A Clarion Call to Liberals

Our politics in this country have become so tribalized and dichotomized that it's easy to idealize our allies and forget what commonalities we have with those on the "other side of the aisle." Right-wingers vote for right-wingers, even when perhaps a moderate left-winger's ideas are more compatible with their own. Left-wingers vote for other left-wingers, even when the candidate has no chance of winning and there is a perfectly acceptable right-leaning moderate available (see Crist vs Meek vs Rubio in Florida's Senate Election). Admittedly, I am as guilty as anyone of being caught up in the heat of wing-politics on occasion. Recent events, however, are reminding me all the more how dangerous it can be to fall into the trap of groupthink. In the past week, I have found myself in deeply moved, profound agreement with two groups I would not regularly associate with- the Log Cabin Republicans and the Republican Liberty Caucus, both times in opposition to an Obama Administration I generally support. The two issues at play- the 9th Court of Appeals' overturning of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and the potential legalization of cannabis in California this November, have blurred the lines between right and left and revealed that American politics are far too complex and multi-faceted to be trivialized by a false left-right dichotomy.

Following my exodus to the left two years ago, I, unlike many of my left-leaning comrades, fully embraced the term "liberalism." To this day, when someone asks me about my political views I always say "I'm a liberal"; I never call myself a "progressive" unless someone else categorizes me as such in which case I do not run from the term. After all, liberalism and progressivism have become essentially interchangeable in American political jargon. However, I do not wear the latter as a badge of honor in the same manner that I do the former. For one, progressivism simply does not have the same rich historical and philosophical tradition that liberalism has. It is rather remarkable that the left in this country has allowed the far right to claim ownership of the Founding Fathers' legacy, when the Founders were unanimously "liberals." True, they were "Classical Liberals" rather than "Modern Liberals", but the latter are the ideological descendants of the former. Secondly, cowardly liberals in the Rush Limbaugh-era embraced the title "progressive" as a euphemistic means of running from liberalism and the scorn of right-wing demagogues such as Limbaugh. By responding to the vitriolic propaganda of little more than Top-40 DJ's, left-wing politicians and commentators lend legitimacy to imbeciles like Limbaugh and Hannity, and move the Overton Window farther and farther to the right. However, the recent controversy and reactions to both Proposition 19 to legalize Marijuana in California, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in "Log Cabin Republicans v. United States" have led me to believe that perhaps the distinctions between liberals and progressives lie deeper than terminology.

It has long been understood that the "New Right" in American politics, or the ideological coalition that has dominated the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan's Presidency, consists of two camps- traditionalist and libertarian. On economic matters, these two are in near complete agreement in their embrace of laissez-faire free market capitalism (economics are truly the dividing point between left and right). However, social issues present a clear dividing point- traditionalists are authoritarian and zealously religious, whereas libertarians pursue the empowerment of the individual and the abolition of laws forbidding any activity which does not directly harm the society or other individuals. It seems to me in light of the Administration and other "establishment" Democrats' opposition to Prop 19, that there is a similar contrast on the Left. People like President Obama and Senators Boxer and Feinstein (both of whom oppose Prop 19) do not just call themselves 'progressives' to run from liberalism, they call themselves progressives because that's what they are- they are not liberals. Interestingly, the words "liberalism" and "libertarianism" both come from the same Latin root- "liber", which directly translates into "freedom." Both ideologies place a strong emphasis on individual rights and freedoms, and both claim direct descent from Classical Liberalism. One of the few differences, but a big one, is in economics. Libertarians believe that by virtue of our being born into a free society, we each have an equal opportunity to thrive and as such, embrace the concept of "negative liberty", that is, freedom from outside government interference in our economic lives. Conversely, liberals recognize that the private sector can be just as tyrannical as the public sector, and that the forces of the federal government must be employed to protect the poor and middle class from exploitation by the rich (and, in another era, to protect minorities from tyrannical and racist state governments). In other words, liberals, unlike libertarians, believe in "positive liberty"- the freedom TO thrive, and the government's role in extending that freedom to as many people as possible. Their mutual support for positive liberty is what keeps the marriage between progressivism and liberalism alive.

