What does it mean to be "liberal"

[UserGoogol]

Along came school voucher initiatives. That would give people a choice. Among Democrats, they have pretty much zero support. Why? I don't want to argue that they are good or bad here, but are they liberal, or illiberal? Do they promote more freedom, or less? To me, the choice is obvious. They create more freedom. So why are "liberals" against them?

Most of the criticisms of school vouchers can easily be phrased as being pro-freedom. For instance, one argument is that it will hurt disadvantaged people because they won't be able to get into private schools even with the vouchers. Wealth and freedom are very tightly linked: the more money you have, the more things you are capable of doing, or in other words, the more freedom you have. If you skew education such that people who are already free get the good stuff and the people who are not-so-free get the worse stuff, then this might be a decrease in the overall freedom compared to the current situation.

Although I admit that American liberals are not completely the same as Liberals in the classical sense, this is an area where they can be considered to be so.

 

[Meadmaker]

Those of you who have issues with "Silent Night" are the face that people see when they think "liberal" in America today, which explains why no politician will admit to the label.

Most of the criticisms of school vouchers can easily be phrased as being pro-freedom. For instance, one argument is that it will hurt disadvantaged people because they won't be able to get into private schools even with the vouchers. Wealth and freedom are very tightly linked: the more money you have, the more things you are capable of doing, or in other words, the more freedom you have. If you skew education such that people who are already free get the good stuff and the people who are not-so-free get the worse stuff, then this might be a decrease in the overall freedom compared to the current situation.

Although I admit that American liberals are not completely the same as Liberals in the classical sense, this is an area where they can be considered to be so.

I think this is a common view, and it's one of the common arguments against vouchers, but I think it's horribly wrong. (Nothing personal meant there.)

Under the current system, only the rich can afford private schools. Under vouchers, everyone would be able to afford private schools, but the poor would be able to afford mediocre private schools, the middle class would be able to afford better private schools, and the rich would be able to afford the very best. (Assuming that there is a correlation between expense and quality, which we'll accept for the sake of argument. It's at least partly true.)

So, everyone gets more choices, but the more money you have, the better choices you can make. Somehow, that gets equated to "less freedom", but that's totally wrong. There is probably less equality, but there isn't less freedom.

It's easy to make everyone equal economically. Take away everyone's money. But that isn't liberal. Freedom and equality are not synonymous.

 

[Upchurch]

Those of you who have issues with "Silent Night" are the face that people see when they think "liberal" in America today, which explains why no politician will admit to the label.

If that's an argument as to why a government-funded institution should promote a specific religion, I don't see it.

So, everyone gets more choices, but the more money you have, the better choices you can make. Somehow, that gets equated to "less freedom", but that's totally wrong. There is probably less equality, but there isn't less freedom.

It's easy to make everyone equal economically. Take away everyone's money. But that isn't liberal. Freedom and equality are not synonymous.

Are liberals only defined by promotion of freedom?

 

[thaiboxerken]

And if you think that’s a good reason to ban it, I’m laughing at you.

It's ok for you to laugh, since you have silly ideas.

Is it open minded to have a “banned songs” list?

They aren't banned songs.

Does it advance freedom when you censor the expression of certain ideas?

It's not censorship.

But when you say, “You aren’t allowed to sing that song!” I’m not going to give you the Liberal of the Year Award.

The issue is whether or not they can sing the song during public school time. Public schools should not be a battleground of religious ideas and theology. It promotes freedom of parenting to keep religion out of schools so that parents and not teachers, are the ones deciding what religion their kids are going to adopt.

 

[UserGoogol]

I think this is a common view, and it's one of the common arguments against vouchers, but I think it's horribly wrong. (Nothing personal meant there.)

Well perhaps, it's a complicated issue. I was merely arguing that they were still "liberal." If a person tries to be liberal but fails, he's still liberal, because "liberal" describes a person's ideological position.

So, everyone gets more choices, but the more money you have, the better choices you can make. Somehow, that gets equated to "less freedom", but that's totally wrong. There is probably less equality, but there isn't less freedom.

How do you define freedom? To me, the definition of freedom/liberty is the ability to do whatever you want (except harm people). Having your freedom restricted by an oppressive government is just as bad as having your freedom restricted by an oppressive reality. The former is easier to prevent, so it is not unreasonable to give a bit of focus on that side of things, but both are bad.

