Michael suggested that one source for a list of core progressive/liberal values would be the Principles Project. I've posted their list of four fundamental principles below. What do you think?
We believe in defending dignity
"All people are created equal" is not just a fact - it's a call to action. All people have the right to lead their personal lives in accordance with their own beliefs, free from imposition or monitoring by others.
All people have a right to the basic necessities required to lead dignified lives and pursue happiness.
We believe in strengthening democracy
It is the shared responsibility of a nation to ensure each citizen's freedom, security and equality. Through government, we honor our responsibility to promote the common good.
Governments must be transparent, accessible and open to all citizens who wish to oversee its workings and share in its benefits.
America must work to enhance the democratic process by ensuring an educated citizenry, equal opportunity for influence, honest public debate, competitive elections and robust civic participation.
A healthy democracy requires tireless vigilance against corruption and abuses of power, and a government that is accountable to its people.
We believe in promoting progress
We must promote innovation and entrpreneurship, cultivate the arts and sciences, and ensure a quality education for everyone. When we invest in individual potential, the benefits are shared by all.
America must continue to be a welcoming home to all people. We believe that diversity of faith, culture and perspective enriches our nation.
America must keep a watchful eye on the economy to ensure fairness, transparency and genuinue opportunity for all.
Each generation has a duty to protect and improve those resources we hold in common - our community spaces, our public institutions and our natural environment.
We believe in embracing leadership
America's security requires an effective military and a commitment to enduring alliances, but we must remember that America's true power is found in its wisdom as well as its strength.
Our security and prosperity rely on the security and prosperity of people throughout the world. By helping others, we will help ourselves.
America must join with other nations to build global institutions that protect the vulnerable, promote democratic self-gov't, and improve the health and welfare of all people throughout the world.
America must never suspend its belief in democracy and human rights in the pursuit of its global objectives. Noble ends require nothing short of noble means.
29 comments:
First, some housekeeping. Michael earlier made the suggestion that he prefers the term progressive to liberal not because he is afraid of the liberal label, but because liberal has so much extra meaning attached to it. For many, liberal has come to mean, libertine.
For most of us, this is an abuse of language. Michael nor I, nor most liberals I know, are any more libertine than my saintly old granny.
There are, of course, some libertine liberals out there. Just as there are some libertine conservatives. But it's a different word and a different context. Nonetheless, I understand fully the preference to self-label progressive.
For our purposes here, though, I'm using liberal and progressive fairly interchangably - neither of which are to mean libertine.
In the comments section following the first Core Liberal Tenets entry, I said:
"It's just that for liberals, personal responsibility means assisting the poor so they can stand on their own, it means being personally responsible in our energy and environmental policies."
And Chance responded:
Hey Dan. I think these are great things, but I think we would differe in our terms. For instance, I consider personal responsibility making sure my bills are paid. If I see a homeless guy by McDonald's and I help him out, it may be many things, compassionate, kind, caring, whatever, but I don't think it follows the definition of "personal responsibility".
And a fair response it is. Let me elaborate.
By personal responsibility, I meant to suggest that liberals want to foster/encourage personal responsibility in the citizenry. We want to encourage those formerly on the streets or on welfare to develop the wherewithal to make it on their own.
We want to encourage the citizenry to develop personally responsible habits, like not throwing their garbage in their neighbor's yard - whether that garbage is solid, liquid or gas.
We want to encourage our industries to do the same.
So, would perhaps one difference between liberals and conservatives be that we are okay with the notion of using gov't resources to encourage personal responsibility? That, for conservatives, personal responsibility is a personal matter - it's what an individual is or isn't.
But for liberals, we want to expect people to be personally responsible and encourage people, by law and by assistance if necessary, to do so.
That we both believe in personal responsibility but liberals are okay with communal assistance/expectations of it?
I'm not sure about that, I'm just asking the question...
^^^^^^^^
That makes a bit more sense, Dan, thanks.
