A Good Liberal

[DL82]

I still believe I am a ‘good liberal’, and I think there are a lot of us out there.

At the same time, I am very sad for many of my political colleagues, here in Europe and in the USA, because of the way liberalism has been hijacked by certain secularist ‘signature issues’.

To take some of the issues that liberals have advocated in the 20th century, such as the legalisation of homosexuality, these issues began as a recognition that people were being oppressed for something that wasn’t their fault. As a Catholic, I believe that homosexual activity is sinful, but I don’t believe there should be a legal punishment for it. The same argument was true of the Abortion Act in 1967, or the Roe v Wade judgment in the USA, the argument was simply that this was already happening, and it didn’t make sense to punish young girls, or to force them into dangerous back-street operations. It was always acknowledged that abortion is an awful, evil thing, something that nobody WANTS to go through, something society should try to minimise. By controlling abortion, and requiring the consent of two doctors, the Abortion Act was intended to help young women to avoid such an awful situation, to counsel them away, and provide the information needed to reduce reliance on evil private abortion-peddlers.

Unfortunately, somewhere down the line, liberalism lost its’ way. Rather than a concern for the oppressed, and a recognition that often they are forced into bad choices by bad circumstances, what happened was a ‘championing’ of these accommodations as if they were intrinsically good.

I think all of this has something to do with the ‘championing’ of absolute goods by moral majoritarian governments (esp. the Reagan administration) in America. A liberal state should not set up one favoured way of living and illegalise the others. Because the religious right made absolute issues out of homosexuality and abortion, the secular left reacted in kind.

On the one hand, I don’t think it is right to disown one’s own children for being homosexual, but on the other hand, I really can’t understand some liberals who are so pro-gay that they would be overjoyed if their children turned out that way, people who think their children’s upbringing isn’t complete unless they’ve seen a same-sex partnership and been made aware of an appropriate range of ‘alternative lifestyles’.

Likewise, some ‘pro-choice’ campaigners who seem to think that having to choose between the life and death of your child is a wonderful opportunity. It’s not. Abortion is not, nor has ever been, good. Never. I’d still say that some people find themselves in difficult life-or-death decisions, such as women who have been raped or have a very high probability of dying in childbirth. While the Church teaches that abortion is always wrong, I don’t believe the state can ever force women in these kinds of situations to make that kind of choice, a choice for martyrdom even. Just because I wouldn’t want to jail a woman for making a bad choice in that awful extreme situation doesn’t mean I think abortion or the ‘right to choose’ is a wonderful thing, to be praised in and of itself. It’s not. Anyone who has ever been through it knows that it’s not.

Where did they all go wrong? Where did a concession to help the oppressed of society become a celebration of their ‘choice’ to oppress themselves? Am I the only ‘good liberal’ left?

 

[DL82]

Just to clarify, I’m not ‘pro-choice’, though I also wouldn’t want to see a return to back-street abortions. I hate the fact that unborn children are murdered, but I also wouldn’t want to see desperate young women put in jail for making bad choices. That just makes a bad situation worse.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I hate the fact that unborn children are murdered, but I also wouldn’t want to see desperate young women put in jail for making bad choices.

**I’m not aware of any cases of women being punished by law for having abortions. (I’m not saying it didn’t happen, but that I have heard of none.)

I HAVE heard of the law going after those who performed them, however.

There was a time that to call a doctor an “abortionist” was the worst professional and personal insult you could give him.**

 

[geezerbob]

DL, I’ve been around long enough to know that you err when you state that the current homosexual militancy is the result of Reagan’s policies. It started out as a trickle long before that and has since gained speed exponentially.

When I was a young adult, homosexual acts were illegal, as were adultery, fornication, abortion, and even cursing in public. The state provided a discreet home where unmarried pregnant women were cared for if their parents kicked them out. Abortion providers were prosecuted when caught, but not the women. Admittedly, most of these laws were infrequently enforced but were still on the books. When they were enforced, usually at the insistence of a wronged citizen, it always made the headlines. The possibility of having one’s dirty linen aired in public forced a degree of discretion for those who were undeterred by the law. I doubt that any reliable statistics are available to compare then with now, but the discretion required back then was preferable to every sin of the flesh being flaunted in my face as it is today.

