Nick Bromell has a beautiful essay in the most recent edition of The American Scholar on the generous roots of liberal rhetoric, titled “The Liberal Imagination of Frederick Douglass: Honoring the Emotions that Give Life to Liberal Principles.” The connections he builds to the deficits of contemporary political rhetoric are illuminating.
It’s gotten me thinking about why “progressive” has overtaken “liberal” as the buzzword. Are we afraid to be seen as liberals? This piece makes me want to reclaim the term, based on its evocative historical foundations, which Bromell captures as:
In the 18th and early-19th centuries, liberal simply meant generous. A liberal person gave unstintingly, and his opposite was a person who was mean—grasping and slow to give. This distinction shaded gradually into another, and liberal generosity began to imply an open stance toward life and a broad-minded attitude toward other people’s ideas and values. Meanness, by contrast, suggested a strict, close-minded disposition that could become mean-spirited—prejudiced, unkind, or even cruel.The semantic thread that winds its way through these first meanings of liberalism originates in the Indo-European root leudh-, which in turn is closely associated with leu-, meaning to loosen” or “let go.” Liberal generosity and broadmindedness are at bottom a kind of looseness and self-abandonment. As a liberal person, you let yourself go; you set aside your personal self-interest, and you open yourself to life and the world.
Using Douglass’s political rhetoric as an example of the rich feeling and empathetic possibility of a more generous politics than we have become used to – on the right or the left – Bromell notes that the liberal temperament, which he sees most in the approach of Barack Obama, is one that is
composed of generosity and flexibility, a predisposition to respect and identify with others, and a willingness to be vulnerable in order to do so. It is based on a deeply felt conviction of the common humanity of all people, and it serves as a powerful check on our inclinations toward arrogance, meanness, and prejudice.
This notion of flexibility as a strength – rather than a sign of weakness, of “flip-flopping” or “waffling” – is one I hope voters will take to heart (to borrow the liberal rhetoric of sentiment). I have found it astounding ever since George Bush the First labeled Bill Clinton a “waffler” that the Left hasn’t been able to respond better to that often-empty charge. After all, in most arenas, changing one’s mind upon learning more information – talking to more people, weighing more data – well, that’s a STRENGTH, not a weakness! Why has clinging to one perspective – even when the evidence changes or one learns more – become a sign of political strength? (Would we value this trait in our doctors?) As Bromell notes of the lame response of John Kerry when he was accused of flip-flopping:
What if he had counterattacked instead? What if he had declared that what Republicans called flip-flopping he called changing his mind in the light of new information? What if he had said that a strong leader is one who has the courage to alter course, not one who stubbornly persists in a policy that is failing? What if he had insisted that American voters faced a clear choice about the kind of leadership they wanted: either a liberal who was more open-minded, flexible, and ready to adapt to a changing situation; or a conservative who was more stubborn, more strictly wedded to consistency at any price, more fearful of the future? What if he had dared to embrace and articulate the core qualities of the liberal mind or temperament?
What language, what approach, do we want our leaders to use? Will we reward them for daring to embody flexibility and empathy as a strength for the future that draws power from the past?
4 comments:
Ooh! Taking back the word liberal. I like that! I always say, "You call me a liberal as if that's a bad thing." LOL.
Although the use of word roots would seem to validate that liberals let go of self-interest, I would point out that, for us, those who really get the concept of being open to others, there is still a personal payoff in the feeling one gets when you know you have done the right thing, fought the right fight or taken positive action that helps another.
Just a thought.
When I am referred to a Liberal, I smaile and say "Thank you!". My parents taught me how to take a compliment.
I think liberal and progressive are two different things and I am better described as a Progressive. Here's what I see as some differences:
If we concede the claim Mr. Obama is a Liberal (and I wouldn't), it's very hard to claim he is a Progressive. A Progressive is on a constant journey to improve the lot of all - to, as the Unitarian-Universalists put it in their First Principle, "Respect the inherent worth and dignity of every person".
This requires liberal thinking, to be sure, but it also requires a keen focus on policy and process. Mr. Obama has discounted the hard problem of creating sound policy many times, instead making the vague argument that we need to stop fighting - and doing so will lead us around our problems.
John Edwards, doubtlessly remembering the Clinton tax overhaul program - which eventually put our government in it's only recent fiscal good health - passed without a single Republican vote in Congress,has maintained that confrontation is not inherently evil. John Edwards, to my mind is a Progressive.
I must say the "counter" proposed by Bromell for John Kerry is very weak. Though I agree with the sentiment, one must turn the attack back on the attacker.
Here's where we roll out the word "intransigence", criticize their small mindedness, lack of imagination and flexibility, worry aloud if these folks would be up to the task in an unexpected crisis - say a hurricane hitting New Orleans, or the need to help a Middle eastern country put itself back together. Wait a minute...
and a bit more...
The Liberal Candidate (and/or Progressive)then needs to say "There he goes again - trying to turn his weakness into my weakness." Then would be a good point to retell the Max Cleland ambush story.
Your premise is quite right, in my opinion, that we should not shrink from our heritage. Or as Edwards put it, "We don't need to redefine the Democratic Party. We need to reclaim the Democratic Party".
And it's easy to forget that all this stuff is cyclical. When I was young, the term conservative was considered disparaging.
The language and approach I want our leaders to use is to stop with the pandering and lay out a plan to get this country back on track. I don't see anything approaching the truth Americans need to hear because that would entail hard work and sacrifice, decidedly unsexy concepts.
If we want to be truly Progressive, we need to borrow from all political parties, and even look at what has worked successfully in other countries as far as social programs, the economy, and international relations. We already have the broken stuff that needs to be pitched, not enhanced.
In the current state of affairs, we not only are intransigently lined up against the conservatives, we can't even get our act together within the party.
Unfortunately, with our two candidates, we have devolved into laughable stereotypes.
I think we have the Liberal thing going all right, but as Progressives, not so much.
Post a Comment