Why Are “Liberals” So Terrible?
A thought experiment: an alien being with median levels of political awareness and a decent command of the English language as it has been spoken for the past decade (or, in the alternative, you from ten years ago) read through your Facebook and Twitter feed. That being is then asked to list the worst groups of people in your society based solely on that information.
I think my list would look something like this:
1) “Racists”
2) “Fascists”
3) “Liberals”
To quoteth Master Big Bird: “one of these things is not like the other.” Why, in other words, do so many people I follow on social media — people who seem to share and often explicitly espouse “liberal values,” of diversity, using government machinery to encourage or protect diversity, progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth, greater international cooperation, and so forth — why do they hate “liberals” so much?
This post is a genuine call for submissions. I am both intellectually curious about this apparent labeling discord, but also perennially concerned about accidentally being evil. While I am generally skeptical of and confused by political labels, when pressed I often concede that I am “generally liberal.” By which I intend to communicate that I am generally socially progressive, and generally comfortable with government-motivated collective action. I do not mean to communicate that I am “generally an awful person,” which may indeed be true, but I don’t see why I need to concede such a point so readily.
As I patiently await your explanations, I’ll offer a few hypotheses for why “liberals” are so terrible.
Recklessness with regards to “classical liberalism”
Sometime between the ages of 12 and 20 many people discover the concept of “classical liberalism,” and will occasionally henceforth bring it up in frustrating ways in conversations. This is not to say that rich discussion could not be had about classical liberalism, but rather that I have more often encountered it in the “yeah, but liberals are actually just hard-core capitalists” context, and it is frustrating.
There was admittedly a time when “liberal” was, if not synonymous with, then at least clearly related to, “laissez faire.” There was also a time when “Republican” meant “conservationist,” “Democrat” meant “southern racist person” and “progressive” meant “I’m at least 50% cool with neutering handicapped people.” Words, particularly pejorative ones, change in fascinating ways, and etymologists and historians are right to draw the fascinating lines that connect them over time. It is important that modern day Democrats recognize the history of their party, or that progressives understand that “progress” can mean vastly different things to different people. It also frustrating for the party of Steven Bannon (nominally?) to proclaim itself the Party of Lincoln.
Of my several hypothesis this, I think and hope, is my weakest. I am pretty sure that people who denigrate liberals online–whether the denigrator is proudly conservative or, well whatever @yung_mung is–do not do so because they think of modern political liberals as freewheeling laissez-faire capitalists.
“Liberals” means “bad liberals”
The above tweet would seem to suggest two things: (1) that “liberals” were happy about Chelsea Manning’s release from custody* and (2) “liberals” do not deserve the praise for making that happen and, in fact, Obama (a liberal?) was a large part of the reason she was in prison for as long as she was.
Under this conception, the problem is not what liberals want, but rather what liberals do. It is not that higher progressive tax rates, stronger public schools, or more civil rights for sexual and gender minorities are problematic, it is that self proclaimed “liberals” are incompetent in their efforts to achieve such gains. Or “liberals” are people who share important liberal goals but are not sufficiently liberal to use the term as (apologies) liberally as they do. In short, “liberal” means “bad liberal.” This tortured shorthand can lead to some confusing outcomes:
In, say, the 1960s, when there were actual left and right wing Democrats and Republicans, such a statement — “Liberals are the Right-wing Democrats who supported Hillary” — would have made the average politician’s head spin (also: a woman running for president!?). Still, as confusing as this terminology may be, if it is indeed the answer I sympathize with it somewhat. I would still argue that any benefit from shaming members of your political group into proper action is outdone by the confusion that arises from this use of the term. But an important part of this hypothesis, I believe, is the “taking credit” aspect, expressed in the Manning tweet above. “Liberal,” in other words, may be a problematic short hand that serves as a get-out-of-guilt-free card. But one may wonder if using “liberal” as a negative short hand is any less problematic.
Liberals are The Collaborators
The contention here is fairly simple: “liberals” are the stooges who provide an air of balance that masks what is in fact a monolithically bad State. They are akin to the one Jewish member of the Iranian parliament. Their mere presence in the political milieu legitimates that State’s action.
This may be best demonstrated by contrasts: liberal lionization of activity that is now frowned upon, or public shaming that is inconsistent with personal behavior. Martin Luther King or even Malcolm X are figures to be adored, and how-dare-you question them; But violent protests are unproductive, or the left focuses on “identity politics” too much. Only bigots and homophobes vote against gay marriage; but Josh** is such an in your face gay person, he needs to tone it down.
I’m guilty of this type of behavior. And it is maybe the most compelling argument against “liberals,” but I think it misses the mark somewhat. The reason behind this alleged cognitive dissonance is, I believe, often the result of people just being socially, morally, and politically complicated, and some of these issues not being so simple themselves. This phenomenon is not necessarily the result of conscious mastermind collaborators or useful idiots for the State. Someone might just think gay people have a right to get married, but still harbor biases against certain “types” of gay people. I’m not saying that’s right, but it falls more easily under the “liberals = bad liberals” framework.***
I should admit that my desire to understand this liberal antipathy goes beyond intellectual curiosity and a simple desire not advertise myself as evil. I have two additional problems:
This seems like an easy way to isolate potential allies, as most casual listeners will not be attuned to your deep-state skepticism. It smells like inside joking, and it reeks of the type of problem-identification-without-solution-presentation that frustrates so many about online hipster pessimism.
Further, if the “liberals” are actually the problem, does that mean “liberalism” is actually the problem? I suspect that when it comes to a lot of these critics, they would not rather live in an illiberal society. Then again, maybe I just don’t understand what that means.
I patiently await your explanations, or hate mail.
Footnotes
*To be fair, this tweet only assumes that “liberals” want praise for securing the release of Chelsea Manning. I suppose that a person could dislike a particular outcome but still want to take credit for it. Pete Carroll may have similar feelings about the outcome of SuperBowl XLIX: he was not happy about the Patriots winning, but may still want to take credit for handing it to them by not giving the ball to Marshawn Lynch, as that would deprive the Patriots of their just deserts in some respects. This is unconfirmed, and generally speaking I imagine such outcome-negative-but-credit-seeking situations are rare.
**All characters are fictional.
***The transformation of a widespread descriptor into a pejorative term that means essentially “bad members of that group” has happened before. In fact, it has even occurred where the pejorative term meant people who belonged to that group but collaborated with the establishment. In 1968 2/3 of Black Americans thought of themselves as “negro.” After Stokey Carmichael’s Black Power gained in popularity, and as the 60s drew to a close, “nergo” came to mean “a member of the establishment.” By 1974 a majority of Black Americans considered themselves “black,” and by the end of the 1980s no one was saying “negro” (at least in public, or at least by non racists, or at least by non-Democratic senate majority leaders).
