Unapologetically Liberal

The stories that form us are also the stories that help to shape our political beliefs.  The word on the street is that liberalism is a dying belief.  I guess that my story is the story of why I consider myself a committed lemming!  To this day, I proudly call myself a liberal American patriot.  I’m writing this article because it helps me to understand a little bit more about my core beliefs and about how my story has helped to shape and form those beliefs.

On November 22, 1963, I was a kindergartener and I was home with the mumps.  I was watching T.V. in the living room as my mother washed dishes in the kitchen.  Suddenly, my regularly scheduled program was interrupted for a special announcement.  I did not understand what the announcer was saying until after it was explained to me.  The announcer said that some guy named “President Kenny” was shot. 

“Mommy, the guy on the T.V. said that some guy was shot.  I think his name is Kenny or something.  He’s the president or something I think?”

“Jeff, don’t ever joke that way,” she said.  It seemed that she was angry.

And then I think it occurred to her that I was way too young to make such a joke, that I probably didn’t even know who this “Kenny” fellow was.  I then saw something that I’ve never seen before or since.  I saw my mommy look back down at the dishes, visibly weak as she feebly continued to try to wash them and as tears rolled down her face.  This “Kenny” fellow must have been very important to make my mommy cry.

And then there was 1968.  My mom took me down to Lloyd Center sometime in May of that year.  I was able to reach my hand out and touch this politician’s hand.  Mom said he was very important.  He was the younger brother of that other guy, the one who had died on the day that mom cried.  I touched Bobby Kennedy’s hand in 1968!  To this day it sends chills down my spine.  I touched Bobby’s hand!!!  I was too young to remember what exactly Bobby had said but I will always remember that his words were words of great hope, words that would make a difference for people, that would make our lives better.  I reached out and shook Bobby Kennedy’s hand that day.  It meant so much to me that we stopped by the campaign headquarters a few days later.  I picked up campaign literature and handed it out at a neighbor grocery store.  I stayed up late on the night of the California primary but not late enough to hear all the news.  I can’t remember whether mom and dad woke me late that night or early in the morning to tell me the bad, bad news but I do remember looking at Bobby’s picture on his campaign poster that was on my wall and intentionally changing my hairstyle so that I parted it exactly the same way as Robert Francis Kennedy.

Life would never the same in this country nor would it ever be the same for this fourth grader with the new hairstyle.  The death of Bobby, wedged in between the King assassination, the Democratic National Convention, the Anti-war movement, seemed like the death of hope itself to me and many others.  That all cemented me firmly in the liberal camp and helped me to see politics as an ongoing battle where good was not always triumphant over bad.

In the simplest of definitions, liberalism is, according to Wikipedia, the belief in the importance of individual liberty and equal rights.  My definition is a bit of a jump from the Wikipedia definition but, as I look back on history, the great liberal impulse in our society has been towards the “civilizing” of our country and sometimes of our world.  Liberals are into creating a country that is geographically big enough and governmentally bold enough to provide equal benefits and opportunities to everyone.  In this sense, the Louisiana Purchase and what ensued from that purchase are a classic example of the good and the bad of liberal expansion at work.  When we bought so much land, we also bought so much opportunity for the people in our country who were down on their luck.  We didn’t have that opportunity before when all of our lands had become tighter and less available.  We then settled or civilized that land over a couple of centuries by building an infrastructure of transportation, communication and government protection.  We also tried to “civilize” those who we perceived to be less “civil” and less progressive such as the savages as we called them in those days.  It really was a part of the negative side of the liberal impulse to "liberate" everyone else whether they wanted it or not and so we “conquered” the savagery of the savages as well as conquering the savage West.

As I review the development of my own perceptions over time, it is this idea of progressively “civilizing” the world that first grabbed my attention.  My icon of America in my early life was the airplane and the rocket ship.  In fact, as “metrosexual” as I now seem, I will never forget the time in my life when I wrote Lockheed, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas to request publicity packets of their rockets and their airplanes. When these packets arrived, I opened up all of the pictures and pinned them to my wall and I admired them and revered them like they were Miss January and Miss February.  That was the first America that I remember.  I lined my walls with airplanes, rocket ships and Bobby Kennedy campaign memorabilia because that was what America was all about and I read Captain America comic books like they were going out of style.  We were the most advanced society in all of history and we were going to bring the rest of the world into this new modern era.  When I thought of America, I wrapped these pictures up in a ball along with big words like liberty, equality and justice and I claimed that this was what America was all about.  It was so big and bright and beautiful that I could not understand how the rest of the world would not want it.  To this day, when I defend the roots of liberalism, I try to remind people that we would not be here, in Washington State, with telephones and railroads and cars and airplanes and running water and sewer systems and electricity and even the internet if it were not for the singular passion of our activist LIBERAL government to civilize the West and make this land not only inhabitable but abundant for all who resided here.

