What am I?
I don't mean this in some grand philosophical sense. I just mean politically. Back in the day I was fond of calling myself an FDR liberal, but while that had the right vibe it wasn't easily understood.
Then for a while it seemed like everyone was consumed by Europe and I said, screw it, I'm a social democrat. That leaves plenty of scope and describes me pretty well, but again, it's pretty easily misunderstood, especially here in America.
So I'd say, it just means I'm a pragmatic liberal. Which is correct, but not especially descriptive.
Or maybe a center lefty. Also correct, but only for certain things and among certain crowds. And it's both boring and redolent of journalese.
Neoliberal shill? That really only means I'm a free-market capitalist to some extent or another, and anyway, it's just a joke.
Liberal but not progressive? That's only partly true, and even I'm not 100% sure what it means these days.
So what now? I'm tempted to say I'm a normie liberal, which suggests that I'm in favor of universal health care and abortion for all but distinguishes me from the ultra-woke Twitter lunatics. Unfortunately, this term is probably pretty well understood on Twitter but not necessarily anywhere else.
So what am I?
Terms change all the time. Using the terms now in place, you are a Normie Liberal. Normie Liberals include what used to be called Moderate Democrats and Liberal Democrats but those kind of merged and now are in some contrast with Progressives, the other branch of the left, which in its most obnoxious form are the "ultra-woke Twitter lunatics."
On the Right, a new category has opened up, MAGA, which is in some contrast with Conservatives.
These are of course generalizations. Many/Most of us hold views that are not in our "tribe's" orthodoxy. But then like most generalizations, while they are not universal laws or anything, they do lend useful insight.
I'm not seeing the constrast between Maga (aka Fascist) and Conservative. I'm not seeing a bunch of conservatives daily denouncing all the Maga bullshit. The primary conservative media outlet is full on Fascist.
According to most of the comments on your blog on any given day: benighted, hateful fool.
For me: dying breed
upvote
Why not just "liberal"?
"What am I?" you ask. Before anything else, I'd say: national treasure. The labels are so frustrating, malleable, made dumb. I like "FDR Dem" even if it's old-school. The Right is STILL (and always( fighting the New Deal, so who really is old school?!
Data driven liberal.
Every label you attach to yourself drops your IQ by 10 points...
Live without a label. You shouldn't care, and the types of people who do care about your label are people you won't miss.
I perceive you as a data-driven mainstream educated liberal. Fortunately the left, unlike the right, allows lots of room for policy (rather than tactical) disagreement, so while you and I may disagree on anything number of things where I perceive you as too far left or right or off in some perpendicular weeds, we are still clearly on the same team.
PS: Your biggest error is Israel. If anyone Balfour’d the USA, we’d nuke them and neither you or I nor anyone but the hippiest hippy would bat an eye. Israel was born waaaaaay over the casus belli line and will remain there until it deals with this original sin.
I believe the “what am I” question is interesting. For example, I knew my Mother was a raving liberal, my father a pragmatic Dem. You couldn’t drive a needle between how they felt about social injustices but you knew the difference. I think I got the pragmatic part - don’t let perfection be the enemy of the ok. I guess life is far more complicated today- I will never understand the “woke” nonsense or the absurd social justice idea of over the top bail reform that releases violent offenders ( I supppose “alleged” does most of the heavy lifting for those who advocate the policy). Tough to win elections burdened by “ Defund the police” and violent offenders committing a 2nd or 3rd crime….Not that I am not sympathetic to some of the ideas.
So do these ideas mean I am not liberal? To some yes, to others no. Maybe there is point here somewhere. Haha
Happy Easter to all!
You sound a lot like a Maga Republican, aka Fascist, to me.
#Liberalish
Eh, I’ve been calling myself a pragmatic liberal for years, which in my mind means “as liberal as is manageable at any given time, with a list of issues yet to be addressed.” Generally, my policy preferences are very liberal, but I’m willing to settle for half-loaves while pointing out that there’s more and fresher bread expected.
I tried “moderate” on for size when I was young and it mostly just drew status-anxious people I disliked, so I dropped it.
The nine groups in the Pew Typology might provide some insight: “Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology”
Pew labels and describes four distinct groups on the right and four more on the left (and one in the middle).
The four on the Left are:
Outsider Left
Democratic mainstay
Establishment Liberal
And
Progressive Left
I think I fit into their “establishment liberal” typology: “Establishment Liberals, while just as liberal in many ways as Progressive Left, are far less persuaded of the need for sweeping change.”
