2/10/2005

Self-Awareness: A Good Thing To Have

I was browsing through the web when I was directed to the American Prospect, which is hosting a contest to see who can write the best elevator pitch for Liberalism (hat tip: Iowahawk):
We’re taking suggestions: What does liberalism stand for?

Anybody who's ever had to raise money knows the meaning of the phrase "elevator pitch": You're in an elevator with a potential moneybags, and you have, say, seven floors to tell him why he should write you a check.

Well, we all know the basic outline of conservatism's elevator pitch: "We believe in freedom and liberty, and we're for low taxes, less government, traditional values, and a strong national defense." But what is liberalism's? We at the Prospect have, among us, attended or sat on about eleventy hundred panels since the election at which someone invariably says something like the following: "We know what conservatives stand for. But what do we stand for?"

No one in Washington seems to know. So we turn to you. Give us liberalism's elevator pitch.
Then I started reading through the entries. I see only three possible explanations: these people are the famed "silent majority" of the Democratic Party, or they've not been paying attention to national politics for the last two decades, or they're absolutely oblivious to reality:
We believe in freedom and liberty, and we're for low taxes, less government, traditional values, and a strong national defense. Only we mean it. --J.P.
Because Bill Clinton was known for pursuing freedom and liberty around the world, cutting taxes, reducing government regulation, acting in accordance with traditional values, and bolstering defense spending. No, wait—that's not right...
Liberalism is the recognition that good government is necessary to promote security, prosperity, equal opportunity, and personal freedom. --C.M., Washington, DC
Not sure how that makes you different from the Republicans, except for the term "good government" which you conveniently neglect to define. A waste of typing.
We believe that all people, not corporations, are equal under the law and that the interests of our country are promoted by the goverment helping the least of our citizens. --M.C., Detroit, MI
So corporations should not be equal under the law? Or is this just a slam against the eeeeevil corporation, which is even today plotting to rent out the Capitol Building to casinos?
We believe in balancing competition with cooperation, balancing strength with wisdom, balancing personal responsibility with responsibility towards others, balancing individuality with community, and that we are stronger united than divided. --C.U.
You also believe in balancing oxygen with carbon dioxide, balancing checking accounts with a pencil and calculator, and balancing the Federal budget—what? Oh, sorry. Never mind...
We believe in personal freedom and responsibility; in accountable, unintrusive government; in protecting our children's health and prosperity; and for standing strong with allies against terror and tyranny. --A.C., Chicago, IL
Come again? Are we talking about the same Liberalism? You may want to have a nice long talk with Teddy Kennedy some day. It might do him good.

I could go on all night, but it is getting late. If you care to, you can check out the entries for yourselves and judge how accurate they are. All I can say is, modern Liberalism is having one helluva time crafting a coherent message. In a two-party system, this is not a good thing. We need a healthy debate, between real options. And what we have now isn't cutting it.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think liberalism is to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and protect our environment from short-sighted need/greed that would ravage it without thought for our future. (How many potential "miracle cures" hav been lost through extinction or natural wonders that are being lost to us forever?) The true issue is "who is responsible?" Does the government do it through major income redistribution -- and what does that do to the incentives for the wealthbuilding activities that give one an income to redistribute (ex. Europe and, of course, communism); or are there ways to encourage private enterprise and the compassionate individuals (i.e. charitable donations, more economic development through greater job creation -- not getting taxed to the death so small businesses can't afford to hire more people) to be better world citizens without resorting to semi-socialism? This is the true dilemma.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...



I think liberalism is to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and protect our environment from short-sighted need/greed that would ravage it without thought for our future. (How many potential "miracle cures" hav been lost through extinction or natural wonders that are being lost to us forever?) The true issue is "who is responsible?" Does the government do it through major income redistribution -- and what does that do to the incentives for the wealthbuilding activities that give one an income to redistribute (ex. Europe and, of course, communism); or are there ways to encourage private enterprise and the compassionate individuals (i.e. charitable donations, more economic development through greater job creation -- not getting taxed to the death so small businesses can't afford to hire more people) to be better world citizens without resorting to semi-socialism? This is the true dilemma.


9:55 PM