I think, and this is a completely unfounded conjecture, that a difference between left-liberalism and right-liberalism (by which I mean libertarianism) is that the left tends to be more consequentialist, whereas the right tends to be more deontological. The left is willing to sacrifice a little freedom here or there if it means a better increase in freedom overall, whereas the right feels that violating freedom is just totally wrong as a principle. Or at least, I'm consequentialist and Shanek was deontological, and that's enough anecdotal evidence for me.

 

[Dcdrac]

For me being liberal means doing my damndest to back up my views with evidence.

 

[hammegk]

Here in the US we call that position "conservative".

 

[Meadmaker]

Well perhaps, it's a complicated issue. I was merely arguing that they were still "liberal." If a person tries to be liberal but fails, he's still liberal, because "liberal" describes a person's ideological position.

That makes sense. If someone sincerely believes they are promoting more freedom, tolerance, and open mindedness, then I suppose they are liberal.

I agree whether or not we ought to have school vouchers is a very complicated issue, but as to whether or not it's liberal, I can't see both sides of the story. Maybe someone can explain why centralized bureaucracies in which there is no choice is "liberal" in any meaningful sense, but I don't get it.

To me, the definition of freedom/liberty is the ability to do whatever you want (except harm people).

With you so far.

Having your freedom restricted by an oppressive government is just as bad as having your freedom restricted by an oppressive reality.

I think I understand, and I think I agree. If government takes your money, leaving you with fewer choices, but buys an ambulance, which might keep you alive, your freedom goes up. Is that it?

is that the left tends to be more consequentialist, whereas the right tends to be more deontological. The left is willing to sacrifice a little freedom here or there if it means a better increase in freedom overall, whereas the right feels that violating freedom is just totally wrong as a principle. Or at least, I'm consequentialist and Shanek was deontological, and that's enough anecdotal evidence for me.

Wow, I actually had to use dictionary.com to look up a word I didn't know. Usually I use it to quote a definition about which there shouldn't be any dispute, but someone makes one anyway.

I think that's pretty much correct. Sometimes, in my opinion, though, the left doesn't do a good job of even aiming for good consequences. I think they are so bent on equality that even if everything is equally bad, that's ok.

 

[Meadmaker]

Are liberals only defined by promotion of freedom?

Broad mindedness, tolerance, acceptance of alternatives. These all define "liberal". I think all of those result in more freedom, don't they?

Example: I don't much like "Silent Night" or the religion it represents, but I will tolerate it, instead of whining to a judge and making them stop.

 

[gnome]

blame society first, rarely .... Huh? Free Mumia!

Rubbish. Supporters of Mumia do not claim he is innocent because society is to blame. They claim he is innocent because he didn't do it.

I'm not convinced, myself, that he is as innocent as they say. But they're not advocating a murderer be freed because it's ok to be a murderer. They're asking that someone they believe to be innocent be freed.

 

[gnome]

Among society at large, Christians aren't forced underground, but plenty of JREF folks act persecuted if they have to listen to someone say "Jesus". I think those who act that way ought to lighten up. When someone acts that way, he isn't being liberal.

You've misunderstood. It's not having to listen to someone say "Jesus."... metaphorically it's listening to someone in an official status go on about Jesus. It makes us nervous that Christianity will become part of official policy.

(Not incidentally, it makes Catholics, Jews, and people of other religions nervous too... most lawsuits about separation of church and state are not begun by Atheists)

 

[daenku32]

Liberal means willingness to toss anything old, known and good, for something we are pretty darn sure is even better.

Yes, I'm a liberal. Like a Kaizen project, society much less the government is never done.

 

[Cain]

Well perhaps, it's a complicated issue. I was merely arguing that they were still "liberal." If a person tries to be liberal but fails, he's still liberal, because "liberal" describes a person's ideological position.

How do you define freedom? To me, the definition of freedom/liberty is the ability to do whatever you want (except harm people). Having your freedom restricted by an oppressive government is just as bad as having your freedom restricted by an oppressive reality. The former is easier to prevent, so it is not unreasonable to give a bit of focus on that side of things, but both are bad.

I think, and this is a completely unfounded conjecture, that a difference between left-liberalism and right-liberalism (by which I mean libertarianism) is that the left tends to be more consequentialist, whereas the right tends to be more deontological. The left is willing to sacrifice a little freedom here or there if it means a better increase in freedom overall, whereas the right feels that violating freedom is just totally wrong as a principle. Or at least, I'm consequentialist and Shanek was deontological, and that's enough anecdotal evidence for me.