But it remains unclear to me where Kevin stands. On the one hand, I can’t recall Kevin clearly giving so-called anti-racism or its administrative apparatus known as DEI much if any of the criticism that these ideologies so richly deserve. And anti-racism is about as obvious (and counterproductive) an attempt to simply reorder society (by putting new racial hierarchies in place - rather than removing them) as can be imagined.
So, if Kevin actually supports that kind of sweeping change, Pew would likely label him as “Progressive Left”:
“Progressive Left, the only majority White, non-Hispanic group of Democrats, have very liberal views on virtually every issue and support far-reaching changes to address racial injustice and expand the social safety net.”
On the other hand, Kevin does sometimes wield some actual data to question some of the narratives that insist upon the need for immediate and dramatic change. And that could land Kevin in with the Establishment Liberals or maybe even the Democrats Mainstays.
I’m not certain if the Twitter lunatics that Kevin rightly calls out really fit into any of Pew’s typologies. I personally suspect that they are two far gone to be part of the Progressive Left. In their zeal to burn their supposedly irredeemable country to the ground, they seem to embody nihilistic anarchy. And, when it comes to Pew, that sort of extremism may literally be off the charts.
“And anti-racism is about as obvious (and counterproductive) an attempt to simply reorder society (by putting new racial hierarchies in place - rather than removing them) as can be imagined.”
We found a much shorter title for you: idiot. You’re welcome.
@ pipecock:
I suspect that many on the Left still have no idea what modern "anti-racism" actually is. As Ibram Kendi, its chief modern proponent (and author of How to be an Anti-Racist), explains:
"The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
Modern antiracism is, as I describe above, an ideology that promotes racial discrimination. It does so explicitly. It does not even try to hide its motives. It simply wants to combat injustice with its own (preferred) form of injustice.
And this system of thought is clearly at odds with MLK Jr's vision for the Civil Rights Movement. Modern anti-racism unequivocally rejects a society where all people (and thus all races) are equal before the law. It rejects Civil Rights legislation that outlaws discrimination. It actively PROMOTEs discrimination (against whites, Asians, Jews, or any other race it perceives to be in any way advantaged).
Again, my statements are in no way a stretch. Anti-racists are very public with all of these assertions. So those who support it either a.) agree with the notion of equalizing racial outcomes by force, or b.) have no idea what Anti-racism actually promotes.
And, as I said above, I suspect that many on the left embody that second option (they have no idea what Anti-racism actually is). Many Liberals are so conditioned to disagree with anything a Republican/Conservative says and to agree with anything their "side" says that, at a certain point, they are no longer actually in touch with reality.
And even when "progressive" anti-racists do everything they can to promote illiberalism, most Liberals still just cannot or will not condemn them.
Hence, I ask you, what exactly do you find "idiotic" about my initial post above? Everything I say their about antiracism is accurate as can be easily ascertained simply by reading (or listening to) what anti-racists actually say.
So do you belong in the group that actually supports Leftist illiberalism, or are you in the group who has no idea what these "progressive" enemies of our open society are actually trying to do?
I used the moniker Roosevelt Democrat or Liberal for quite some time, but I am roughly your age so it might be generational. To me it means that Marx’ diagnosis followed by the observations of Upton Sinclair and other muckrakers of the early part of the last century were accurate and that the depression demonstrated the consequences of the unregulated markets. Laissez faire capitalism concentrates wealth at the top and is rapacious to labor and the commons. The solution came in three parts and can be credited to the Roosevelts.
1.) Instituted the regulatory state to control the abuses of capitalism whether the SEC, FDA, or the USDA;
2.) Added a progressive tax system to keep wealth from concentrating at the top; and
3) Provided a social safety net to keep people from hitting bottom which helps make it easier to start a new business and otherwise take risk.
1 and 3 were mostly FDR while 2 was Teddy Roosevelt to start and was ramped up by FDR.
Interesting post, but I think there are others who deserve credit for #3 on your list:
-President Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law; AND,
-Pelosi, Reid, and President Obama all deserve credit for passing the affordable care act (Obamacare).
Who gets credit for no public option in obamacare?
According to wikipedia it was removed because Joe Liberman threaten to filibuster it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option
All the Republican senators also guilty, obviously.
Conservative liberal. Non progressive.
> it's pretty easily misunderstood
And you're not going to fix that. Which is why I am a Socialist.