Another way of saying all this is to say that I am a liberal because, or rather, “in order to…” form a perfect union.  That’s the American part of the vision.  We are thereby a country founded upon the social contract.  In a “social contract, we choose to give up our “beastliness”—our battle of all against all, if you will--and turn over that power to a sovereign or a unified power in exchange for the protections and the comforts that this unity of power provides.  The American experiment came together as a social contract and its founders chose a specific language in the preamble to the constitution:  “in order to form a more perfect union”.  This is the “city on a hill” vision of America, what Roosevelt called the Great  Society, what Johnson called the New Frontier.  We band together to form something much greater than ourselves.

Now, I repeat, there have been many occasions where our goal to civilize has been the source of folly.  I already mentioned the conquest of the Native Americans.  There have been many other occasions both within this nation and in international affairs where we have thrust our concept of civilization and of morality upon other cultures and individuals to disastrous effect.  I am quick to admit that this American imperialism, whether it is imperialism towards national and cultural difference outside of our boundaries or imperialism towards culture and moral difference inside of our boundaries, is also a part of the heritage of liberalism, or at least my perspective on liberalism.  Modern liberalism is far less quick to act imperialistically today because of the many lessons we have learned about ourselves over the centuries.

It was also later in the same year that Bobby died that I started working.  Pretty weird, huh?  Working in the fourth grade.  I had a paper route.  My parents let me bicycle around the neighborhood (which was, incidentally, on a busy highway—how times have changed) and give out newspapers once a week.  I also went door to door collecting and soliciting subscriptions…in the fourth grade.  I remember the young man who trained me how to deliver newspapers.  He was about 21 and he seemed to be angry all the time.  I used to talk to him about the things about which I cared:  my Bobby Kennedy, my Captain America comics, my rocket ships.  And he kept telling me that I would change, that I would not see things in the same way later in life.  He was so angry that he sometimes scared me and yet he seemed to like me.  I don’t think he ever would hurt me.  He had been a soldier and so he was something of a hero to me.  He had just come back from a place called Vietnam and he said that it had somehow changed him and not in a very good way.  Modern liberals bare deep, permanent scars from this time in our country’s history and the role that we played in that war.

While I still see the family resemblance between the liberal progressivism of nation building in the past and the liberal progressivism of today, I am more aware of the fundamental commitment of liberals to equal rights and equal opportunity than I am to this vision of “civilizing” the world.  I think it is here where we find the greatest difference between conservatives and liberals.  The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal”.  From what I can tell, conservatives tend to believe that to be true.  Conservatives believe that the playing field is naturally leveled and that everybody starts at about the same spot.  While some may be lacking in initial affluence and upbringing, they can make up for it by rolling up their sleeves and participating in the American dream.

Liberals, on the other hand, are not so quick to accept that belief.  Now back in the days of the open frontier, when land was available dirt cheap to all who wished to inhabit it, the playing field had more potential to be equal.  Once the frontier lands ran out, however, around the start of the twentieth century, opportunities became far less plentiful.  The liberal believes that, where the starting line is not even, it must be evened out and it is the responsibility of government to even it out.  The liberal also believes, or at least this liberal believes, that there is a lot of good old fashioned kismet or blind faith that leads to one having wealth and another not having it.  There is not, in other words, a clear path of competence and hard work that leads all who want it badly enough to wealth and affluence (and isn’t it funny that the wealthy who always believe in this path and the less fortunate are the ones who do not).  In other words, it simply is not true that God materially rewards those who work hard and are “good” and punishes those who are not.  Not only, therefore, does the starting line, have to be leveled but government also has the responsibility to provide opportunity (that’s different than a free handout) to those who are down on their luck.

