From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:07:59 GMT



In article <1992Aug25.115945.2018@wkuvx1.bitnet>,
barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>Let's face it - the term "liberal" is a misnoner.

I'll ignore the "let's face it" since it is meretricious.

Your position, I take it, is that "liberal" is a misnomer because:
 1. there is no one who fits your definition of the term; or
 2. all people who call themselves "liberal" are, in fact, not.
If your position is either of these, please provide your definition
or understanding of the term "liberal" so we can proceed.  If your
position is neither of these, please elaborate it once again.

Meanwhile, I shall address the rest of your article as best I can.


>Some of the 
>most intolerant people I've ever met are liberals (of course, I'm
>sure there are good-hearted, if misled ones, out there).

Well, that's mighty nice of you, to allow as how there might be
good-hearted liberals out there.  But your main point, the one
of which you're certain, is that some of the most intolerant people
you know are liberals.  To which:

 1. Why do you call them liberals in spite of their intolerance?
 2. What are they not tolerating?
 3. What is it you think liberals should tolerate?
 4. Are people liberal only if they tolerate everything under the sun?

Perhaps you see why I asked how you define the term.


>Anyone who has any convictions at all, anyone who stands up for what they
>believe in, is insulted, slandered, etc., etc., etc.

Eh?  What?  Examples, please.


>  Most liberals nowdays don't want the name liberal.  I say we 
>call them what they are - hypocrites (only the ones who are).

Feeble.

You define "liberal" for me and I'll tell you if I like the term or not.
If you can't be bothered to define the term, I can't be bothered to tell
you whether I like it or not.  Fair?

As for hypocrites, I have no objection to your calling them that.


>I put them in the same category I do David Duke - they refuse to come
>out and say what they really believe, that morality is wrong, that 
>if you tell someone they're wrong you're intolerant and bigoted, 
>that if you have any sense of decency at all you're some kind of 
>neo-Nazi.

Feeble.

I'll ignore the David Duke analogy, mostly because I have no idea what
you're trying to get at.

As for the "morality is wrong" idea, I'm not sure where you get it.

It is a fact that any given community of human beings will derive and
define its own moral code.  It is also a fact that each human being
can belong to one or more communities, sub-communities, etc.  These
are facts, and have nothing to do with liberalism.

It is liberal to believe that each moral code defined by each community
of people is as "valid" or legitimate as any other.  If Group A chooses
to live by Code 1 and Group B chooses to live by Code 2, then neither
Group A nor Group B is right or wrong.  By definition, morality has to
do with social mores, and these aren't right or wrong; they just are.

Unfortunately, trouble arises when Group A and Group B overlap, or when
a society is comprised of hundreds of such groups.  Obviously, there is
bound to be conflict among the moral codes preferred by each group.
Whose moral code should be used as the basis of law and government?  By
definition, rules that are not shared are bound to be considered immoral
or amoral by those who do not share in them.  Like laws, moral rules only
have moral force if they are legitimate, i.e., only if people agree, usually
implicitly and sometimes explicitly, to abide by them.

So what moral rules should a heterogeneous society enforce?  I suggest
that it is liberal to insist that government should attempt to enforce only
those moral precepts that are shared by all members of a society.  I suggest
that it is illiberal to force people to abide by rules that they consider
immoral.  Both suggestions are extremist, because there will be very few
rules that are acceptable to ALL people.  As a result, we compromise on the
*ideal* of liberalism and agree to use those rules that *most* people find
acceptable; hence the term "liberal democracy."

Now, if I have said that "morality is wrong," please tell me where I said it.

You seem to want to put words in the mouths of liberals.  If you read this
news-group for a while, you'll see you don't have to go to all that trouble.


>  They've got control over Congress and the media; God help us if
>they get the Presidency as well.

Feel free to believe in "God" as long as you don't expect me to.  OK?


>  One more thing - Albert Gore.  The biggest "tax-and-spender" in
>Congress, a man who was raised with the silver spoon of the politic-
>ally connected in his mouth.  The only reason I'd vote for him would
>be to get him out of Tennessee.

Anything you say, bud.


>  That's my opinion - it ought to be yours.

You can't possibly be that arrogant, so I'll ignore the statement.


>P.S. - I want to make two things crystal clear before I go.  First,
>like I said before, I don't make this as a blanket statement about
>all liberals [...]

Oh, I get it now.  You were talking about a specific set of individuals.
I don't suppose you'd care to name these individuals, huh?


>  Thanks for reading, whether you agree with me or not.  God gave you
>the ability to chose; use it with care and wisdom.

Go easy with the "God" stuff, pal.  He or She may have given you a whole
lot of stuff; I don't know why you assume that I was on the same list.
And certainly don't expect me to assume it: I have a right not to.


Dhanesh

Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle