does, not only its size). Republicans have labeled themselves the party which is strong on defense, despite pursuing a foreign policy under the neoconservatives which undermines our national security and places us at increased risk of terrorist attacks.

Republicans have labeled themselves the party of individual liberty and claimed Democrats are supporters of the collectivist state. Or maybe not. Christian Conservative, a blog which advocates Evangelical Christianity, has reversed these labels. The premise of a post today is that:

In spite of how the fundamental values of republicans and democrats have evolved over the centuries, it’s still true today that democrats are preoccupied more with “what is good for the individual” rather than “what is good for the society”, the latter being a republican’s first concern.

This turns around many of the Republican claims, ranging from the arguments of the libertarian wing of the Republican party to the battle cry of Ronald Reagan to get government off of our backs. They conclude by drawing this distinction:

Because the liberal democrat asks, “what is good for the individual?” while the Republic and the republicans ask, “what is good for the society?” Conservatives argue liberty of the society, not the individual, is ultimate in this Constitutional Republic, it is from that premise we argue.

While I don’t agree with many of the points they make along the way, I am grateful to Christian Conservative for clearly putting liberals on the side of individual liberty. We have seen what happens when societies from Nazi Germany to Communist Russia and China have placed society over the individual to this degree, falsely claiming this to be freedom.

This placement of the state over the individual is something which not only liberals might find offensive, but which could also raise concerns in many Republicans. There is good reason why previous Republicans have made ignored the policy recommendations of the religious right once they have used them to get into office. They have known that actively pursuing the agenda of the religious right would be offensive to Americans of the left, middle, and even much of the right.

The views of groups such as Christian Conservative give liberals an important wedge between the various factions which resulted in George Bush’s narrow victory. If labels such as this become more commonly accepted, it provides a frame work for areas of disagreement which might bring in support from new groups. Rather than being seen as the party which supports gays and abortion, the Democrats could have greater success as the party which supports individual liberties (which would continue to including standing up for the rights of those with different sexual preferences from the majority, and the rights of women to control their bodies without interference from the state). By presenting these as the issues of individual liberty which they really are, there is room to broaden support, and counter the Republican claims of being the party to keep government off of our backs.