 |
|
Add to My Group
|
September 9, 2007 at 23:55:22
by Carol V. Hamilton Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
This brief exchange raises a host of issues.
Although liberal icons like FDR and JFK endure untarnished, in the past two decades, the Right has successfully demonized the word “liberal,” causing politicians like Clinton and Kerry to shrink from the label. But unless you are an anti-capitalist or a royalist, “liberal” is a defensible term. The Latin root of the word is liber, which means “free.” The familiar expression “a liberal education” means one suitable for a free man and a gentleman, rather than a slave. The “liberal arts” are those that make demands on the imagination and intellect, as opposed to the supposedly mechanical training of artisans and workers. “Liberal” is also associated with economic theory, as in the expression “free trade.”
Classical (17th- and 18th -century) liberals advocated unregulated markets as well as individual and civil liberties. Indeed, they understood civilization, commerce, and liberty to be interrelated. Yet contemporary liberal and conservative politicians seem equally ignorant of the historical bond between liberalism and free-market capitalism.
Edmund Burke, the founder of modern conservative thought, used “liberal” as a term of praise. In Reflections on the Revolution in France, he refers to “wise and liberal speculations,” “a liberal and benevolent mind,” and “liberal virtues.” The word acquired a new referent when, in early 19th-century British politics, Liberal and Conservative replaced Whig and Tory as party appellations.
In the United States, liberals are associated with a “loose construction” of the Constitution, conservatives with a “strict construction.” Contrary to historical stereotypes, however, it was Thomas Jefferson who was the first strict constructionist, declaring, “To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” In a longer and more rigorous response, Alexander Hamilton argued for a loose construction, stating that the language of the constitution was designed “to give a liberal latitude to the exercise of the specified powers.”
So was Senator Clinton accurate when she claimed to be a progressive rather than a liberal and referred to Teddy Roosevelt? TR, a Republican, became president when McKinley was assassinated in 1901. In many respects he was indeed a progressive. He supported the vote for women, child labor laws, a version of Social Security, and “trust-busting.” Re-elected in 1904, he served his eight years and then ran in 1912 as the candidate of what was first called the National Republican Progressive League. The League, whose name seems startlingly oxymoronic today, was founded by Robert La Follette.
La Follette served as a congressman and senator from Wisconsin, as well as the state’s governor. He founded the magazine now known as The Progressive, which is still published in Madison.
To pundits on the Right, the political spectrum from Adlai Stevenson to Lenin is apparently a blur. Bill O’Reilly seems unable to distinguish the beliefs of Cindy Sheehan, Ralph Nader, and Ben and Jerry from those of Rosa Luxemburg, Leon Trotsky, and Che Guevara. They’re all “the far left.”
This is, of course, ludicrous. When Marx declared that the specter of communism was haunting Europe, he wasn’t referring to ice cream magnates, however enlightened.
To grasp the vast extent of the territory to the left of Hillary Clinton, Fox News anchors need only glance at the European political scene, with its Liberal Democrats, Labor parties, Socialists, Communists, and Greens.
A new tactic, however, may be in play. Rightwing pundits may be attaching adjectives like “far” and “radical” to words like “left” and “feminism” in order to strike fear into the hearts of their audience. Just recently a guest on "Hardball" referred to Hillary Clinton as a "radical feminist."
Most contemporary progressives regard Clinton as a centrist, like her husband. As John Edwards pointed out in Chicago, Fortune magazine has put her on its cover. She’s no Emma Goldman. Progressives admire Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold rather than Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid.
To many activists today, “progressive” marks off a range of the political spectrum to the left of liberal. Goals and principles like those posted online by the Vermont Progressive Party distinguish contemporary progressives from their Roosevelt/La Follette predecessors.
Thomas Carlyle, a conservative whose ideas were admired by British socialists, distinguished two political impulses —Innovation and Conservation. His contemporaries, Benjamin Disraeli and John Stuart Mill, agreed with him. According to them, conservatives are the party of order, hierarchy, and the status quo, while liberals are the party of civil liberties, equality, and reform.
