What does it mean to call a political figure “conservative” or “liberal” today? Our political communication has been (accurately) described as a “fire hose” of propaganda and misinformation, and in that chaos, the original meaning of much terminology has been lost. MAGA Trumpers are anything but conservative. (Just ask some of the genuinely conservative “Never Trumpers,” who will explain the significant differences between conservative beliefs and fascism.)
Liberalism used to mean embrace of the political positions first articulated in the Enlightenment–beginning with what has been called the libertarian principle requiring government to respect the rights of individuals–among them, the rights to speak freely, worship or not as they choose, and go about their business without official interference unless government has probable cause to think a (legitimate) law has been violated. Over time, it came to include issues of fundamental social fairness.
Efforts to denigrate the “liberal” label may have begun earlier, but they really gained steam when the late, un-lamented Rush Limbaugh used it as a term of opprobrium, along with his own constructs like “feminazi.”
The debasement of language has certainly had an effect on America’s political discourse. These days, terms like liberal and conservative are more often used as insults than efforts to communicate a point of view. But a column detailing a recent exchange on CNN with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz points to a possible way out of the linguistic morass. Walz responded to what was intended as an attack on his “liberalism” by putting new meat on the bone of that phrase.
Told that he’d been labeled “too liberal,” Walz responded
What a monster. Kids are eating and having full bellies, so they can go learn, and women are making their own health-care decisions. And we’re a top five business state, and we also rank in the top three of happiness.
Look, they’re going to label whatever they’re going to label. He’s going to roll it out, mispronounce names to try and make the case. The fact of the matter is, where you see the policies that Vice President Harris was a part of making, Democratic governors across the country executed those policies, and quality of life is higher, the economies are better, all of those things.
Educational attainment is better. So, yes, my kids are going to eat here, and you’re going to have a chance to go to college, and you’re going to have an opportunity to live where we’re working on reducing carbon emissions. Oh, and, by the way, you’re going to have personal incomes that are higher, and you’re going to have health insurance.
So, if that’s where they want to label me, I’m more than happy to take the label.
Walz took the opportunity to redefine liberalism as the delivery of things Americans want. As the linked article notes, at least 75 percent of Americans favor: green energy subsidies for the cost of equipment to produce clean energy; requiring police officers to intervene when another officer is using excessive force; establishment of a national database or registry of police misconduct; responding to 911 calls related to mental health issues with mental health professionals rather than police officers; taxing capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income for those making more than $1 million; adopting a 4 percent surtax on income above $5 million; adopting a 1 percent surtax on corporate income above $100 million; and making wages over $400,000 subject to the payroll tax; keeping the Affordable Care Act; allowing Americans over the age of 55 to purchase Medicare; increasing SNAP benefits; expanding the earned income tax credit and raising the minimum wage.
That same 75% also agree that DACA recipients deserve full legal status and a path to citizenship, that visas for skilled workers should be increased, and that the U.S. should hire more personnel to speed up processing asylum claims. They also want to reaffirm our commitment to NATO.
Sizable majorities also want to protect abortion and gay rights, and ban assault weapons.
The liberalism of Walz and Kamala Harris are reflections of that widespread public consensus–not, as MAGA Republicans assert, evidence that liberals have gone “off the deep end.”
Today’s liberals continue to support the “libertarian principle” that individual rights and civil liberties must be protected from government interference. But they also recognize government’s important role in providing an economic and physical infrastructure within which individuals can flourish. Government’s role has always been to prevent the strong from preying on the weak (the problem with that “state of nature” Hobbes wrote about). That role extends beyond protecting citizens’ physical safety–it includes guarding against misuses of economic power and includes measures to mitigate economic hardship.
If that’s the “deep end,” I plan to swim in it.
Amen
Amen
I’ve long maintained that, if people would vote based on policy the Democrats would be able to do whatever were needed, at least until the power went to their heads.
We just don’t seem to be able to deal well with Wonks. We need a catchy phrase. One that will make us feel really good or frightened enough. As a country, we don’t read. We no longer have discourse. We have to return to what we say we are through our education system. It’s the only way.
