Breaking Myths About Liberals: An Interview with Myself (II)
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
This article is the second in a series of who knows how many where I am using myself as a sample liberal to respond to what I often read as blanket attributions made by those who denigrate "liberals" in their blogs and message boards. I do not speak for all liberals -- there are too many of us and too many different "kinds." But I do try to mark how accurate these attributions are by offering my own views on the issues they raise.
Do you believe in a welfare state?
I don’t even think I know what this means. Presumably, it is negative descriptor for a state where lazy people can freeload off of good citizens’ tax dollars. The reasoning goes something like this: you want me to work my butt off to put food on the table while some crack whore gets her next fix thanks to my tax dollars? Put that way, it sounds pretty horrible. But to anyone who has been on the dole, you know that being on welfare is hardly the luxury some make it out to be.
Thanks to our good old American Dream, we tend to believe in the myth of meritocracy. That myth, simply stated, means that our culture rewards merit equally – if you work hard enough, if you are smart enough, if you have marketable talents, you will profit and rise to a social class and privilege suitable to your merits. We love “rags to riches” stories enough in this country that we believe this myth to be the truth. We love it enough that the GOP (a party that tends to put the needs and concerns of the wealthy and big corporations ahead of everyone else) has many hardworking poor and lower middle class folks in its ranks – presumably (in part) because they hope one day to reach the brass ring and join the privileged prosperous. The likelihood that that will happen is less than the likelihood that they will win a state lottery, but then too many of us tend to spend our hard earned cash on those too.
I call it a “myth” of meritocracy because it is just patently not true. The number of truly “rags to riches” stories in this country represents an incredibly small percentage of us. We make those successes visible to preserve the Dream, but the truth is many of the privileged inherit their privilege without any need to show merit. And too many gifted souls are burdened with incredible poverty, poor public schools, high crime, and the nasty turns of fate that go with such conditions to ever benefit from whatever potential merit they might show. I believe welfare – and other support programs for the poor – is there to help folks overcome inequities in our system to show their true potential and thereby benefit all of us. And, since no issue is black and white, I am sure there are folks who take advantage of these support programs without using them to “rise up.” But I would rather support a few (or even majority) of those for the sake reaching those who will truly benefit (and benefit us all) from the system.
There was a time in this country when the haves helped the have-nots with donations, volunteered services, and kindness. Such charity is to be found at the heart of most of our religious organizations. More and more, though, the volunteer and charity ethic have been sacrificed to a dog-eat-dog world of competition and struggle. I believe that our government (but not our government alone) has a role to play in charity and helping the poor. And I don’t think that function is met with “trickle down” economics. Our poverty support systems may be bureaucratic, flawed, and in need of reform – but that only means we should strive to make them better.
Are you a radical?
Probably not. See, I play by the rules. I obey the law – and when I break the law (knowingly or otherwise), I submit to the punishments that go with such violations. I believe that civil disobedience is necessary and effective sometimes, but it is not my first tactic of choice for persuasion and social change.
On the other hand, if it is radical to want things to be different, then I guess I am a radical. Mark my words: I do want things to be different. I don’t claim to have the blueprints for Utopia, but I believe strongly that we as a culture can and must do better. As I have stated before, though, I resist the temptation to give into cynicism – I believe that the founding fathers (and mothers) designed this country so that it could investigate better ways of being. Our system is corruptible and flawed, but it also contains sufficient potential for self-correction. I do not believe that it is necessary to work outside of that system to bring about social change.
What worries me more is that Dems and GOP alike often deploy terms like “radical” and “liberal” as scare tactics. If you are slightly left of center, you are a “liberal.” One step more and you are a “radical,” practically a member of a militia. Take, for instance, my stance on gay marriage. Some would say that being for gay marriage makes me a radical liberal. But see, all I’ve done for the case of gay marriage is write my congressman, send letters to the editor, carry a sign on the street with others, and maintain a blog that expresses my views. I do these things because I am a gay man who lives everyday with the material consequences of not having my 10+ year relationship with another man recognized by the state. In other words, I am responding in legitimate and fairly routine ways to a perceived injustice that affects me personally, the effects of which I deal with on a daily basis. Radical, to me, would be crashing a straight wedding to protest it. Radical to me would be giving up on my country and calling for a (violent) revolution. And radical, to me, would be a straight person violently protesting gay marriage when it doesn’t really affect him/her.
It is not radical to seek change. After all, the so-called (compassionate?) conservative GOP platform includes no less than three proposed constitutional amendments. Doesn’t conservative mean you don’t want change? Wouldn’t it be more conservative to not change the constitution? Maybe it is only radical to seek major, fundamental change. But what is that exactly? My point is that “radical” is more often an attribution made by the “other side” to demonize the opposition – call someone else “radical” and you are implicitly claiming that your position is “reasonable.”
Are you a tree-hugger?
I’ve hugged a few trees, yes. But it was always consensual, and we used protection.
I like trees and parks and think our “National Treasures” are worth preserving. I also think environmental concerns should be more center stage in the current political landscape. But that is not to say that I am anti-capitalism or that I don’t believe that big business can be “green.” I do think that business requires regulatory oversight because our current market system is too focused on immediate gain and has few incentives to self-promote conservation or even “wise use” of resources. And I think we tend to treat environmental concerns as matters of convenience, issues we turn to when we have time and relative prosperity, issues that are too easily overshadowed by national security or economic concerns. We are woefully shortsighted in this country, especially when it comes to the basic principle of “don’t shit where you live/eat.”
Relatively speaking, there is merit to environmentalist arguments about the intrinsic value of nature and spiritual motivations for preservation. But these are only some of the reasons behind a variety of environmental concerns. Many environmentalists argue from a position of social justice, calling for healthy working and living environments for all of us. Many do so from a deep sense of moral responsibility for making sure the planet remains healthy and viable for future generations. Many do so because they recognize that the current human population explosion is unprecedented in our history, but that species population explosions are not uncommon in natural history – and the lessons we’ve learned there should give us all pause. Rampant consumerism (which I do not believe is necessarily synonymous with capitalism) is filling up landfills and poisoning diminishing water supplies at an astounding and, again, unprecedented rate. Apocalyptic doomsaying may sometimes get a little over the top, but I think that may be more about getting and keeping our collective attention than actually predicting the downfall of everything we know. It is, if anything, a reaction formation to cavalier consumption and faith (sometimes religious) that devouring limited and non-renewable resources for short term gain is our manifest destiny.
I think you have to be blind and stupid not to see that environmental issues matter. I think you have to be naively optimistic to believe that science and technology and free market incentives will solve all of the increasing human impacts on the environment. We should all be proud to call ourselves environmentalists, whether or not we actually hug trees. And we should all be deeply suspicious of any oversimplification of complex issues to binaries like “jobs vs. the environment.”
(to be continued)
Do you believe in a welfare state?
I don’t even think I know what this means. Presumably, it is negative descriptor for a state where lazy people can freeload off of good citizens’ tax dollars. The reasoning goes something like this: you want me to work my butt off to put food on the table while some crack whore gets her next fix thanks to my tax dollars? Put that way, it sounds pretty horrible. But to anyone who has been on the dole, you know that being on welfare is hardly the luxury some make it out to be.
Thanks to our good old American Dream, we tend to believe in the myth of meritocracy. That myth, simply stated, means that our culture rewards merit equally – if you work hard enough, if you are smart enough, if you have marketable talents, you will profit and rise to a social class and privilege suitable to your merits. We love “rags to riches” stories enough in this country that we believe this myth to be the truth. We love it enough that the GOP (a party that tends to put the needs and concerns of the wealthy and big corporations ahead of everyone else) has many hardworking poor and lower middle class folks in its ranks – presumably (in part) because they hope one day to reach the brass ring and join the privileged prosperous. The likelihood that that will happen is less than the likelihood that they will win a state lottery, but then too many of us tend to spend our hard earned cash on those too.
I call it a “myth” of meritocracy because it is just patently not true. The number of truly “rags to riches” stories in this country represents an incredibly small percentage of us. We make those successes visible to preserve the Dream, but the truth is many of the privileged inherit their privilege without any need to show merit. And too many gifted souls are burdened with incredible poverty, poor public schools, high crime, and the nasty turns of fate that go with such conditions to ever benefit from whatever potential merit they might show. I believe welfare – and other support programs for the poor – is there to help folks overcome inequities in our system to show their true potential and thereby benefit all of us. And, since no issue is black and white, I am sure there are folks who take advantage of these support programs without using them to “rise up.” But I would rather support a few (or even majority) of those for the sake reaching those who will truly benefit (and benefit us all) from the system.