The difference between a liberal and a progressive may therefore be historical, rather than essential. Just as postmodernist art and literature are offshoots or byproducts of modernism, progressivism is an offshoot of liberalism—a political movement that arises from liberalism whenever it fails to challenge the status quo. This is one of those times.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
| 11 comments |
|
A perfect defintion
but it has nothing to do with Hillary who is neither this nor that. Hillary is an opportunist and changes her skin accordingly. Now, the issue is not whether people are lib or pro or con. The issue is whether they are honest in proclaiming that. Hillary is dishonest down to her underwear ( sorry, could not help it, it is a Russian statement). That's what we need to know and that's what is scary. But this thing is not confined to Hillary alone. I daresay about 99% of the US citizens are dishonest in their views and ( what is most appaling) are dishonest in their feelings. Hypocrisy became a part of the national character. by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:55:50 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well, the point was
not to analyze Hillary but to take that exchange as a way to discuss the terms liberal and progresssive. I agree that she's an opportunist, which is why it's laughable that the "far right" portrays her as "the by Carol V. Hamilton (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments) on Monday, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:23:45 PM (0+)
|
|
The benefit of the doubt
While my gut reaction is to agree with Mr. Sashine's perceptive analysis of Ms. Clintons politics I would drag my feet a bit. I have heard some rather neat stuff from Hillary Clinton over the years, stuff like "it takes a village to raise a child" and the like that makes me wonder if there is not a more faceted explanation to Hillary's politics. I wont get into the absurdities of right wing defamation of words and ideas, they like the subject are ridiculous and a time waster. Anyone afraid to call herself a liberal if she is indeed one is a coward. Ms. Clinton is a complex and very intelligent person. She may be a power grabber who will say anything necesary to get ahead, but then again she may very well not be such. Like her husband she is to the left on certain things and to the right on certain other things, not an uncommon situation in a complex political world. While she is not a candidate I would support I will not automatically ascribe to her awful purpose, imagine that, me defending Hillary Clinton, holy dichotomy, Batman! by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Sep 10, 2007 at 12:35:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: This is not to argue, Ardee
but rather with sadness I have to say that yes, we usually have to give a person a benefit of a doubt but this is not really a good time, if I may say. Opportunism is not a player when life and death are at stake and we literally stay in the sea of blood. Any candidate who does not shout bloody murder should not run in my opinion. Hillary is smart, no doubt about it. But opportunism is like that witch who came the last to the crib of the child and made all the good gifts into the opposite. Opportunism destroys the purpose. It is especially destructive when a person loves it and we all should agree that Hillary seems to be very good at it, definitely enjoys the fruits of it. But we here and millions of people out there cannot afford such a person now. We desperately need an honest person with strong committment to the truth and US real interests, that is the interests of the nation. We need Honest Abe. I admire the enormous capacity of the US people to understand the level of effort and give a new chance to the struggling politician but it is very unfortunate that most of those given such chance abuse it. Hillary is a destructionist. She destroyed all the chances for the Demparty to lead the nation and she did it only for the selfish purposes. It is very sad, I have no pleasure with it at all. by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 10, 2007 at 1:39:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I see it differently
Hillary is a product of the system and not a causative factor. I would put far more blame for the destructionof the Democratic Party on Reid and Pelosi than upon Ms. Clinton in fact. I would bet that she will be the nominee, I would further bet that she will accomplish some things you will love should she survive the smear attacks and actually win the office. She will aslo do some stuff we both will abhor, which successful candidate will not? It is a shame that those candidates, like Kucinich, Gravel and even Edwards to a degree, who we might rally behind simply havent a prayer. Its a greater shame that we live with such an obscene system of politics that a Dennis Kucinich hasnt a prayer. We gotta either figure out how to change it or learn to live with it......Is Nader running again? I gotta vote for someone! by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 1:20:26 PM (0+)
|
|
American Liberalism
You might be interested in our website "The American Liberalism Project" http://americanliberalism.org . I write here (OpEdNews) quite often and as a historian believe that Progressivism is a subcategory of classical American Liberalism. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, remember, but that would not disqualify him from being a Liberal. It only makes the odds more difficult. Hillary is a Republican in sheep's clothing, and her husband is the classical opportunist, whose destruction of the media in his first term will take years to fix. In other words neither are really Liberals and only occasionally Progressive. Check out the JFK statement on Liberalism at the website above. Jim by James Brett (130 articles, 96 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 189 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 10, 2007 at 4:32:09 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: thanks
Thanks for the link. I did mention above that TR was a Republican, but of course, Republicans were different back in the day. Lincoln was also a Republican. The party has changed its stripes. by Carol V. Hamilton (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments) on Monday, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:15:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Neither
Anyone who is an imperialist or a totalitarian is neither liberal or progressive. Hillary is a fascist. by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 10, 2007 at 5:23:19 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: agreed.
She is also a creature babe of the CFR and of the Bildergergs. That makes her a vile wretch in my eyes. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 10, 2007 at 8:24:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I wouldn't say "fascist"
I agree that she's an opportunist, but having taken a seminar on German and Italian fascism, I don't agree that she's a fascist. by Carol V. Hamilton (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments) on Monday, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:11:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: hyperbole is all too common
Far too many get a charge out of exaggerated attacks and testosterone induced ranting. It is a pity because this stuff is just counterproductive as heck..... by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 6:39:04 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