First of all, my opinion of Tim Walz goes up every time he speaks the truth as presented by Sheila. I love several of the candidates, but surrounding circumstances prevent me from choosing some (we can’t afford to lose a Senate seat in Mark Kelly’s red Arizona, Josh Shapiro has a Gaza problem, the country may not be ready for both the first Black/Indian lady POTUS AND a gay VP: sorry mayor Pete), so I’m down to Andy Beshear, young and able to be in a second term as governor of a red state, and Tim Walz. Tomorrow is the big day!
Secondly, the 75% that is mentioned above is made up of a whole lot of Dems, so if everyone votes, we win in a landslide, right?
Absolutely!
Sounds good to me!
Proud liberal checking in. I approve this message!
Sheila reiterated the ‘liberal’ agenda: “recognize government’s important role in providing an economic and physical infrastructure within which individuals can flourish.”
The true conservative is not far from the liberal agenda when both are deeply committed to principles of fundamental democracy.
MAGA devotees only care about their standard bearer’s high conviction to subordinate and deconstruct ‘Deep State’. Everything else is shallow theater.
MAGA can swim, but fail the lifeguard exam. Vote Deep Blue.
Such a great response from Waltz! This should be sent to every “anybody but trump” republican we know!
Sorry for the misspell. Walz! Darn spell check!
Walz and MN are a purrfect example of where we are headed. People are moving to where they like the politics and there are “people like us”. MN will be a proud “BSA” member.
There can’t be a USA anymore. The roadblocks are gigantic and unassailable : Citizens United, partisan gerrymandering, the Electoral college, etc. One can dream of “1 person, 1 vote”.
And, of course, we have the “Parties”… “A path to citizenship” was proposed about 10 years ago. More than 70% of registered Republicans support it. When the DEMs have been in control, they have never proposed JUST IT. No, it has to be part of “comprehensive immigration reform” which contains multiple items the GOP is not ready to vote for. So NADA gets done and Latinos begin to drift away from the Democratic Party and voting…ain’t democracy lovely?
Literally the only thing wrong with Tim Walz is that he is visably OLD.
I agree with the evaluations of Mark Kelly, Josh Shapiro, and Mayor Pete.
That leaves Andy Beshear as the logical choice for VP. Young, bright, white, and photogenic. Perfect balance for the ticket!
Note: Walz is 6 months older than VP Harris. Appearances can be deceptive.
All good comments, and, yes, Beshear may be the best choice.
Goddamn proud LIBERAL here!
Minnesota has been a progressive mecca since the 1930s. It is also a great place to live and is high on the happiness scale. I read once that the collective thought was that to offset the cold climate, they’d need to be progressive to attract employees for their businesses.
Basically, it’s the antithesis of Indiana. Don’t forget that the Lilly Foundation funds the annual or biannual study of the brain drain. They’ve also been charged with cleaning pharmaceuticals from our fresh water. Neither of which has made any progress.
If Pete Buttigieg were just a “gay man,” then I would agree he shouldn’t be added as Veep, but Pete is extremely bright and articulate (the opposite of Kamala). He’s also a Veteran of several tours of duty. He wasn’t behind the scenes but on the front line.
Walz’s minor surtaxes on the rich aren’t impactful enough to appeal to 75% of Americans. We need to approach pre-Reagan days to make an impact. The military and police protect the resources of the wealthy oligarchs, so they should be paying for these resources. We start by eliminating and reversing Trump’s tax cuts.
Also, we need money OUT OF POLITICS, but Democrats won’t take a stand against their donors. Why not?
If Democrats can’t agree to remove corruption from our body politic, they are no different from Republicans. Identity politics and political propaganda are fooling those who think they are different. Americans want money out of politics and Universal Healthcare. If you want to win elections, run on a ticket of anti-corruption and Medicare for All. Make a difference for all the people!
Obviously, I agree with the general consensus on the VP candidates. There’s always been a lot of talk about the added ability to win a home state, which is one aspect that adds a point for Shapiro. He is _very_ popular in Pennsylvania. This aspect has largely been overstated, I suspect. In any case, he’s my least favourite. I dislike his education stance and although I think his “Gaza issue” is overblown, it’s not nothing.
I expect Sheila is particularly annoyed by how the term “libertarian” has been co-opted. Today, people who consider themselves to be libertarian–like Rand and Ron Paul, Walter Block, etc.–see government as inherently evil and illegitimate, taxes as theft, and the free market as supreme. You can see horrifically and ridiculously spelled out it in the Libertarian Party’s platform: https://www.lp.org/platform/
I imagine every silly “sovereign citizen” out there thinks of themself as some flavour of “libertarian.” If only the movement did still retain more of its enlightenment roots.
Todd, you caught my attention when you described Mayor Pete as extremely bright and articulate (unlike Kamala). Really? Where is Harris on your bright and articulate scale?
Michael,
Kamala may be a good trial lawyer, but her speeches on any other topic are basic drivel. The internet refers to them as Kamalaisms.
Just this morning, there was a video of her explaining cloud computing to a crowd and pointing to the clouds when she talked about where personal files are stored. Her explanation of AI was equally unimpressive but hilarious.
Here’s a sample of her eloquent talks:
https://youtu.be/cQzJkwtKJqU?si=GcTwjKhMBjDzwgiM
Todd, I think you’re pretty close to spot on in your description. If you recall back in the day, not that far back, lol, Kamala was considered a party girl. Now she’s a party woman. But she rocks with the music, she knows how to communicate with the young folks, and obviously they like her. She’s kind of in their mold. Pete is more of a straight laced guy, you can tell how the military tilted his personality to more serious issues. How did you put it? Yin and Yang?
The thing is, neither one is overly religious. And they both been ostracized by religious groups. As a result, I think the handwriting is on the wall for religious organizations, especially those that have their fingers deep into politics. Because it’s not difficult for them to lean into violence. And with the entire planet exploding in violent confrontation, it usually has a very significant religious element. And I would surmise, that eventually there’s going to be a revolt by all governmental authorities against this type of interference and tumult from religion. That ban on external and political religious practices will cause a huge freak out. Folks will probably be able to worship in their own homes, but even that’s debatable. Because they’re probably going to ban gatherings where people can congregate with those who have similar opinions. So in essence, the superior (governmental) authorities are going to throw out the baby with the bath water because of the bad actors. That will be an astounding time!
Walz “looks old”?!? The ageism in this country is really getting ridiculous! Seriously. She is 59 and he is 60, but he looks old!?! Do you want him to dye his hair, do a comb over and wear makeup just to look younger? We already have someone like that running who is as fake in appearance as he is in politics.
Listen to what they say. Watch what they do. Understand their policy stances. That’s what matters. Superficiality is what put us in this position with tfg.
I understand the final three Veepstake officials are meeting today with Kamala during a comfortability test. Check out their vibes with Kamala.
Josh Shapiro may have the edge over the other two if they are looking at electricity. Josh is also scrubbing his negative remarks against Palestinians on his X account. This has been kind of a tip-off in the past. The Time Machine will still have those posts so we will have access to those deleted posts.
> Government’s role has always been to prevent the strong from preying on the weak
Funny how over the last 40? years, the “weak” have been redefined as the fabulously wealthy, and the “strong” have been redefined as those who think they should get their share of the fruits of their labor. The above-mentioned “weak” dispute FDR’s statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act (June 16, 1933):
It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.
Warren,
What is the first thing these companies do when it’s time to reveal their profit margins? They start reducing their workforce. That’s the fastest way to gin up their profits. Then, they wait and see if that reduced workforce can keep up with its former productivity. If it can, the workforce remains slashed. And somewhere down the line they will attempt the same thing again. Cut the workforce. And soon, you have individuals doing the work of three or four people. Without any additional compensation. That also reflects in the inflation ratings. So it looks good to the politicians. This whole scenario is really a bogus rip off. And there needs to be some accountability for the way these so-called adjustments in manpower and financial resources are managed.
MAGA doesn’t care about majority rule. Quite the opposite. Today’s GOP has made it very clear they do not believe everyone should have the right to vote. They could not care less what polls say or what citizens want,