I'm glad you're posting on this topic at this time, because I've been wondering what defines a liberal. This wondering was brought about by a new book I'm reading, Crunchy Cons by Rod Dreher. It's an interesting read about people who identify themselves as conservatives, but who do things more often associated with liberals, such as conserve energy, live simply, eat organic, non-factory farmed food, etc. It had me thinking about your earlier series of posts about conservative tenets, and reconsidering whether I am fundamentally liberal or conservative, or what the difference is anyway.
Yeah, I'm wondering how useful or accurate the traditional definitions are.
Conservatives are for small government? Who isn't? Liberals are against war? Who isn't? Conservatives are for personal responsibility? I don't know anyone who's not. Liberals want to protect the environment? What fool wouldn't?
Does it all come down to wanting the same things but differing on how we think we can best get there?
Deb, that sounded so interesting I went and looked it up on Amazon. In their review they listed this from the book:
A Crunchy Con Manifesto
1. We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.
2. Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.
3. Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.
4. Culture is more important than politics and economics.
5. A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship—especially of the natural world—is not fundamentally conservative.
6. Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.
7. Beauty is more important than efficiency.
8. The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom.
9. We share Russell Kirk’s conviction that “the institution most essential to conserve is the family.”
I wonder too about the usefulness of "liberal" and "conservative" designations. In Canada, the conservatives seem utterly determined to sell our resources, wood, water, and oil, for a pittance to the multi-nationals. And the Liberals do the same thing, but purport to do it for the public welfare. What the hell?
But the longer I live, the more it seems to me that having to struggle a bit is a good thing for us mentally, physically, and spiritually too. Beyond that, I'm not venturing into politics.
I really like that last point, that families should come first. We're really hoping that our kids will see the opportunity that lies in working as a family for the benefit of all the members, so they don't end up with 30 year mortgages strapped to their backs.
I think I want to promote personal responsibility in government, too, which returns to the transparency and accountability themes. Secrecy breeds corruption and tyranny. I realize that every government has certain matters that must remain secret for reasons of national security (the names of CIA agents comes to mind, quickly!). But a healthy democracy should have as few of these as possible. It should not include who meets with the VP to set energy policy, for instance.
The other thing with promoting responsibility in government relates to Chance's comments about paying bills. We'd consider a parent irresponsible who let his or her kids go barefoot so that they'd have plenty of money with which to bet on the horses, right? So, why would we allow a government that spent itself into debt by irresponsible actions be allowed to gut education money or borrow from Social Security, etc. in order to try to balance the budget--meanwhile continuing to cut taxes on the wealthy who fund the campaigns of these irresponsible spendthrifts??
Another reason I like the term "progressive," is that I do hope progress can be made on social ills. Throughout much of human history life for the masses was brutal, nasty, and short. Progressives believe this need not always be true. We can offer quality education not to elites who get in because of who their parents are, but everyone to a certain level and all to whatever their abilities allow. We can consider quality healthcare a human right and medicine for profit to be as immoral as sex for profit. We can clean up the air and water and heal the land and make the polluters foot the bill (personal responsibility).
We cannot create utopias, but we can work together for a better, more just and free and healthy, tomorrow. Thus, "progressive."
"Conservatives are for small government? Who isn't? "
Dan, I've often heard you say that you only want as much gov't as necessary, or something like that.
I think, essentially, we all believe that, we just disagree on how much government is necessary. Conservatives (and especially libertarians) just believe less government is necessary.
Do you think that is a fair statement?
I think it's a fair statement and for the reason you, who lean libertarian, often state: You think that the only reason corporations become power centers is their cronyism with govt. Without govt. (or with extremely little), libertarians believe that markets would not generate monopolies (or would self correct) and that corporations would have little power to harm.
I'm too much a student of history to buy that. History is the laboratory of ideas. We rule out Communism as unworkable because we saw it fail spectacularly and need totalitarianism to come as close to succeeding as it did.
Likewise, we have seen periods of near zero government controls on markets--and the results were not pretty.
But I wonder if non-libertarian conservatives really dislike big government or if these non-libertarian conservatives just use that as an excuse to beat up on "liberal programs." After all, "homeland security" involved a massive growth of govt. bureacracy that, far from making us safer, has just made things far more cumbersome--and less free, too.