First of all, the greatest contemporary liberal philosopher, John Rawls, was a deontologist. Indeed, prior to the publication of _Theory_, most political philosophers were utilitarians, but afterward they shifted toward a rights-oriented view. Rawls of course makes the standard distinction between the formal ability to exercise one's rights, and the effective (or real) ability to exercise one's rights. As I've said in the past, the difference between a conservative/libertarian and a left-winger/liberal is that we (the latter) believe the outcome of a person's life ought to be based primarily on personal choices rather than arbitrary circumstances. This means people, particularly children, are entitled to certain things such as education and healthcare (primary goods), by virtue of being human.

Funny Shanek story. Victor D. once asked libertarians on this board to classify themselves as either deontologists or consequentalists. Shanek, in all of his wisdom, said he fell into both categories and insisted the distinction was a false one.

As far as vouchers go, people tend to overlook the basic premise that everyone agrees children have a right to an education. It still involves that greatest of evils, "redistributionism." The mechanism may be different, but again, there's an important domain distinction.

 

[Meadmaker]

You've misunderstood. It's not having to listen to someone say "Jesus."... metaphorically it's listening to someone in an official status go on about Jesus. It makes us nervous that Christianity will become part of official policy.

(Not incidentally, it makes Catholics, Jews, and people of other religions nervous too... most lawsuits about separation of church and state are not begun by Atheists)

I assure you, I get that. I totally understand the football prayer case, and the general prayer in school debate. I am very much opposed to teacher led prayer, or prayer selected by majority vote.

And if you think that the choir can't sing "Silent Night", I'm laughing at you.

 

[Meadmaker]

As far as vouchers go, people tend to overlook the basic premise that everyone agrees children have a right to an education. It still involves that greatest of evils, "redistributionism." The mechanism may be different, but again, there's an important domain distinction.

I'm not following. I haven't read Rawls, so I don't have the philosophical background for the discussion, so this might be a bit remedial.

So, is redistributionism something that a liberal ought to see as bad? I see it as bad if that's your goal. However, funding of public projects, such as eduction, inevitably involves redistributionism, and I'm ok with that. In other words, redistribution of wealth, while not a worth goal, might still increase rights, freedoms, choices, etc. So, is that a liberal idea, or not? (according to Rawls and/or you?)

As for vouchers, is there more or less redistribution with vouchers? It seems to me that both plans (vouchers and traditional) involve satisfying the right to education, and neither plan redistributes more wealth. One of them provides choices, which I see as liberal, and the other does not, but other than that, they seem pretty similar.

 

[Upchurch]

Broad mindedness, tolerance, acceptance of alternatives. These all define "liberal". I think all of those result in more freedom, don't they?

You don't find tolerance and acceptance an aspect of equality?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I assure you, I get that. I totally understand the football prayer case, and the general prayer in school debate. I am very much opposed to teacher led prayer, or prayer selected by majority vote.

And if you think that the choir can't sing "Silent Night", I'm laughing at you.

Hymnals are just like prayers.

 

[JamesDillon]

So, is redistributionism something that a liberal ought to see as bad? I see it as bad if that's your goal. However, funding of public projects, such as eduction, inevitably involves redistributionism, and I'm ok with that. In other words, redistribution of wealth, while not a worth goal, might still increase rights, freedoms, choices, etc. So, is that a liberal idea, or not? (according to Rawls and/or you?)

I don't quite get that part either. Rawls's most fundamental principle regarding allocation of wealth was that the most just society is the one in which the people in the worst-off position are in the best position they can be in all possible worlds. In other words, the gap between rich and poor was of less significance to Rawls than the objective state of the poor under one system as compared to their state under all other possible systems. He certainly favored the downward redistribution of wealth insofar as it would put the worst-off in a better position than they would have been otherwise.

