NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/10615

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 3.8 KB | 94 lines

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!walter!walter.bellcore.com!doel
From: [e-mail] (Michael Doel)
Subject: Re: The "L" word
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 22 Dec 92 07:41:55 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: bbq.bae.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 10:51:24
Lines: 79


Mark Crowder writes:

> In reading this group, I can see that there are many different opinions
> on what the word "Liberal" means.  However, I never see it actually
> defined.  How about a dialogue on it?  I'll start.  This is one of
> my recent favorites:
>
>   "When is say 'liberals'[ed. orig in italics], I certainly don't
>    mean openhanded individuals or tolerant persons or even Big
>    Government Democrats.  I mean people who are excited that one
>    percent of the profits of Ben and Jerry's ice cream goes to
>    promote world peace."
>            -- P.J. O'Rourke  "Give War a Chance"
>
> Any other ideas?  No fair using the dictionary!


I'm a conservative, so my bias may be evident, but here's a good-faith
effort to define liberalism.  I'll try to keep my views out of it.


    Liberals believe that government action and intervention should be
    concentrated on achieving a balance of economic output and should
    never compromise individual choice except where that choice may
    override the goals of achieving the former balance.

Note: liberalism is seeking a balance of output, not opportunity.

Thus, liberals believe in helping the poor first instead of the rich.
Redistributing wealth is a sure-fire way of balancing economic output.  It
may not grow the economy much, but it won't "unfairly" discriminate against
the poor.

Liberals also often call for universal health care.  Why should the rich
have access to better health care than the poor?

Liberals are often for affirmative action.  While this compromises the
individual choice of the employer, we can override that choice because we
are seeking the equalize economic standing by providing for the
disadvantaged.

Liberals are strong supporters of abortion rights because doing otherwise
would seem to compromise individual choice.  Actually, this is (IMO)
somewhat arbitrary.  I would suspect that if everyone were of the opinion
that the fetus was indeed fully human, it would be the liberal groups who
would come most strongly to the defense of the unborn child.  Since there is
(as yet) no consensus that the fetus is fully human, liberals prefer to let
the individual woman chose.

Liberals prefer to keep religion and government completely separate from
each other.  The reasoning is that to do otherwise might cause minority
religious groups (or athiests/agnostics) to feel that their religious
freedom is being threatened.

Liberals are strong supporters of homosexual rights.  The choice of the
homosexual is in no way compromising any economic goals, so the government
has no business disallowing it - in any form.  The same goes with
euthenasia.

Liberals seek to bolster the rights of the accused in a criminal trial.
The more of a burden of proof we put on the government, the less likely the
chance that we will mistakenly strip an innocent citizen of their rights.



I think my definition fits liberalism pretty well.  I'd be interested in
hearing from those who consider themselves liberals as to whether or not
they think it's accurate.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel                <[e-mail]>
444 Hoes Lane RRC 1B-209
Piscataway, NJ 08854

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~