There was a time in this country when the haves helped the have-nots with donations, volunteered services, and kindness. Such charity is to be found at the heart of most of our religious organizations. More and more, though, the volunteer and charity ethic have been sacrificed to a dog-eat-dog world of competition and struggle. I believe that our government (but not our government alone) has a role to play in charity and helping the poor. And I don’t think that function is met with “trickle down” economics. Our poverty support systems may be bureaucratic, flawed, and in need of reform – but that only means we should strive to make them better.
Are you a radical?
Probably not. See, I play by the rules. I obey the law – and when I break the law (knowingly or otherwise), I submit to the punishments that go with such violations. I believe that civil disobedience is necessary and effective sometimes, but it is not my first tactic of choice for persuasion and social change.
On the other hand, if it is radical to want things to be different, then I guess I am a radical. Mark my words: I do want things to be different. I don’t claim to have the blueprints for Utopia, but I believe strongly that we as a culture can and must do better. As I have stated before, though, I resist the temptation to give into cynicism – I believe that the founding fathers (and mothers) designed this country so that it could investigate better ways of being. Our system is corruptible and flawed, but it also contains sufficient potential for self-correction. I do not believe that it is necessary to work outside of that system to bring about social change.
What worries me more is that Dems and GOP alike often deploy terms like “radical” and “liberal” as scare tactics. If you are slightly left of center, you are a “liberal.” One step more and you are a “radical,” practically a member of a militia. Take, for instance, my stance on gay marriage. Some would say that being for gay marriage makes me a radical liberal. But see, all I’ve done for the case of gay marriage is write my congressman, send letters to the editor, carry a sign on the street with others, and maintain a blog that expresses my views. I do these things because I am a gay man who lives everyday with the material consequences of not having my 10+ year relationship with another man recognized by the state. In other words, I am responding in legitimate and fairly routine ways to a perceived injustice that affects me personally, the effects of which I deal with on a daily basis. Radical, to me, would be crashing a straight wedding to protest it. Radical to me would be giving up on my country and calling for a (violent) revolution. And radical, to me, would be a straight person violently protesting gay marriage when it doesn’t really affect him/her.
It is not radical to seek change. After all, the so-called (compassionate?) conservative GOP platform includes no less than three proposed constitutional amendments. Doesn’t conservative mean you don’t want change? Wouldn’t it be more conservative to not change the constitution? Maybe it is only radical to seek major, fundamental change. But what is that exactly? My point is that “radical” is more often an attribution made by the “other side” to demonize the opposition – call someone else “radical” and you are implicitly claiming that your position is “reasonable.”
Are you a tree-hugger?
I’ve hugged a few trees, yes. But it was always consensual, and we used protection.
I like trees and parks and think our “National Treasures” are worth preserving. I also think environmental concerns should be more center stage in the current political landscape. But that is not to say that I am anti-capitalism or that I don’t believe that big business can be “green.” I do think that business requires regulatory oversight because our current market system is too focused on immediate gain and has few incentives to self-promote conservation or even “wise use” of resources. And I think we tend to treat environmental concerns as matters of convenience, issues we turn to when we have time and relative prosperity, issues that are too easily overshadowed by national security or economic concerns. We are woefully shortsighted in this country, especially when it comes to the basic principle of “don’t shit where you live/eat.”Relatively speaking, there is merit to environmentalist arguments about the intrinsic value of nature and spiritual motivations for preservation. But these are only some of the reasons behind a variety of environmental concerns. Many environmentalists argue from a position of social justice, calling for healthy working and living environments for all of us. Many do so from a deep sense of moral responsibility for making sure the planet remains healthy and viable for future generations. Many do so because they recognize that the current human population explosion is unprecedented in our history, but that species population explosions are not uncommon in natural history – and the lessons we’ve learned there should give us all pause. Rampant consumerism (which I do not believe is necessarily synonymous with capitalism) is filling up landfills and poisoning diminishing water supplies at an astounding and, again, unprecedented rate. Apocalyptic doomsaying may sometimes get a little over the top, but I think that may be more about getting and keeping our collective attention than actually predicting the downfall of everything we know. It is, if anything, a reaction formation to cavalier consumption and faith (sometimes religious) that devouring limited and non-renewable resources for short term gain is our manifest destiny.
I think you have to be blind and stupid not to see that environmental issues matter. I think you have to be naively optimistic to believe that science and technology and free market incentives will solve all of the increasing human impacts on the environment. We should all be proud to call ourselves environmentalists, whether or not we actually hug trees. And we should all be deeply suspicious of any oversimplification of complex issues to binaries like “jobs vs. the environment.”
(to be continued)
PolMach Forums
I'll have to check out the Brou.
.