The so-called sexual revolution of the 1960’s was the first open disregard for the laws of God, nature, and man that I witnessed, and nothing has happened since to rein it in. The insistence of perverts of all stripes that their lifestyles be legitimized is an outgrowth of that 60’s movement, with a corresponding turning away from God and religion. History, including the Bible, is filled with examples of what our ultimate temporal and eternal fates will be if we continue down this path.

If your definition of “liberal” is to work for the administration of the corporal works of mercy by the government rather than voluntarily by individuals and groups (church communities) as Jesus commanded, I wouldn’t call that good, but it would definitely be less bad than the more usual connotation. If your definition includes condoning sin, or ignoring it as an individual’s personal choice, there is no way that I could call it good.

For me, my religion determines my stance on politics and social issues, not the other way around.

 

[DL82]

If your definition of “liberal” is to work for the administration of the corporal works of mercy by the government rather than voluntarily by individuals and groups (church communities) as Jesus commanded, I wouldn’t call that good, but it would definitely be less bad than the more usual connotation. If your definition includes condoning sin, or ignoring it as an individual’s personal choice, there is no way that I could call it good.

For me, my religion determines my stance on politics and social issues, not the other way around.

My definition of ‘liberal’ is the classical definition favoured by liberal political theorists from J.S. Mill through to John Rawls, that the state should be neutral as to different conceptions of the good. That is to say, the state should protect the innocent, and provide people with the freedom to live their lives the way they choose. Protecting the innocent, of course, also includes protecting the unborn, and protecting people from being exposed to corrupting influences without their consent, but not ‘protecting’ people from themselves. It’s not for the state to expose people to shame or prosecution for what they choose to do privately between consenting adults. I also believe that the state should make possible what it promises. That is to say, a right to life means nothing if you cannot walk down the street for fear of being shot. It also means nothing if you cannot have access to basic medical treatment to save your life.

My religion also determines my stance on politics. I don’t see anywhere in the Catechism where it argues that sinners must be punished by the state for every kind of sin.

 

[M249]

this would be a better country if we had laws against sodomy, abortion, fornication, adultery and the like. what we don’t want is capital punishment for these crimes, such as in middle-eastern countries. the Muslims are on to something with their masculine culture, but they just don’t have our Christian mercy.

 

[Michael_David]

Is the government suppose to enact laws for every Church sin? With all the religions in this country, one could end up against the law for a religious practice other then their own.

Roe v Wade simply took away the “Legal Stigma” of abortion. Meaning the government does not say it is or isn’t OK… leaving it up to one’s religious convictions. (Note: I consider it a grave sin… law or not).

It is good for the country not to get into ‘multiple’ religious wrongs and making laws against them. There are those countries that do that for the major religion in that country. What are they like? What about the ‘minority’ religion?

So here, USA, let the religion (morals) prosecute the sinner, or forgive them of their sin (whatever). But with this, there are a lot of things going on that one does not approve of due to differing morals or no morals. There is still ‘Free-Will’. Ours is not to try and make a law against it, but rather try and show the other the err of their ways… in our own little corner of the world. Thereby snatching the other from the grip of the devil.

Not Christ, nor any of the Apostles, tried to get Rome to change their legal system to match the ‘New Christianity’, but rather tried to be Christian within the Roman country (or whatever country they were in at the time). Does the Liberal look to do good “Politically”? Rather then in their own home and on their own street? Within their own Church?

 

[Wirraway]

this would be a better country if we had laws against sodomy, abortion, fornication, adultery and the like. what we don’t want is capital punishment for these crimes, such as in middle-eastern countries. the Muslims are on to something with their masculine culture, but they just don’t have our Christian mercy.

enforcing laws like that would be a disaster, with the level of government intrusion (via informers, police, surveillance, prosecution, punishment) at unacceptable levels. the cure worse than the disease.

 

[Sam_Maloney]

I’ve seen very good cases made for the idea that today’s ‘conservative’ movement is more classically ‘liberal’ than are today’s self styled liberals.

The words have become so laden with emotional and intellectual baggage that they carry little meaning anymore.