On Wednesday, April 21, 2009, I was watching Jennifer Garner on Idol Gives Back.  She was visiting an area near her own home, somewhere in the Catskills.  She learned that the literacy rate among the poor in this region was something like 33% as against the 70% among richer regions.  She reflected on that and then repeated, “it’s not fair, it’s just not fair”.  American liberalism is based upon the great American belief that the starting block should be the same for all.  Liberalism is about leveling the playing field, making it so that the starting gate truly is the same for everyone.  I tend to believe that this same yearning and revelation is what inspired the Kennedys.  They knew that they had a leg up.  They wanted to make sure that all Americans had the same opportunities that they had.  And we’re not talking here just about black versus white or woman versus man.  We’re talking about the fact that the poor remain poor and the rich remain rich and it’s not just because the poor are “lazy” and the rich are ambitious.  It takes a combination of skill, ambition and just plain old good luck to become one of the privileged.  Even where skill and ambition are available in good supply, the tides may not turn in your direction.

I go back to Thomas Jefferson when I think about the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives (and, no, I am not necessarily claiming that Jefferson would be a liberal or a conservative if he were alive today—he would probably be appalled by both options).  When Jefferson envisioned this capitalist republic of ours, he thought it might be a good idea to eliminate the whole idea of inheritance in order to level things out a bit.  He wanted us all to start out of the same starting blocks at the same time.  Of course, in Jefferson’s world, he was mostly hopeful that all white males would start out of an even gate together but the point remains the same.  Jefferson understood that the playing field is tilted and uneven and that something needs to be done to level it out.  That’s where government comes in (not Jefferson here, but me).

We are now to the point in history where we begrudgingly have to admit that Ronald Reagan changed the course of our politics forever.  One of the phenomena that R squared brought to the table was the anecdote.  During the eighties, we also stopped listening to statistics and facts and started listening to stories about peoples lives.  For better and for worse, Reagan had much to do with this.

Of course, the great Reagan stories in his attacks on liberalism always centered on the person who was cheating the welfare system.  Sometimes it seemed as if Reagan’s viewpoint on poor and working America is that they were all looking for a handout and government seemed more than willing to provide that handout.  I don’t disagree with the idea that sometimes this is true.  I confess that I am not quick open my window and give money to people at intersections and freeway exits for that reason.  If I were less lazy, least cheat and  and less cheap, I would get off my butt and buy some MacDonald’s $1.00 gift certificates to hand to these people but right now I tend to give them nothing. 

I’m not going to try to argue with Reagan’s perspective concerning the welfare cheater.  There is no doubt that those people are out there.  I have no way of knowing what percentage of our beggars are middle class professionals but I know they are out there.  At the same time, I’m pretty sure that this impulse to want a handout is not present simply among the poor.  I must confess that I wouldn’t mind winning the lottery.  I’d be likely to take the money.  Likewise, if a rich aunt or uncle died and left me their fortune without giving my sister a dime, I’d probably earnestly express sympathy for her and give her a few buck but I’d keep the lion’s share for myself.  People tend to be selfish.  People tend to want more than what’s coming to them.  That cuts across class lines.  If that is the case, however, then the rich and the powerful are as corruptible and as selfish as the poor.  What’s more, the rich and the powerful have more power to use to maintain their power.

Throughout history, liberalism has stood for the weak, the poor and the powerless against the privileged and the big corporation (yes, there are exceptions….I know that).  That’s a part of the reason, by the way, that I’m a United Methodist.  The United Methodist Church has a grand tradition of protecting the rights of the worker against exploitation.  Because of the liberalism of the United Methodist, there are no longer textile factories where children who are the age of our children are indentured slaves for ten to fifteen hours per day.  They are protected under the law.

Simply speaking, those who are rich tend to have more power than the poor in this country and most countries.  With a few glowing exceptions, they also tend to use that power to maintain their advantages.  The liberal tradition is the tradition in our society that protects the poor from the rich.  For some reason, we liberals have not done as good a job in this time of highlighting that value as we once did.  When I was younger, to be a Democrat, and therefore a liberal, meant to be united with the workers, with the people, with the little shop owners.  As far as I’m concerned that’s still who we are.  Liberals protect the interests of those who have less power.  Liberals are the voice of the poor because the rich are just as corruptible as the poor and their forms of corruption do more damage.  Reagan’s anecdotes concerning the welfare cheater were fine and they were certainly effective but they didn’t go far enough.  There are cheaters at every level in society.

So what is the liberal vision?  Liberals vote as they vote…

…in order to form a more perfect union;

…so that all will have equal opportunity;

…and to protect the powerless and the poor against the wealthy and the powerful.

They base their decisions on at least the three following questions:

• How can we provide opportunity and assistance for those who, for one reason or another, are less fortunate?
• What can we do better together than we can separately?
• How can we protect each other from each other?

I’m proud to be a liberal.