Ouch, my brain...

Ok, I'm having a political philosophy headache. I'm currently enrolled in a program at Georgetown which is basically a Conservative brainwashing; it was co-founded by William F. Buckley in 1967, it has all the standard Conservative/Libertarian slant. We even had a lecture by a guy at the Heritage Foundation who said we should eliminate welfare and all the departments not in the Constitution.

So everyday I am told that what I believe is wrong. I'm taking a class on the Transformation of American Politics, where we learn about how the government has evolved since 1787 and what Liberal and Conservative mean now.

So I have two questions:

1. What is a Liberal?

2. How can a modern Liberal and be against the agenda of the neoconservatives (I am, but by all accounts we should embrace it according to the defenition)?

Thanks!

Sounds like the Brainwashing is starting to work.

I'd stop going regardless, then write an Op-Ed piece about it for the NYT or The Guardian (U.K.)

I can't drop; My parents schilled out the money to send me here and the dorms are part of the program. I can't just quit.

Besides, I have to be aware of what the other side is thinking. Know thine enemy.

The brainwashing hasn't really gotten to me, its just I'm having to cope with people saying Liberalism is an amalgamation of Socialist Utopianism and universal truths bent on challenging religion; that the founding fathers were conservative in the sense that their "revolution" was an attempt to preserve the old order given to them by the British before their rights were violated, etc. There are other kids in the group like me, but we're all just trying to handle it.

Oh, and the econ prof is cool; he told us up front we're geting a slanted education, and he warns us before he's about to say something conservative.

The biggest difference I see is is in how we view and treat each other. Liberals tend to be curious and interested in learning about people who are different. As we learn, we get ideas that could make our lives better.
Religion is challenged every day by other religious people. Why shouldn't "Liberals" be able to offer their challenges to the ideas of religion?
I see Conservatives as always looking to the past, finding comfort in old ideas, afraid of change and uninterested in making the world better for anyone, except themselves.
Liberals are demanding the world change for the better. We want true justice for everyone.
We want to have equality while recognizing that there are times the system has to be tweaked to help try to correct some wrongs that have been done or are still in existence, (such as having some degree of Affirmative Action to bring more balance in education and employment because of existing bigotries).

I consider myself a Liberal, a Progressive, and a Socialist.

I am a Liberal because I want any consenting adult to be have the legal right to marriage.

I am a Progressive because I want federal investment in technologies such as high speed rail and alternative energy systems. We need to work toward cutting our pollution outputs.

I am also a Socialist because I believe in Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and I want to see National Health Care and education for everyone paid for by the taxpayers.

These ideas are not Utopian, they are doable if they have the support of the leaders.

This is lifted out of my favorite quote: "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly, what is essential is invisible to the eye. - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

#2 has got to be a trick question -- it makes no sense at all.

I mean like the "universalism" of liberal theory; that essentially democracy for the world is good. But I guess its an "ends don't justify the means" thing, because I can't possibly justify the arrogance of bringing democracy at the barrel of a gun and disregarding existing culture. In the sense that the Enlightenment established a universal common good of sorts, we're supposed to agree with the neocons, or something. They didn't actually tell us that; I'm just wrestling with it on my own. In fact, the teacher wrote an entire book about the dangers of the messianic vision of eternal democratic war the neocons propose. he's a traditionalist conservative.

That the Liberal understands that Freedom (Liberty, after all is the root) dwells within the individual, possibly via genetic memory. While often born out of war, democracy cannot be spread effectively by the sword. A lovely bit of irony there don't you think?

As to your first question fate has placed this thread coincident with yours. I especially like Elanor's quote and think it poignant for today.

-Hoot

If that is what you are expecting then there is little reason for you to go to college and take any course that requires critical thinking. It can be a very valuable lesson to learn how to argue any side of a an issue or point of reference. College is college, mainstream politics is mainstream politics. Learn to separate these out and I think you'll find yourself more comfortable, if not wholly satisfied with the outcome. The fact that you are asking these questions suggests to me that you are doing what any invested student should do, think!

Gore Vidal defines "radical liberal":

http://www.isebrand.com/Gore_Vidal_Monotheism_1992.htm
...
The word "radical" derives from the Latin word for root. Therefore, if you want to get to the root of anything you must be radical. It is no accident that the word has now been totally demonized by our masters, and no one in politics dares even use the word favourably, much less track any problem to its root. But then a ruling class that was able to demonize the word "liberal" in the past ten years is a master at controlling --indeed stifling-- any criticism of itself. "Liberal" comes from the Latin liberalis, which means pertaining to a free man. In politics, to be liberal is to want to extend democracy through change and reform. One can see why that word had to be erased from our political lexicon.
...

and want to keep the conversation open. Conservatives know everything about the universe and hate anyone who differs; those who differ shouldn't even be allowed to exist.

Liberalism embraces flux; conservatism is self-justifying hatred that needs to destroy everything else.

Liberalism inspires debate and exploration, conservatism seeks to kill everything that rattles orthodoxy.

Simple? Yes, some things are.

Liberalism is inquisitiveness and inclusiveness; conservatism is violent reaction against anything different.

Some people like to keep things open; others like to crush and destroy all that they don't understand.

Clear?

wink

for real. some issues.......some liberals. i am right everyone else is wrong and if you dont buy into what i say, bad.......you

i agree, liberal tend, (thought of late thinking of threads here) to see more gray areas. not so black and white.

I've read that it was a movement that grew out of the liberal movement in the past, and it's really confusing to try to understand that, so I don't dare try to explain it in my own words. I'll try to find a link to that info later.



If you haven't seen this woman talk, I highly recommend this video, even though you probably already know, or suspect, what Kwiatkowski reveals (there's a lot of detail about the neo-cons). It's 28 minutes long, but well worth the time.

"Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, is a retired U.S. Air Force officer whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and in a variety of roles for the National Security Agency. Since retiring, she has become a noted critic of the U.S. government's involvement in Iraq. Kwiatkowski is primarily known for her insider essays that denounce a corrupting political influence on the course of military intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. "

http://www.blip.tv/link/59

Its my own political philosophy boiled down to two easy statements, I think it fits as an answer to your question

1) Property doesnt have rights, people have rights, if the interests of property and people conflict then take people over property every time.

2) You NEVER stand with the powerful against the weak

Empathy, the ability to understand and relate to another's situation even if you yourself have not personally experienced it.

under what definition of the term, would a liberal be expected to embrace the agenda of the neoconservatives?

Any good dictionary should have a pretty comprehensive definition of the word "liberal". I would accept that definition before accepting your teacher's definition.

between the "democracy" the neo-cons are trying to push -- and -- the democracy that we liberals believe in. Somehow they seem worlds apart to me. For them, to me, democracy equals creating an environment where the government is civil and can be persuaded (or controlled) to do what the US wants them to do - namely, any action, initiative, deal, treaty, etc. that will lead to the creation of corporate and individual wealth to the chosen here at home.

In the eyes of liberals, it is about creating a democracy for the true good of the people there - that they may live in peace and prosper. Populist view.

"If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.""- JFK

:)