Regarding the Silent Night thing and all related issues, I think Rawls's oft-misunderstood principle of public reason could shed some light on the liberal position here. I don't have time at the moment to go deeply into detail (I wrote my M.A. thesis on this, so believe me, I could...), but the basic idea is that democracy, by definition, requires each citizen to treat each other citizen with respect as an autonomous political agent. One corollary of this, according to Rawls, is that political decisions must be made on the basis of reasons that all citizens, including those who disagree with the decision, could reasonably accept. That is to say, they must appeal to the limited set of values shared in the overlapping consensus of reasonable, political conceptions of justice held by all (reasonable) citizens. (Reasonable here being basically defined as a citizen who accepts the fundamental tenets of democratic government); this limited set of public reasons is distinguished by Rawls from what he calls "comprehensive" moral or religious beliefs that each person also holds, but which are not part of the overlapping consensus. Because they are not shared by all, reasons based on comprehensive views could not reasonably be accepted by all members of society, and therefore cannot be offered as a legitimate basis for government action. For example, laws against the consumption of alcohol on Sundays could not be justified by reference to the fact that Sunday is the Lord's day, because no atheist, Wiccan, or Jew (among others) could reasonably be expected to accept that justification for infringement upon their liberty. This Kantian conception of each adult member of a democratic society as political-end rather than political-means underlies the liberal commitment to, among other things, separation of church and state.

 

[Cain]

I'm not following. I haven't read Rawls, so I don't have the philosophical background for the discussion, so this might be a bit remedial.

So, is redistributionism something that a liberal ought to see as bad? I see it as bad if that's your goal. However, funding of public projects, such as eduction, inevitably involves redistributionism, and I'm ok with that. In other words, redistribution of wealth, while not a worth goal, might still increase rights, freedoms, choices, etc. So, is that a liberal idea, or not? (according to Rawls and/or you?)

No, redistributionism, as far as a typical modern American liberal is concerned, is not an intrinsically bad thing (as far as I know), nor is it a goal in it self.

Dillon writes:

I don't quite get that part either. Rawls's most fundamental principle regarding allocation of wealth was that the most just society is the one in which the people in the worst-off position are in the best position they can be in all possible worlds.

Rawls' famous "difference principle," the second part of the second principle of justice concerns distributive justice. This follows from Rawls' "original position" thought experiment; also, Rawls first principle of justice has priority. Rawls' economic principle of justice has a specific social application; it is not a principle of morality in the sense that one ought to organize one's household in this manner. And as Rawls makes clear in _Law of Peoples_, he is opposed to a global difference principle.

As far as redistributionism is concerned, it is also justified in part by the fact that our native endowments are unearned (genetic lottery). Rawls' argument against utilitarianism, put as crudely as possible, is that it fails to appreciate the separatness of persons.

As for vouchers, is there more or less redistribution with vouchers? It seems to me that both plans (vouchers and traditional) involve satisfying the right to education, and neither plan redistributes more wealth. One of them provides choices, which I see as liberal, and the other does not, but other than that, they seem pretty similar.

I did not mean to suggest comparison as far as the level of redistribution is concerned. The central point is that redistributionism occurs because education is financed by the public.

As Michael Sandel notes in a compilation of essays, Rawls inspired not one but three debates. First there was argument for a rights view against utilitarianism. Second there are questions concerning issues of redistributive justice (primarily waged between libertarians and liberals). Finally, there is the so-called "communitarian" debate, involving Sandel, Taylor, and Walzer and others. Rawls subsequent work on political liberalism (the idea of public reason) deals with these arguments. As James says, public arguments must be political in nature and "free-standing" (meaning no appeals to one's comprehensive doctrine). I think the only term he did not explicitly mention (but describes) was the "fact of reasonable pluralism" (society will never reconcile itself to a single comprehensive doctrine such as Wicca, Judiaism, or atheism).

 

[Walter Wayne]

The word liberal was butchered long before the current blow hards put the "evil" spin on it. Liberal came to mean adherence, or lip service, to social liberalism and to some extent socialism (progressive taxes and the such). Where as conservatism came to mean adherence, or lip service, to economic liberalism. Liberal -> left wing; Conservative -> right wing.

I think the idea of tearing down trade barriers is liberal in the sense that for a substantial period of time now, countries have tried to control economic trade by a variety means. In the sense it is a very "new and broad-minded" liberal idea. However, the majority of protesters would put them selves as liberals, left wingers, as they see it as threat to social equality, the rich getting richer and such.

We have seen that perverted by both sides as well. Political liberals using the "progressive, tries new things" definition, now we see political right wingers putting an evil "destroy society" spin on liberal.

Many of the laws we have were enacted as part of political liberal left-wing pushes; how long until those ideas become conservative in the sense of being status quo. When they do are they suddenly part of the right wing "conservative" platform?

I think with the number of definitions of liberal and conservative floating around, whether descriptive of general attitudes, political attitudes or argumentative definitions, the word conveys very little in most cases.

Walt