In social issues however, progressives have very different goals from liberals. Progressivism is a society-centered ideology. Progressivism embraces a dynamic and fluid society that is constantly improving and being perfected. In other words, progressives are just as naively trusting of change as traditionalists are of the establishment. At first glance, this would make it seem that progressivism and traditionalism are diametrically opposed to one another, but in fact there have been a few times in history in which the two have worked together- and the results have never been good. Perhaps their most noteworthy mutual accomplishment was the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, better known as "Prohibition", a miserable failure which ended a short (not short enough) 14 years later with the Twenty-First Amendment, the first section of which was terse but effective: "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." Many progressives (though not all) supported Prohibition because they felt that alcohol consumption was an impediment to mankind's progress, whereas the traditionalists supported Prohibition for mostly religious reasons, and, I suspect, because it was just one more way for them to ruin the fun for the rest of us (I kid, traditionalists).  Another area of progressive-traditionalist cooperation was in the arena of early 20th-Century race relations. Of course, the continued disenfranchisement and second-class citizen status of African-Americans was primarily a cause for traditionalist southerners, and the racist element of early progressivism has been far overblown by people like Glenn Beck (I'm not sure whether he is intentionally attempting to distort history, or if he is just ignorant of it- probably a little bit of both) but the silence of early-20th Century progressives on the injustice of segregation and Jim Crow is deafening. To be fair, libertarians also have a pretty poor record on civil rights (see Barry Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Rand Paul's recent criticism of the Act, an act far more alarming and deserving of attention than Christine O'Donnell's history with witchcraft). Liberalism is the only philosophy that has always stood up for equality and civil rights: equal protection of the laws for all groups and all individuals, economic empowerment for all individuals to achieve their potential, the right of all people to the necessities of survival like healthcare and housing, and a federal government strong enough to stand up to state governments and powerful corporations if those institutions are subverting the  rights, natural or civil, of groups or individuals. I bring up race not to make traditionalists, libertarians, and progressives feel guilty, but because it perfectly demonstrates where each of those philosophies' values lie:

Traditionalists believe the established order must be maintained at all costs, even if that order is terrible and laced with injustice of the worst sort.

Libertarians believe that the federal government must never intervene in the affairs of state governments or business, even when state governments and business are perpetrating far grosser violations of the principles of freedom than any intrusion by the federal government would constitute.

Progressives believe that societal stability and progress must take precedence before all else, and are only willing to take a stand when it is politically expedient to do so.


History is repeating itself. Today, it is not African-Americans who are being denied equal protection under the law as Progressives watch in inaction or even support, but the LGBT community. Our country's military has operated under the immoral and discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for 17 years now, in gross violation of both our principles as a country and our Constitution, and at last, the Courts have begun to wake up and overturn the policy, thanks to a lawsuit brought by the "Log Cabin Republicans", an organization of Republicans supportive of gay and lesbian rights. For reasons beyond me, the Obama Administration Justice Department under Eric Holder is appealing this decision, essentially fighting to keep discrimination alive. The President himself has acknowledged the wrong and discriminatory character of this policy and has called for its repeal (though he has failed at securing such a repeal), and yet he continues to defend it in court. The time has come, Mr. President. This is about ending a wrong and immoral policy, not how it ends or when it ends. If the Justice Department cooperated with the Court order rather than appealing it, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would be dead tomorrow. It seems the progressive tendency to play politics rather than take a stand is alive and well.

The overturning of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is not the only current event where the Obama Administration is disappointing to liberals such as myself, however. The establishment in both political parties are fighting tooth-and-nail to defeat Proposition 19 in California, which would legalize recreational Marijuana consumption. Opposition to Prop 19 is a rare area of bipartisanship in this year's highly partisan atmosphere. Opposition to it is shared by Barack Obama, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman, Barbara Boxer, and Carly Fiorina all. Eric Holder (once again) has gone so far as to say that even if Prop 19 passes, his department will step up enforcement in California of national laws against marijuana use: "We will vigorously enforce the CSA (Controlled Substances Act) against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101015/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_legalization_justice).

Once again, history is repeating itself. These groups once worked together to ban alcohol, and now they are working together to keep in place the impractical and ridiculous ban on cannabis, a substance no more addictive, intoxicating, or unhealthy than alcohol (not that any of that is the government's business in the first place). In addition to using the same tired arguments against marijuana legalization that were once used against alcohol's legality, this time there are also financial interests at play in bringing together such a politically diverse coalition. The alcohol lobby doesn't want marijuana legalized, people might not drink as much alcohol; the tobacco lobby doesn't want marijuana legalized, people might smoke something other than tobacco; even the oil lobby doesn't want marijuana legalized, because that would also open up the potential for biofuel made from the oils in hemp (which is also currently illegal, however ridiculous that is). So, in short, the establishment in both of our parties are siding with their campaign's bank accounts and the special interests that fund them, rather than the treasury fund of California and the United States, both of which would be greatly helped by the tax revenue legalized cannabis would surely generate. This must be a critical area of cooperation between liberals and libertarians, and it is already starting to materialize. Surely, the coalition for passage of Prop 19 is just as diverse as the coalition that opposes it- Prop 19 has been endorsed by such disparate forces as the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Green Party of California, the Libertarian Party of the United States, and the Democratic Party of LA, San Francisco, and Santa Barbera counties.

The moment has come for Liberalism. We must come out from the shadows of the Democratic Party and make ourselves heard. We must also fashion ourselves an independent identity distinct from progressivism, though in cooperation with both progressives and libertarians on those issues in which we agree with them. Say what you will about the Tea Party movement (and I have said plenty), but it has accomplished one good thing- it has upset the balance of power in the Republican Party and given the libertarians within that party a greater voice. Likewise, I would quite like to see something like the Tea Party movement materialize on behalf of liberalism- not at all as angry or intolerant of dissent, but just as expressive and politically relevant. After all, weren't liberals behind the original "Tea Party"?