And this "unitary executive" theory. I think non-libertarian conservatives like big, authoritarian govt for "law and order" purposes and for giving special privileges to some (Christians over non-Christians, rich over poor, etc.) , but then want to cry "big govt." whenever guns are regulated or people are not "free" to pollute, etc.
There's no consistency except the desire for a plutocratic oligarchy with theocratic overtones.
1)Dignity Thingy
What if that person's lifestyle puts a burden on others? Do you defend the rights of white-supremacists? Do you defend the rights of islamo-fascist thugs? Do you defend the rights of women who chose to end the lives of others for convenience sake?
2) Democracy Thingy
What if a leader is democratically elected on specific issues? Will you support the democracy that elects a leader to wage war? Will you support a democratically elected leader with whom you disagree politically? Or will you only support a leader who agrees with you politically?
3) Progress Thingy
Does progress include supporting groups of individuals who have sworn destroy the most free nation on earth? To kill its children, its women, its elderly and its strong? Does progress include promoting and accomodating lifestyles that are harmful to the individuals who adopt them as well as their families and society as a whole? Does progress consist of dismissing the murdering of the most innocent of citizens as a right? Is progress setting the stage for a very few to be very rich while the overwhelming majority is dirt poor?
4) Leadership Thingy
Umm....harumph.....hmpph.....ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Is leadership capitulating to the demands of the enemy? Does leadership entail cutting-and-running in the face of difficulty and leaving women and children to the mercy of murderous thugs who have absolutely no respect for life? I leadership claiming to champion the rights of individuals then fighting for the right of women to kill their children--their fellow-citizens in cold blood?
I've got to say guys, you'll be hard-put to distance modern "progressive" liberalism from my implications above! Then again, any set of rules the left sets permit them to be broken if it furthers the irresponsible leftist agenda, right?
(Sigh!.......)
Under Core tenets you forgot to include "from each according to his ability to each according to his need."
Sorry, y'all! I got the link wrong. Here's the correct link.
Michael, you ought to realize that Daddio might be off his meds. That picture of his is the insane Dr Strangelove and Daddio is over at his site advocating nuclear holocaust.
I'm not sure how much I want to bother responding to you when you're like this, D.
You said:
"I'd love to hear your ideas as to how you stop someone who is intent on your destruction"
I've referred you repeatedly to sites that list ideas, I've provided ideas myself. You always ignore them and seemingly never read them. If you'd like to read these ideas and come back with legitimate questions about what they're proposing, I'll be glad to answer. If you want to embrace ignorance and not read the ideas or just bring up strawman arguments, I won't bother responding.
To your other points, Michael quite ably responded to nearly every thing you asked. I won't repeat what he said. [Although I might question whether or not Reagan did anything impeachable - I think there is tremendous evidence he either committed impeachable actions by selling weapons and lending aid to terrorists (in Nicaragua and Iraq/Iran, for starters) or was criminally unfit to remain in office if all of this activity was happening without his knowledge...]
So, Daddio, if you have legitimate questions to ask, please do so. If you're not going to read the responses we make, don't bother.
(And to help you out, I'll give an example of a reasonable question:
"Michael, on your website you say, 'Nonviolent direct action is a strategy that lances the festering boil of violence and injustice and often produces healing without the resort to war.' But what are we to do in those cases where NVDA fails to slow the need for war?"
The above question cites something someone actually said and responds with a clarifying question. That's called "conversation." Does that help?)
Craig, welcome to Payne Hollow. Stop by any time.
You suggested that "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" was left off the list of Liberal principles. I suppose you're suggesting that, since this is a Marxist quote, that Liberals are Marxist.
As a joke, that's great.
However, if it was meant as some true indication of what liberals stand for in the US, it is off the mark.
Now, some of us Christians have an empathy for the thought. It was a biblical thought before it was a Marxist thought (for instance:
All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. -Acts 2
And I could go on and on).
But neither Christians nor Liberals tend to be Marxist in this country. There are some of us with democratic-socialist leanings, but that is not the same as either socialist nor Marxist. As I'm sure you know.
I'm guessing it was a joke that I just over-analyzed. My apologies.
Chance said earlier:
"Conservatives (and especially libertarians) just believe less government is necessary.
Do you think that is a fair statement?"
I'd think no. Not as long as "conservatives" are advocating spending the kind of money they're spending and setting up the programs that they're setting up - which has led to a MUCH larger gov't than I'd have.
With libertarians...MAYBE. It all comes down to the size of the gov't for me. If Libertarians are advocating spending "only" $400 billion annually on defense and liberals are advocating spending $200 billion, then the liberals are advocating a smaller gov't (unless they take $200 billion + and add it to other programs).
In Dan's first part of this series on liberal tenets, I carefully said why I considered the term "Islamofacist" to be nothing more than a misleading swearword. Daddio continues to use it. I consider it hate speech and will not engage in any conversation with that term in use.
Abortion is a complex moral issue that both "sides" have reduced to misleading slogans. This seems the wrong place for an extended discussion. For those willing to get beyond cheap labels of "pro-choice," (which sounds like abortion is something to choose in a market!) and "pro-life" (uttered by people who cut off funds for prenatal care for the poor and don't give a !@#$% about poor children once they are born), I recommend Lloyd Stefan, ed., Abortion: A Reader_ in the Pilgrim Library of Ethics series by Pilgrim Press. It contains some of the best writings on all sides.
I have considered writing something extensive on abortion on my blog, but my one experiment with that resulted in tons and tons of hate email. I am not eager to repeat that.
""pro-life" (uttered by people who cut off funds for prenatal care for the poor and don't give a !@#$% about poor children once they are born),"
This is not one of my pro-life comments, but I want to talk about what you mentioned and how it seems to be contradictory.
I understand your frustration. I don't really want to leave kids dying out on the street, and I do support some help for children. However, I do believe one can be pro-life, yet not support a large welfare system, even for children. I'll approach it from the libertarian viewpoint of "right to life" even though I am not a complete libertarian, and many libertarians are not pro-life.
<<<<
Pro-life libertarians believe that life is something not to be taken way. This right to life is usually considered in the form of non-aggression. That is, no one can interfere with someone else's life or liberty. For instance, I don't have the right to simply shoot someone, unless they pose me harm. A pro-life libertarian extends this to the life of the fetus.
On the other side of the coin, one does not see the "right to life" as a positive right. That is, no one is should be forced to feed, clothe, or care for someone else. The libertarian sense of "right-to-life" is that no one can aggress against it.
>>>>
I know that many disagree, I am just saying, I don't think it's contradictory to advocate laws against ending the life of the unborn, yet not support a welfare-state.
But let's look at it from a purely practical point of view. My view is that the more gov't becomes involved in health care, the more expensive it gets for everyone, children included.
My point is not to convince anyone to become pro-life, I'll have other posts for that, but to point out that certain viewpoints are consistent.
Concerning abortion, I see it as a huge inconsistency that the argument for abortion is that one should not enforce their morality on another, yet I am forced to pay for it. Isn't that "imposition of morality?"
That is, just because someone advocates not killing other people, does not mean that they should agree with every measure
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chance, I used to think only persons could have a right to life before I considered that animals have a limited right to life (not to be killed for sport, not to have their species or habitats obliterated, only raised for food in ways that allow them to live a normal life for their kind--not in cages like factory farms where the slaughterhouse is a relief from unremitting cruelty, etc.). So, then I started thinking harder on the developing lives of human fetuses.
I still cannot agree that they are persons with the full rights of persons from conception onward. Why? Because something like 40-45% of all fertilized human ovae (zygotes) fail to attach to the uterine wall and pass from the woman's body without her ever knowing that she was (very briefly) pregnant. Although I recognize the difference between nature's processes and human deadly intervention (however early), I still could not accept the proposition that a woman's body is a murder machine--but that's the conclusion if each zygote that passes without attachment is a PERSON.
However, it is clear that, from conception on, gestating human fetuses are POTENTIAL PERSONS and become persons somewhere between conception and birth--probably at the point of viability outside the womb. But a potential person has a prima facie right to fulfill her or his potential--i.e., in all normal circumstances to be born. It is this which convinces me that most abortions are immoral--although not the equivalent of murder unless the fetus could survive outside the womb.
The right to life of the fetus can be overriden easier than born life, but the burden of proof is still on the decision to abort.
But born life, life already here, has a stronger claim on us. It's right to life is not merely passive--a right not to be killed, but a right to the positive requirements for human existence and flourishing. Allowing children to starve or to develop malnourished, etc. not only has practical problems for the whole society later, but is a violation of human dignity, of their nature as image of God.
And, You BETCHA! I will push for everything that child needs to flourish even if I have to bankrupt some millionaires to do it. No one has a right to be a millionaire. It's a privilege--and if it comes at the expense of even one child, I will use all the coercion of big government against that. Persons before Profit!
If we live by that principle, there will also be far fewer abortions.
But you are wrong about govt. healthcare. Do the math, a single payer universal healthcare system would involve some hefty initial costs, but would pay for itself within 10 years in saved paperwork alone. American businesses would be more competitive by solving their number one labor cost, too. Young people who want to take mission related or service related jobs that pay little wouldn't be afraid to do so because of fear of injury or illness. Same with people wanting to do start-up businesses or family farms.
The market is an efficient distributer of goods and services--but not always a just distributer. We have to decide what we want distributed by market forces.
I know that you oppose the legalization of prostitution. Our society may have different views on how sex should be distributed, but we have at least enough wisdom to resist distributing it through market forces.
I argue that healthcare should go to those who are sick and education to those who can and want to learn. Both violate their intrinsic nature when distributed by market forces.
Now, I have chased at least 3 rabbits WAY off Dan's topic. Sorry.
I stand by my distinction between human life (which would include fetuses at any stage of gestation from zygote onward) and human personhood (which would not include fetuses before viability). I also stand by my view that even potential persons have a prima facie right to life which should not be overidden easily.
But "personhood" is a fairly abstract concept. I think there are deeper reasons, reasons of the heart, why progressives (pro-life or pro-choic) tend to value already-born lives even higher. I think it has to do with our sense that here is a member of our community making claims on us. Even without artificial abortion, many pregnancies are lost through miscarriage. We may owe the mothers good prenatal care and show hospitality by doing what we can to prepare room for the person-to-come. But the born person is HERE,now, making claims on us.
We progressives have a sense of "we're all in this together." A concern for the common good. Government is not always the best answer to neighbors in need, but progressives worry about leaving such meeting of needs up to private charities--too many fall through the cracks that way. Those are our sisters and brothers in the human family. We owe them not for contractual reasons, but because they are family.
Gestating life makes similar claims, but not as strongly, not as viscerally. After all, through most of human history, pregnancy has been a very risky enterprise (still is, but not as much) that resulted in nearly as many miscarriages as live births and always risked the life and health of the mother. The mother is here among us and so is the born child. So, their claims feel greater to progressives--but it is NOT the case that gestating life makes no claims at all on us. Pro-choice rhetoric masks the claims of the not-yet-born in ways I don't like.
"...here is a member of our community making claims on us."
VERY selfishly, I might add--never considering the results his/her actions might have on his/her own lives or those around them!
Terrible side to come down on. Making a distinction between "already born life" and life in the womb!
As far as the meds, Dan--you must ralize that i have considered that you and your circle of liberal friends may have over-medicated....either recently....or possibly REALLY over-medicated sometime in the distant past and it has affected your ability to grasp reality.
I'm cold-sober, deadly serious on the nuke thingy. If that makes me a devil somehow in your eyes, then know that your offered course of action that have repeatedly resulted in more and larger incidents of violence makes me wonder if you really care about others around you who are depending on your support and loyalty.
I hope you guys come to your senses, but I don't hold out much hope.
Actually, universal health care is one of those ideas I think sounds great in theory. I would be willing to sacrifice the individual freedom for it. Empirically though, I just don't think it works. I know that will spur a deate, but I just wanted to mention that that is one of the issues I think does sound great in theory (I never agreed with the claim that "communism is great in theory.)
Now...on to more serious issues. Why is the Bronco's game not on? I know its just a preseason game, but still...
"I know that you oppose the legalization of prostitution"
That just goes to show how your ideology affects your judgement, Michael. You do NOT know a dang thing about how I feel about the legalization of prostitution.
