My Kind of Liberalism

Though I try to be apolitical, this election has reminded me that I am basically a 'moderate liberal'. I supported John Kerry as the better alternative, though with considerable reservations. Now that the election debacle is over, it seems like a good idea to take some time to introspect and decide just what kind of a liberal I am.

Morality in general: I am certainly 'liberal' in that my instinct is to stay out of another adult's private life whenever possible, unless someone is being forced to do something against his (or her) will. I dismiss out of hand any appeal to a scripture as the basis for law. I am not hostile to religion, but I think that laws should be based on reason and a presumption of 'live and let live'. This makes me a kind of libertarian, so that I even oppose prison for the mere taking of recreational drugs, though I never take them myself, and I don't doubt that they are harmful for many people who can't control themselves, just like alcohol. I am quite the opposite of a libertine in my personal life, but I have no inclination whatsoever to interfere in the sexual conduct of others, except when irresponsible pregnancies produce unwanted children.

Abortion: This issue is tricky, since it involves life and death, so that we must have some opinion on when life begins. Hence, we enter the metaphysical realm. It seems quite certain to me that an egg does not become a 'life' the instant a sperm penetrates it. There must be some structural complexity in the embryo, especially involving the nervous system. It is impossible to draw a sharp line as to when life begins, but the usual first trimester rule for abortions seems reasonable to me. To my way of thinking, the 'medieval superstition' that life begins as soon as the sperm hits the egg reminds me of that other superstition called 'creationism'. Science must be taken into account, and a mere cluster of cells cannot be called a 'human life'. On the other hand, it is surely a 'crime' (or at least an injustice) to bring an unwanted life into the world, for which the genetic parents are not psychologically and financially prepared. This makes freedom of choice for a woman all the more urgent, though it would be best to avoid abortions altogether by making contraception and the day-after pill as freely available as possible.

Gay marriage: As I said, I am loath to interfere in the private lives of adults. Yet I must be honest about something. When I am reborn, I would like to have a mother and a father. Sorry if I seem narrow-minded, but that is how I feel about it. I'd rather be reborn in some kind of ethereal body from a lotus flower, as in a certain Buddhist myth, but if it's flesh and blood again, then the mommy-daddy concept seems best to me. Also, it would reduce ridicule at school, assuming children are as nasty in the next life as in this one. This is just my feeling, and many children raised in gay families may feel quite comfortable with their parents. Another point worth making is that it is unwise for liberals to press a controversial issue if it means losing the election, as may have just happened with Bush and Kerry. Sometimes liberals seem to be throwing temper tantrums to get what they want, but the far-right does this too (perhaps with more brains).

War: Here is where I part with many liberals who often seem to oppose war unconditionally. I am truly horrified by war. The internet has made available uncensored pictures of injuries, and I never knew they could be so ghastly. Imagine the agony! Yet consider the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, where close to a million Tutsis were hacked to death. Can decent people simply stand back and do nothing? At the same time, I realize how ambiguous many conflicts are, and how intervention can make the situation worse. It is an awesomely difficult issue. Armed intervention must be decided on a case-by-case basis, with the maximum information possible, and with deep and careful soul-searching. I do no feel that this happened with the Iraq war. At the very least, it was rushed. I am disturbed at the ease with which many hawks, sitting in their comfortable offices, advocate military action. Their reasons, however, may still be valid or at least worth taking into account. One topic that deserves much more discussion is collateral damage, i.e. injuries to civilians. We thought we were in the age of smart bombs and surgical strikes, but it turns out that over 10,000 Iraqi civilians have suffered casualties, many of them atrocious. But to be fair, we must primarily blame the militants for hiding among civilians and drawing fire.

Social policy: This can be argued in many ways, and I have no strong convictions. I do think that the tax rate should be progressive. There are good arguments for a flat tax (e.g. to eliminate loopholes), but it seems a bit too convenient for the rich. The argument that freedom and capitalism go together is fairly compelling, but I can still imagine some kind of democratic socialist utopia (if only it weren't for human nature). I am impressed at the ability of capitalism to deliver wealth and of socialism and communism to fail to do so. Some basic employer-funded universal health care seems desirable to me, provided this is also enforced on our foreign competitors. Though some would disagree, it seems that we are not yet cruel enough to let people die in the streets, and it is cost ineffective to have poor people use the emergency room. Also, there is some promise of reducing bureaucratic overhead with universal health care, though conservatives point to government incompetence. (Has it not been administering Social Security reasonably well?) The rich can always buy better services; that won't go away. Doctors may earn a bit less, but most of them are decent people, and it probably doesn't feel good to turn patients away under the current system, especially when they are dying.