 

[neat62]

DL82;4262523]

though I also wouldn’t want to see a return to back-street abortions.

As rare as they have always been, we never left back alley abortions. They still continue.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Where did they all go wrong? Where did a concession to help the oppressed of society become a celebration of their ‘choice’ to oppress themselves? Am I the only ‘good liberal’ left?

I think that a lot of people tend to think of themselves as members of a particular group or organization first, and then try to adjust their personal views on particular issues within the bounds of that group second. In this case, it is with politics, but it happens with everything from religious affiliation to what team’s name people have on their shirt.

I think you should examine your beliefs first, and then decide where you belong.
It might be that your views are developing, or that the party or “side” you have identified with has changed.

In any case, a political party is nothing more than a group of people who have the same political aims- if the aims of the group of people in your party have changed, then find a group of people you agree with and join their party.

If more people did this, maybe the people in control of the dominant political parties in the country might finally realize that they don’t represent most of us anymore.

 

[Contarini]

My definition of ‘liberal’ is the classical definition favoured by liberal political theorists from J.S. Mill through to John Rawls, that the state should be neutral as to different conceptions of the good. That is to say, the state should protect the innocent, and provide people with the freedom to live their lives the way they choose. Protecting the innocent, of course, also includes protecting the unborn, and protecting people from being exposed to corrupting influences without their consent, but not ‘protecting’ people from themselves.

But here’s where the liberal concept starts to break down. You can’t say “the state should protect the innocent, and this includes the unborn” without a particular conception of the good. One of the most common defenses of the prochoice position (at least among intellectuals–I don’t think that most people who call themselves prochoice actually think this through, and many would be shocked if they read the arguments) is that human self-determination is the basic good that needs to be preserved. So even if the unborn child is a human being, abortion is still justified, because the presence of the child within the mother’s womb without her consent (and this “consent” is not understood to have been implicitly given in the act of intercourse–even setting aside the case of rape) is a violation of her human dignity. The only way you can refute this position is by setting out an alternative conception of the good.

Same with “corrupting influences.” For instance, a Catholic society (or a society whose conception of the good was shaped by any other particular religious tradition–I say “Catholic” because this is a Catholic forum, and because Catholics have historically debated this particular issue quite a lot) might see heretical missionaries going door-to-door, or posting their views on public billboards, as a corrupting influence. Such a society might therefore forbid any such activity, allowing heretics freedom of worship and the freedom to spread their views only insofar as these views are not presented to people who have not given prior consent. (I.e., they could not have a church on a public street with a sign that might lure people in, and they could not visit families that had not specifically asked them to drop by.) Of course this presupposes a conception of the good. But so do similar laws restricting pornography or tobacco advertising or other things that our society considers “corrupting influences.” Conceptions of the good are in fact at work, whether we acknowledge them or not.

Edwin

 

[Ruthie]

That is to say, the state should protect the innocent, and provide people with the freedom to live their lives the way they choose. Protecting the innocent, of course, also includes protecting the unborn, and protecting people from being exposed to corrupting influences without their consent, but not ‘protecting’ people from themselves. It’s not for the state to expose people to shame or prosecution for what they choose to do privately between consenting adults. I also believe that the state should make possible what it promises. That is to say, a right to life means nothing if you cannot walk down the street for fear of being shot. It also means nothing if you cannot have access to basic medical treatment to save your life.

This is a pretty good statement, DL. (I’m serious.)

The biggest problem with it is having the state defining “corrupting influences.” It is the state, through the judicial system, which has legalized the most degrading pornography and forced teachers to include “Heather Has Two Mommies” in the curriculum.

I was a registered… woops, the rules… liberal voter for many years, before realizing that in the past 3 elections I had voted a straight conservative ticket, and changed my affiliation. I realized that the “liberal” party had left me. I didn’t change, they did.

I’ve changed in some significant ways, though. Most significantly, I’ve changed from believing in a woman’s “right to choose” to believing that abortion is murder.

And I figured out (ignoring the propaganda for both sides) that taking guns away from lawful citizens merely left them defenseless and didn’t keep guns away from criminals, and that the Founders gave us the 2nd Amendment for a reason. Gun control, pro or con, used to be a bipartisan issue, but has now become a conservative cause.