Be sure of it!
I suppose you think I believe that it is right and proper to have marijuana laws, as well?
Wrong again, pal.
Don't make assumptions about things you have never discussed with me. Because I think irresponsible sex is immoral and harmful in various way, I also believe that sex between two consenting adults should be perfectly legal. I also believe there should be heavy penalties when irresponsible sex leads to unwanted pregnancy and destruction of families. As for prostitution? I beleive it should be legal within clearly defined boundaries!
So please don't assume you know my position on every issue (as Dan seems to do) because I'm pro-military solution, anti-abortion!
Read closer, D.Daddio: I was addressing CHANCE of the blog, Zoo Station, when I said I knew he opposed the legalization of prostitution. I know that because he has said so on his blog. No assumption nor omniscience necessary on my part.
Cheers, Michael. Humble apologies for the mis-read, and all that.
Michael:"Without govt. (or with extremely little), libertarians believe that markets would not generate monopolies (or would self correct) and that corporations would have little power to harm.
I'm too much a student of history to buy that."
I submit, Michael, that you are confusing economic models with something quite apart from them. The culprit is industrialism and history shows us that it matters very little whether the political and economic model under which it operates is socialism, fascism, captialism, or (the few examples of) libertarianism. It is industrialism that harms our communities, families, and our culture.
Michael:"But I wonder if non-libertarian conservatives really dislike big government or if these non-libertarian conservatives just use that as an excuse to beat up on "liberal programs"
It seems as if (I might be mistaken) that you tend to view, as many liberals do, libertarians as a subset of conservatives. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If liberalism and conservativism are North and South, then libertarianism is East, in an entirely different direction from both of them.
Also, don't confuse the present Libertarian political party (in the US) as being particulary libertarian in its dealings and goals.
Chance:"My view is that the more gov't becomes involved in health care, the more expensive it gets for everyone, children included."
This is all too true, but it isn't because of government being involved in health care per se, it's because it is half-assed involved in it, just enough to make an industrial fascist monopoly out of it. There are two remedies for this:
1) Get government completely out of health care, and I mean COMPLETELY out. No funding, no licensing, no regulation, no guilds, zip. The consumer is responsible for choosing competent service. Harm done would be a tort, as it is for everything else.
That would be my prefered choice but failing that the ONLY solution is:
2) The government takes over health care Completely. And I mean COMPLETELY! All medical facilities are owned by the government, all medical personel are government employees, and the goverment pays all fees.
Anything but one of the above or the other will never provide medicine to all people nor will it sustain itself for long at any rate.
Michael, in light of your comments on personhood and potential personhood, I wonder about your stance on partial-birth abortion. The child is clearly viable--nearly born, in fact. I know it is very rarely used, but does that not shock you that it's even an option? Was an option, excuse me. Abortion before the age of viability may not be murder under your current paradigm--but death by injection at 40-41 weeks when labor has commenced?
Dan, does the current main-stream Christian stance on birth control strike you as hypocritical? (Yes, yes, I'm labeling--this one actually works.) Encourage teens to have their children, but shame marrieds who "breed" past three...I'm speaking from not only personal experience, from the experience of every Christian mother I know who has had more than three children and is unapologetic about it.
I should also interject that I'm not what you'd call Christian. I just have a lot of Christian family and friends.
Jennifer, welcome to Payne Hollow.
I'm sorry you've found that in mainstream Christianity that there are those who'd "shame" parents who have more than three kids. I don't know that I've personally found that to be any more or less the case in mainstream christianity than anywhere else.
I don't know that I've ever noticed anyone trying to shame anyone over the number of kids they have.
I DO think there are reasons to be concerned about global population issues (we really just can't sustainably feed 7 billion+ people) but I wouldn't try to shame anyone over their choices.
You wouldn't think just bringing up world population issues as a concern is the same as shaming, would you?
That, for me, is the same as bringing up personal autos as a source of concern (we can't all sustainably drive at the rates we are driving now). I don't raise that issue to shame drivers (of which I'm one ocassionally) but to look for better answers.
Post a Comment