What is Liberalism?
Notwithstandin the recent Conservapedia definition of "liberal," I am forced to ask what is a liberal? Am I one? I am a member of the Liberal Party of Canada and the Ontario Liberal Party. But I have been told by a number of posters on my blog that I, in fact, am not (or should not be) a Liberal. So is liberalism something you believe? Or is it something you do? For four years I have dedicated myself to Liberalism in Canada. I have volunteered and been employed by Liberal members (including two leaderships). I have fought for a number of different issues from universality in healthcare to equality in marriage. However, some do not consider me to be a liberal. So, again I ask, what makes someone a liberal/Liberal?
posted by Jordan | 8:15 PM
9 Comments:
Tough question. There are probably as many definitions as there are people, and the phrase seems to mean different things in different settings.
At the most general level, if you are of the opinion that society ought to develop through a philosophy of rights-based humanism, and your beliefs on political and societal matters are consistent with that principle, I wouldn't have any qualms calling you a liberal.
John Rawls provided an extremely well-articulated argument for liberalism (or liberal egalitarianism, which is probably the same thing) in "A Theory of Justice". I think Dion's "Three Pillars" explanation of liberalism is a good one. Also, Ignatieff gave a good explanation of liberalism in his speech to the convention before he became an MP, which I know is online somewhere.
Hope that helps.
I consider myself a Libertarian but have always been a conservative voter. Your loose definition of adhering to "rights based humanism" is pretty broad and I would suggest anyone but a sociopath would fit into that umbrella. Conservatives like to promote personal responsiblity, hand up not hand out, creating opportunity for all people to be equal to their own ambitions while creating safety nets for those who cannot fend for themselves. Smaller more efficient governments and in Canada a respect for the division of jurisdictions.
Many conservatives consider Liberals to be socialists, not free enterprisers. And, now that Dion is at the helm his Master's Degree from France was in Marxism, so that must have had an attraction for him just as Trudeau was once a member of the communist party.
I still don't think good management of an organization, even a government, can be put in a box of ideology though. Good management is doing the right things - just like in any business. You don't look at a large corporation and say hmmmmm, their managers are Liberal or NDP or Conservative. They are either good managers or not so good. This ideologogical boxing in just gives fodder for political pundits but, if truth be told, the civil servants who advise ALL governments based on the facts of the day would probably give the same advice to all and we would not see much difference no matter which "party" was in power.
Just thought I would contribute. Good question.
Both of these are quite acceptable. So let me flat out ask, can someone such as me who has spoken out against Liberal policy for being "soft" on foreign affairs and defense, yet openly advocates universal health care and child care be a liberal? Some on this very blog have said no.
"Your loose definition of adhering to "rights based humanism" is pretty broad and I would suggest anyone but a sociopath would fit into that umbrella."
It is admittedly quite broad, though not as broad as you would suggest.
I would suggest that many conservatives would not fit into the description, though they certainly wouldn't be psychopaths.
Social Conservatives, particularly with their penchant for making faith-based decisions about political issues, would not be humanists.
Also, humanists view the ultimate goal of society as making life better for every individual person. The best way to describe it is as a universal individualistic principle. Many conservatives are far too tolerant of inequality to fit into that description.
Beyond that, I also added "rights-based" into the philosophy. Many conservatives put far too little emphasis on rights to fit into the definition.
As for where you stand, Jordan, I don't think that I have read enough of your opinions to be able to give an informed opinion.
By my definition, in order to decide, you will have to ask yourself, "Is my support for militarism consistent with the principle that we ought to make life better for everyone? Is my support for militarism consistent with a rights-based approach?"
You may find that your view is consistent with these points, or you may find that it isn't. If you find that it isn't, you must figure out whether your other liberal views outweigh your illiberal views to the point that you would still feel comfortable calling yourself a liberal. Or, alternatively, you could reconsider your illiberal views.
Again though, this is just my definition of liberalism. I'm sure you could find lots of other definitions.
On a side note, again aimed at shannon's post, liberals are not socialists. Socialism does not have the required individualism to be able to fit into liberalism.
"can someone such as me who has spoken out against Liberal policy for being "soft" on foreign affairs and defense, yet openly advocates universal health care and child care be a liberal?"
i would say yes. in generalities i would tend to think if most of your beliefs bend towards the philosophy of a liberal, and that is where you feel comfortable, then yes.
you have to remember, how you grew up - influences - teachings - family values, your ethnic background and / or other social factors, sex/gender ect ... some or all of these things can and / or will play a certain amount towards your beliefs; thus your political beliefs and where you fit in.
so, when it comes down to it, how many are really 100% liberal, 100% conservative, 100% ndp, etc.
as you said, you have spoken out against Liberal policy for being "soft" on foreign affairs and defense ... it isn't my stand, but good for you. if we don't question or speak out on things that can effect our country then what type of a society are we? it doesn't make you less of a liberal.
This is an issue which I invested a great deal of time considering, having worked on Parliament Hill for the Conservatives after the 2004 election until mid-2005 before joining the Liberal Party of Canada.
In terms of whether or not one can be a member of a party and oppose certain policies, you're going to have to. I was once speaking to a high school class and was asked how to choose a political party. I told them to choose the issues that they could not compromise on and find the party that comes closest to your views on those issues. On the other issues you have to be willing to compromise. That's just life in a political party, no matter what party it is.
As far as what it means to be Liberal or Conservative? In my view the Conservative movement in Canada has generally become a coalition of libertarians and social conservatives. It's the neo cons and the theo cons. As far as Conservative foreign policy is concerned, for better or worse there is no principle underpinning the strategy at this point. You may like or dislike their policies, but there is no way to label it liberal or conservative. It's just a relatively disjointed ad hoc set of policies.
By contrast, I'd argue that the Liberal Party's central tenet is pragmatism and that is what attracted me to the party.
"So let me flat out ask, can someone such as me who has spoken out against Liberal policy for being "soft" on foreign affairs and defense, yet openly advocates universal health care and child care be a liberal?"
well, ignatieff and other liberal hawks, or "Wilsonians under arms", have been able to square that circle. i come out far more skeptical of the idea that you can promote human rights, liberty, equality and justice by bombing people. the idea of humanitarian violence is certainly an oxymoron. indeed, i find this view smacks of idealism, or worse: rigid ideology, and runs counter to pragmatic policymaking. indeed, the intentions may be noble, but as we all know: the road to perdition is paved with good intentions. the current US administration has provided ample empirical evidence that such a stance is counter to achieving stated objectives and is dangerous to national and international security.
however, i have at times advocated a more hawkish foreign and defence policy, but have come to the conclusion that this must remain under the rubric of an overarching commitment to multilateralism, the rule of law and achieving desired outcomes through pragmatism.
So this would raise more questions. Can a "hawk" be considered a liberal? And if so, what defines a "hawk"? Michael Ignatieff is suggested here, yet he sided with Dion on the terrorist provisions. Bob Rae is considered one of the more left leaning members of the future Liberal caucus, yet he spoke out in favour of them. So, can a "hawk" be a "liberal"?
robedger wrote' "Many conservatives are far to tolerant of inequality to fit into that description", when refering to "humanists. I believe he mispelled the word, it should be "intolerant."
Teepee
Post a Comment
<< Home