Culture: Here is where I have the most reservation about 'liberalism'. There is much that I deplore in current popular culture, namely, what I perceive of as vulgarity regarding sexuality and violence. (Why do conservatives care so much more about sexuality than violence?) Now I am a firm advocate of free speech, but I still feel deeply concerned about the lack of 'spirituality' in popular culture, and I believe that the resulting emotional vacuum can ultimately destroy society. The problem with sexual liberty is not so much the primitive superstition that it is a 'sin' but rather the very real fact that it can lead to a degradation of sensitivity in human relations. An intimate personal relation is extremely delicate under any circumstances, but when people start to think hedonistically, sensitivity and caring seem to evaporate. This may not always be the case, but I do feel that public attitudes can decay under the influence of peer pressure. Sexuality may ultimately be a personal matter, but the fact that so many 'liberals' are associated with 'vulgarity', or at least a brash 'in your face attitude', cannot be overlooked. For example, I laugh at the opening skit of Saturday Night Live, especially when it pokes fun at politics, but I usually tune out the rest because of the obscenities and overall crudity. On the other hand, I worship psychedelic rock star Jimi Hendrix as a true genius, at least in his best work, yet I can see how many people would consider him 'insane' and 'vulgar'. So freedom of expression must remain sacred and censorship a last resort. Please forgive me if I seem elitist or priggish. Mostly, I just want people to be warm, sincere, friendly and mature. I also wish more people would at least aspire to what I am pleased to call 'spirituality', but this requires some minimum of sensitivity and good taste, and an enlightened cultural environment would seem to be a prerequisite.

Benefit of liberalism: I would like to finish with an idea which may seem controversial, because it involves criticism of Islam. I think that one of the greatest benefits of a 'liberal attitude' such as described here is that it leads to a relaxation of tension in society and to the avoidance of conflict. That is why democracies rarely fight each other, because the prevailing liberalism sets the stage for a resolution of conflict. In the undemocratic Middle East, on the other hand, one seems to encounter an inordinate amount of tension, anger, hatred and violence. I realize that much of the blame is to be assigned to the legacy of Western colonialism and the Cold War. Nevertheless, I primarily blame the militant spirit of Islam. I know that there are different shades of Islam, including peaceful shades, but based on all that I have read to date, I must say that Islam tends to take an aggressive, intolerant and confrontational attitude. I feel that this spirit has rubbed off on much of Muslim society, frequently resulting in a fascist mood. A provocative statement, perhaps, but one that I do not make lightly. I have seen too many photos of angry mobs chanting Jihad, and heard too few moderate or apologetic voices from that part of the world. The borders and interior of the Islamic world are bloody, to expand upon Huntington's famous phrase. This couldn't be just a coincidence. It is a reflection of the prevailing psychology. I know that Europe and Christianity have a dark and violent history, but that is no longer the case today; the liberal spirit clearly characterizes European society. The Muslim world, however, remains mired in an outdated mentality of religious intolerance and aggressive politics. Yes, you can call the Iraq war a mistake on the part of the Americans if you wish, but I don't think it would have happened without 9/11. One could discuss this topic forever, but I am just giving you my honest opinion, for what it is worth. Let us all become more enlightened and 'liberal' in the best sense of the word. The world desperately needs it.

--Benjamin Orion

Comments

[Benjamin Orion]

Oh gosh! I guess I do seem elitist and priggish when I read myself over here, especially in the culture section. It's just that I like a nice mellow peaceful attitude towards life. Maybe I should move to California, but are they even like that anymore? And I like art and culture that is beautiful, inspiring, all that good stuff. I hate punk, rap and anything else that jars my nerves. Classic rock has a lot of beauty and grandeur, and so does classical music. I don't apologize for my fear of the more demented aspects of Islam, but of course many Muslims are definitely peaceful, and many more are confused... I believe it is hard to find a 'liberal' Muslim, due to peer pressure and indoctrination, but I could be wrong...

[Gale]

Hi Benjamin,
I was shocked by some of my own words, too. Or how it all might appear to others, when taken in totality like that. And it was surprising that I was hesitant to write some things, too.
None of us are perfect, and we can all grow, and be stretched, if we are open to that.
I have met liberal muslims. They do exist. We just don't see them represented in the mainstream media. I actually know some!
Thanks for sharing your manifesto with us. I hope we get more commenting going!

[Benjamin Orion]

I updated the language in my blog to make the Culture section sound less pompous, in my opinion. That's the only problem with this Manifesto concept ... that these manifestos can't be updated. It's OK, though.