Yes Virginia, real liberals still exist...
A funny thing happened to me on the way to the last election...
I found out I wasn't a Democrat any more...wait, wait...don't worry, I didn't vote for Bush (although I must confess I voted for his daddy against the Duke of shame and incompetence, my only repub vote I ever made in a prez election).
You see, I have a problem. Freedom. Actually, in a way I always knew in my gut that being a liberal meant I couldn't be a democrat, even though, given the choice I have sided with them over republicans. That's really never been too much of a problem.
The American Enterprise Institute has an award called the Irving Kristol award, and in their own description of the award, they call Irving Kristol the founder of the neo-conservative movement. And well he might be. I've never, ever been a fan of the Neo's, conservative or liberal.
But, this year a funny thing happened, the 2005 recipient, Mario Vargas Llosa, gave a speech entitled "Confessions of a Liberal". Because you don't hear too much dissent on the right these days (with the new Republican version of Putin style reformed-soviet government theory), you may not have heard about it, but you probably should have.
Although he tends to stand on the right, and I the left, in his exceptance speech he says something (many things actually) that resonates with me.
" they call me a liberal--or, worse yet, a neo-liberal--to exorcize or discredit me, because the political perversion of our semantics has transformed the original meaning of the term--a lover of liberty, a person who rises up against oppression--to signify conservative or reactionary, that is, something which, when it comes from the mouth of a progressive, means to be an accomplice to all the exploitation and injustices befalling the world’s poor."
During the last election I could not tell the difference between the candidates. The one difference that I voted on was related to the supreme court. I believe that I had a pretty good bead on that one. Other issues, like the war, were insubstantial, as we learned in Vietnam, Democrats are just as good if not better at killing our soldiers and darker skinned people in foreign lands as republicans. And as far as I could see, Kerry's agreement with the whole, better strike Iraq before the "mushroom clouds bloom" was pretty well documented. As were his anti-civil liberty pro-police state votes. In many ways he agreed with Bush completely on one main key point. "There ought to be a limit on freedom".
And you gotta know, my hero's are men Like the great shark hunter himself, HST, and these days writers like Nat Hentoff over at village voice. Men who support freedom first, and then the right of the community to bind us...never.
Like the "drug war". Ever notice that each day that the constitution is eroded further, it is done with the assent of both Ds and Rs? I posted earlier that it was a local State Supreme court that tried to limit the latest government foray into illegal search methods, this time using drug sniffing dogs in traffic stops. The Illinois Supreme Court said no way. But our Attorney Gen in Illinois, Lisa Madigan, a Democrat, challenged that, taking it to the Supreme Court, and guess what....it is now allowed.
Who's a liberal again??? Not Lisa. Like so many modern politicians, she seems to prefer to live in some kind of modern reform-maoist state.
I am a liberal. And the reality is I don't feel like it is the democrats against the republicans, but the Liberals, the classical ones who believe in individual freedom, the bill of rights, as well as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, against everyone else. Ho hum.
While I've seen this speech mentioned a number of places, it was reading this Jacob Sullum article that summed up my frustration best.
Why does everyone trust majority rule and the government so much? Remember, it was Tripper Gore who gave us the warning labels on music (yea, that worked) and Bill Clinton (whom I love as a dude, but....) who gave us the DMCA, and an FBI and department of justice that the soviets would have admired.
Freedom. First. Shouldn't that be what liberalism is all about? Not the freedom to rape or pillage, not the freedom to restrict other people's freedom, but freedom to think, act and speak. I am always suspicious of attempts to restrict freedom, in speech, in action (the drug war, gun laws), and thought (like the mandatory-soviet style-mental health screenings that Illinois, a blue state, is about to force children to go through, and that I did go though as a lad).
Well, at least if I can't be proud to be a liberal anymore, I can be proud to be a thought criminal.
I found out I wasn't a Democrat any more...wait, wait...don't worry, I didn't vote for Bush (although I must confess I voted for his daddy against the Duke of shame and incompetence, my only repub vote I ever made in a prez election).
You see, I have a problem. Freedom. Actually, in a way I always knew in my gut that being a liberal meant I couldn't be a democrat, even though, given the choice I have sided with them over republicans. That's really never been too much of a problem.
The American Enterprise Institute has an award called the Irving Kristol award, and in their own description of the award, they call Irving Kristol the founder of the neo-conservative movement. And well he might be. I've never, ever been a fan of the Neo's, conservative or liberal.
But, this year a funny thing happened, the 2005 recipient, Mario Vargas Llosa, gave a speech entitled "Confessions of a Liberal". Because you don't hear too much dissent on the right these days (with the new Republican version of Putin style reformed-soviet government theory), you may not have heard about it, but you probably should have.
Although he tends to stand on the right, and I the left, in his exceptance speech he says something (many things actually) that resonates with me.
" they call me a liberal--or, worse yet, a neo-liberal--to exorcize or discredit me, because the political perversion of our semantics has transformed the original meaning of the term--a lover of liberty, a person who rises up against oppression--to signify conservative or reactionary, that is, something which, when it comes from the mouth of a progressive, means to be an accomplice to all the exploitation and injustices befalling the world’s poor."
During the last election I could not tell the difference between the candidates. The one difference that I voted on was related to the supreme court. I believe that I had a pretty good bead on that one. Other issues, like the war, were insubstantial, as we learned in Vietnam, Democrats are just as good if not better at killing our soldiers and darker skinned people in foreign lands as republicans. And as far as I could see, Kerry's agreement with the whole, better strike Iraq before the "mushroom clouds bloom" was pretty well documented. As were his anti-civil liberty pro-police state votes. In many ways he agreed with Bush completely on one main key point. "There ought to be a limit on freedom".
And you gotta know, my hero's are men Like the great shark hunter himself, HST, and these days writers like Nat Hentoff over at village voice. Men who support freedom first, and then the right of the community to bind us...never.
Like the "drug war". Ever notice that each day that the constitution is eroded further, it is done with the assent of both Ds and Rs? I posted earlier that it was a local State Supreme court that tried to limit the latest government foray into illegal search methods, this time using drug sniffing dogs in traffic stops. The Illinois Supreme Court said no way. But our Attorney Gen in Illinois, Lisa Madigan, a Democrat, challenged that, taking it to the Supreme Court, and guess what....it is now allowed.
Who's a liberal again??? Not Lisa. Like so many modern politicians, she seems to prefer to live in some kind of modern reform-maoist state.
I am a liberal. And the reality is I don't feel like it is the democrats against the republicans, but the Liberals, the classical ones who believe in individual freedom, the bill of rights, as well as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, against everyone else. Ho hum.
While I've seen this speech mentioned a number of places, it was reading this Jacob Sullum article that summed up my frustration best.
Why does everyone trust majority rule and the government so much? Remember, it was Tripper Gore who gave us the warning labels on music (yea, that worked) and Bill Clinton (whom I love as a dude, but....) who gave us the DMCA, and an FBI and department of justice that the soviets would have admired.
Freedom. First. Shouldn't that be what liberalism is all about? Not the freedom to rape or pillage, not the freedom to restrict other people's freedom, but freedom to think, act and speak. I am always suspicious of attempts to restrict freedom, in speech, in action (the drug war, gun laws), and thought (like the mandatory-soviet style-mental health screenings that Illinois, a blue state, is about to force children to go through, and that I did go though as a lad).
Well, at least if I can't be proud to be a liberal anymore, I can be proud to be a thought criminal.
posted by Johnny Lightheart at 10:28 AM
1 Comments:
A brilliant piece of work. And the article you wrote ain't half bad either! :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home