And I know from personal experience that ERs can’t turn you away because you can’t pay. (And if you watch Trauma, life in the ER a few times, you’ll see plenty of homeless people getting treatment.) I’m pretty sure it is a federal law that was passed in the Civil Rights days. Now I’m insured, so I’m subsidizing ER treatment for the indigent, which is fine with me.

“National health” is **not **fine by me. I don’t want to be given a wait of 9 months for treatment for stage 4 cancer which has a prognosis of death in three months, as has happened in Canada. Nor do I want to be given a choice between being refused payment for palliative care for terminal cancer, but promised payment for assisted suicide, as happens in Oregon. Different methods, same results. Somebody is told they have to die, to save the state money. Unconscionable.

My old liberal ideals stayed, but that party corrupted theirs, and morally they are a sinking ship.

Ruthie

 

[royal_archer]

Just to clarify, I’m not ‘pro-choice’, though I also wouldn’t want to see a return to back-street abortions. I hate the fact that unborn children are murdered, but I also wouldn’t want to see desperate young women put in jail for making bad choices. That just makes a bad situation worse.

And people could get injured committing other crimes, would you advocate legalizing them also?

Liberals were once considered the flag bearers of human rights. right now, one of the most contentious areas of human rights is defending pre-natal children from being murdered. I know, many people say children are not realy human before they take their first breath, but as society matures we have realized that our previous deffinitions of mankind and who qualified for human rights needed updated. We didn’t always consider women and minorities to be fully “human” in the eyes of the law.

 

[royal_archer]

…I was a registered… woops, the rules… liberal voter for many years, before realizing that in the past 3 elections I had voted a straight conservative ticket, and changed my affiliation. I realized that the “liberal” party had left me. I didn’t change, they did.

I hope it is OK to reference political perspectives proceded by a lower case letter "l"iberal, "c"onservative, "l"ibertarian as long as you are not referncing the specific parties who begin with a capital letter.

I’ve changed in some significant ways, though. Most significantly, I’ve changed from believing in a woman’s “right to choose” to believing that abortion is murder.

And I figured out (ignoring the propaganda for both sides) that taking guns away from lawful citizens merely left them defenseless and didn’t keep guns away from criminals, and that the Founders gave us the 2nd Amendment for a reason. Gun control, pro or con, used to be a bipartisan issue, but has now become a conservative cause.

I used to be an active supporter of one party but got discouraged and now feel more closely alligned with a third party. After getting that outsiders perspective I feel I can better see the sillyness of the possitions of my former party and the other too big party.

And I know from personal experience that ERs can’t turn you away because you can’t pay. (And if you watch Trauma, life in the ER a few times, you’ll see plenty of homeless people getting treatment.) I’m pretty sure it is a federal law that was passed in the Civil Rights days. Now I’m insured, so I’m subsidizing ER treatment for the indigent, which is fine with me.

I understand that you don’t mind paying for the uninsured but you need to realize that this has caused prices to skyrocket and has forced many companies to drop insurance, move overseas, or loose out to competition that does not offer insurance. Many GM/Ford cars are now made in Mexico.

“National health” is **not **fine by me. I don’t want to be given a wait of 9 months for treatment for stage 4 cancer which has a prognosis of death in three months, as has happened in Canada. Nor do I want to be given a choice between being refused payment for palliative care for terminal cancer, but promised payment for assisted suicide, as happens in Oregon. Different methods, same results. Somebody is told they have to die, to save the state money. Unconscionable.

Look at the current banking fiasco or the handling of the Iraq war and ask yourself if you want the same group of characters managing your healthcare.

My old liberal ideals stayed, but that party corrupted theirs, and morally they are a sinking ship.

Ruthie

There are other parties that are probably more to your liking.

 

[East_and_West]

Just to clarify, I’m not ‘pro-choice’, though I also wouldn’t want to see a return to back-street abortions. I hate the fact that unborn children are murdered, but I also wouldn’t want to see desperate young women put in jail for making bad choices. That just makes a bad situation worse.

So you are saying that people should not be punished for murder? interesting.