The 1950's was a low point for liberalism in the United States. Due to organizations like the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities and the John Birch Society, and individuals like Joseph McCarthy and Roy Cohn, liberals were driven underground or out of the country. Being a liberal meant losing the right to work or even being imprisoned. By the end of the 50's, Liberalism was nearly dead in America.
But in the mid-sixties, it experienced a re-birth. It began at the University of California at Berkley, when Mario Savio (pictured above) and his cohorts started what they called the "Free Speech Movement". It was originally intended just to give students at that university the right speak freely about their political views. It accomplished that, but became much more, as it spread across the country -- first in the colleges and then in society at large.
Fueled by the "baby boomers" born right after World War II, this new liberalism was different than pre-war liberalism. It was no longer socialist-based, although it pushed many of the same causes like economic justice and civil rights, but was a more general freedom-based movement.
It preached equality and the right of the individual to believe what they wanted and to act like they wanted and live like they wanted, as long as they didn't step on the rights of others to do the same.
No longer was the individual expected to be an automaton -- a replica of their parents who said and did what they were told. The individual had rights which must be respected by authority and the highest value was freedom. Frankly, it was exciting to be a part of this movement in the sixties and seventies.
But some time in the 80's and 90's, liberalism began to go "off the track". I don't quite know how it happened, but "free speech" gave way to "political correctness". While mouthing a belief in free speech, many liberals will be quick to condemn and sometimes even try to outlaw certain forms of speech. They seem to have forgotten that when you outlaw offensive speech, you have outlawed freedom (and the very thing that gave birth to modern liberalism).
Just as bad is the "Nanny State". Just like the right-wing would like to force their religion on all Americans "for their own good", many liberals would like to pass "Nanny State" laws for the good of all Americans. They want to force Americans to stop smoking with exorbitant tobacco taxes, or tell them where they can and can't smoke. They want to pass laws punishing Americans for drinking sodas high in sugar. They want to pass laws to outlaw certain cooking oils in resturants. They would like to force all Americans to recycle their trash.
Maybe all these things are good and would probably improve a person's life and maybe even prolong it, but I have to wonder what ever happened to freedom -- the idea that an American has the right to make his/her own choices? In a truly free country, doesn't a citizen have the right to make a poor choice?
These days, those of us on the left understand that the right-wing can result in tyranny, but many seem to have forgotton that just like you can have a right-wing tyranny, you can also have a left-wing tyranny. And it's my opinion that both are equally bad.
If you believe something is good and citizens should do it to make their life better or longer or healthier, then by all means do what you can to educate people about it. But when you pass a law forcing that behavior, you have gone too far.
In a free country, each citizen has the right to make their own choices, even if those in power believe those choices to be bad ones. Liberalism used to mean freedom, but for many these days it means something else. That's why I no longer call myself a liberal. I am a leftist, a radical, a socialist or a progressive, but I believe liberalism has strayed from its meaning and prefer not to be labeled as such.
That's what I think. What do you think -- especially those of you on the left? Am I wrong? Should government have the right to force people into making better decisions?
I'm inclined to extend responsibility for society's benefit farther than you are. Since we know that pollution harms us all, regulating it is liberals' responsibility in the face of denial by the oil co's. Smoking is a personal choice, but if we smoke in a closed place and harm others, it's polluting others' environment, and laws against it make sense to me. It's possible to go too far, but in this case I see social benefits that we should work toward. Nanny state accusations only hold wter for me when no harm to others is involved in controlling individuals' b
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to extend responsibility for society's benefit farther than you are....if we smoke in a closed place and harm others...The problem is laws banning smoking aren't for the public benefit...they are for an individual's benefit. If a room has twenty people and nineteen are smokers, what right does the one have to tell the other nineteen they can't smoke? Shouldn't the onus be on the one to just leave rather then force the others to alter their behavior to suit him or her?
ReplyDeleteIf someone wants a smoke free environment then go to a smoke free environment. It isn't right to force every establishment to be smoke free.
Smoking in an enclosed place is only "polluting others' environment" if the non-smoker stands there...for about twenty years. Even then, some reports say that wouldn't matter either. Two hours in a smokey bar will have absolutely no negative health effects on a non-smoker. They may not like the smell of smoke, but then they should go to a different bar. I don't like country music so I don't go to country bars.
jobsanger,
ReplyDeleteI'm obviously not on the Left, but I think the reason we sometimes see eye to eye, despite our very divergent views on most issues, is because we both have a libertarian streak - a philosophy that tends to straddle both Left and Right.
I essentially agree with you that "each citizen has the right to make their own choices, even if those in power believe those choices to be bad ones." But where I part ways with many on the Left is my belief that individual freedom also includes accepting the consequences for those bad choices. Government shouldn't be in the redemption business; leave that to religion.
Where I part ways with many on the Right is my belief that consequences for bad choices should apply collectively, too (i.e. corporations).
I can't argue with a single thing you said, CT.
ReplyDeletef you believe something is good and citizens should do it to make their life better or longer or healthier, then by all means do what you can to educate people about it. But when you pass a law forcing that behavior, you have gone too far.So why are are you for gun control and limiting freedoms?
ReplyDeleteB-
ReplyDeleteYou are accusing me of something that is not true. I wrote a post supporting the Supreme Court's decision that individuals have the right to gun ownership. I have always said the second amendment clearly gives Americans that right.
What other freedoms do you think I'm trying to limit?
You contradicted your previous posts when you attacked limiting the 2nd amendment to stop violence in Mexico.
ReplyDeleteYou also are anti freedom of speech because you condemn anyone who disagrees with you as criminal and a purveyor of hatespeech.