Why even Republicans could be proud to be called 'Liberal'

Special thanks to "John L." of someplace our West for this week's cartoon idea- I'd be more specific, but the NSA and CIA are probably already listening to his phone calls.

If you see things from Dubbya's perspective, you'd also like 'New American Century,' and of course 'Mein Kampf.' Well, no actually you probably prefer burning books to reading them. In hind sight, I think I should've had 'W' say "heckuva game plan." He doesn't use words as big as "ingenious."

If on the other hand, you take the donkey's view, then may I also suggest 'It can't happen here,' by Sinclair Lewis and 'Fahrenheit 451' by Ray Bradbury (not to be confused with 'Fahrenheit 911' by Michael Moore).

And now, 'Ted's Column' for the Thursday, October 25, 2007 Mapleton PRESS

Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rə-ˌli-zəm\

Function: noun

Date: 1819

1: the quality or state of being liberal2 aoften capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties dcapitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

— lib·er·al·ist \-b(ə-)rə-list\ noun or adjective

— lib·er·al·is·tic \ˌli-b(ə-)rə-ˈlis-tik\ adjective

We had this one History professor in college that everyone seemed to revere. He was tall, gray, had a deep, warm timbered voice with a mild Missouri just barely Southern but more Midwestern accent, and a bone dry sense of humor.

Professor Grothaus was the head of the History department at Concordia College and a dead ringer for William H. Seward, namesake of the Nebraska town where Concordia was located. Seward, of course was Lincoln’s Secretary of State.

Students found Doctor Grothaus to be an enigma. History is a discipline that is forced to address politics and parties, controversies and competing interests. Grothaus never betrayed his personal convictions.

Grothaus had a mystical aura that transcended petty, mortal things like opinions, ideologies or political issues. He seemed to be omniscient. God like in his knowledge of anything anyone ever asked him about history, society, or the government of the United States. He was constantly and relentlessly recommending books and journal articles by historians and scientists to his devout students.

Someone once asked him how he managed to read so much, truly believing it wasn’t humanly possible. The rest of us were aghast at the impudence of such a question, as if Dr. Grothaus were mere human.

The professor replied matter-of-factly, “One finds time.”

One day, someone worked up the nerve to peek through the aura. They asked him point blank, “are you a Liberal or a Conservative?”

In characteristic wry and typically oblique delivery he answered, “Liberal, in the eighteenth century sense of the word.” Which of course left the class of 18-20 year olds no more enlightened than before. The aura remained.

18-20 year olds aren’t as bright as they like to think they are.

All it would’ve take is a glance at an old fashioned Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary to read “associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.” Wow, that sounds like a pretty GOOD thing to be, especially in the United States.

I know many a Republican who believes in encouraging citizens to participate, especially by voting and plenty of them who seek to reform government. Heck, “economic freedom” is one of their favorite mantras. Who’s more Liberal? Republicans or Democrats? How did George H. W. Bush manage to turn it into “the L-word” and make it seem so dirty back in the 1988 Presidential campaign?

Since then, many have taken to calling themselves “Progressive,” so as not to be stigmatized. A progressive is “one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action.” Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, famous Republican Presidents were both progressives.

Last week I had some Seniors in my Web Design class asking for help on a Government assignment. Many of the questions dealt with the two major parties and sought to help students differentiate the major philosophical tenets of each. I have to admit, even during such polarized times as now, it was a bit like trying to separate tar from molasses in a mud pit.

A “Conservative,” according to Daniel Webster’s dictionary is someone “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions… marked by moderation or caution.”

When you think about it, Ronald Reagan overturned a hundred years of sound economic theory, reversed a progressive tax structure that helped promote and maintain a robust middle class, and dismantled what had been an industrial and egalitarian society and replaced it with a consumer-based one that shamelessly benefited a new kind of aristocracy. Not very moderate, not very cautious.

Then we come to “Neo-Conservative.” What the heck does that mean anyway? Webster’s doesn’t help much.

First it says “a former liberal espousing political conservatism.” Lots of Democrats today hold up Barry “Mr. Conservative” Goldwater as a model of character, integrity, and public service. Guys like John Edwards and Barrack Obama have been talking an awful lot about God, family, rights and values. Are these guys “Neo-Conservatives?”

Another definition is “a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy.” I’m all for that. Let’s promote free elections in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Dubai, and China and Russia for that matter. The problem is the second half of the definition- “advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means.”

Ouch, see, “democracy” is a system where the citizens have choice and decision. You can’t coerce someone to be free (AKA; to have liberty and democracy) with military force. Asserting national interests through military means, is not conservative, moderate, or traditional at all. It’s aggressive, radical, un-democratic.