In 1963, Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique argued persuasively that 1950s American culture had robbed women of their identities as individuals. Immersed in a society that defined her in rigid, limited way, the American woman ca. 1960 had lost herself. Second-wave feminism was born of the efforts to uncover the unique, individual selves of women that culture had buried.

I think something like that happened to liberalism. We know that the “L” word has been demonized and distorted by the Right, but more pernicious is the fact that liberals themselves lost touch with the foundation principles of liberalism. Attempts to side-step the “L” word and call ourselves “progressives” did not help, since progressivism and liberalism are not synonyms. Although most liberals are progressive, IMO progressives are not necessarily liberal.

Case in point: Recently The American Prospect published this definition of liberalism, which I liked:

Liberals believe our common humanity endows each of us, individually, with the right to freedom, self-government, and opportunity; and binds all of us, together, in responsibility for securing those rights.

However, the crew at Winds of Change were appalled.

Can someone can tell me why that wouldn’t work as a motto for the AEI??

This falls into the category of “what were they thinking?”

Look. Liberalism is about using the power of government to make sure that the powerless get a fair deal. There’s obviously a useful and important set of arguments to make over what “fair” looks like. But if this - combined with laughable Lakoff-ian attempts at rhetorical devices - are what the Democrats plan on running under, I’m wondering exactly how old I’ll be before Democrats start winning national races again.

Judging by its blogroll, Winds of Change is hardly a liberal site. And as for how the TAP definition parts company with the American Enterprise Institute, that’s easy. When AEI talks about freedom and rights, they don’t really mean “freedom” and “rights,” exactly, but about things that might pass for freedom and rights within a narrow spectrum of behaviors and conditions as set out by AEI. And some restrictions may apply.

I suspect TAP uses the words freedom and rights to mean “freedom” and “rights.” Radical stuff, these days.

“Using the power of government to make sure that the powerless get a fair deal” is progressive, certainly, but it leaves out an essential element of liberalism. That element is contained in what I call the “forgotten clause” of the Declaration of Independence. You know that every rightie loves to recite this part:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

But righties never go on to the next line:

that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

This goes to the heart of what the American Revolution accomplished. When Jefferson wrote these words nearly all of Europe was ruled by monarchs. There were republican governments in The Netherlands and in the city-states of Italy and Switzerland, but conventional wisdom of the time said that republican governments were weak and unstable, and downright untenable in a large nation. What Jefferson and his buddies set out to prove was that a people in a nation could govern themselves–without a King, without a dictator, without an oligarchy or committee or party or any other Other. We, the People, govern ourselves. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Government ‘R’ us.

This understanding of government is essential to liberalism. It’s possible, I suppose, for a government that takes its authority from something other than the people to be as progressive as all get-out, but it would still not be a liberal government.

In the past several years, the Right has worked mightily to make us forget about government of the people, by the people, and for the people, except as an empty phrase. They say they believe in such government, but some restrictons may apply. Void where prohibited. And it depends on what you mean by “people.”

Reagan’s “Government is not the solution, it’s the problem,” hammered home the meme that “the government” is an alien beast clinging to the Atlantic coast, not “of the people,” or “by the people.” Further, government can’t be expected to do anything “for the people.” More recently, rightie pundits chirp ceaselessly that rights come from “the Creator” and not from government, and therefore people don’t need government to secure their rights. God will secure them for you. Next time the Right wants us to liberate another nation, maybe we should just send God. But if an omnipotent God secures human rights, why would anyone need to be liberated?

Are we being set up, do you think?

Is the Pope German?

My shorthand definition of liberalism is “the belief that people can live as equals and govern themselves.” And by governing themselves I mean in a collective sense, through representative government. The word collective sets off alarm bells these days, I know, but the fact remains that republican government is a collective enterprise. It’s something we all do together. Or it should be, anyway.

The biggest distinction between liberalism and libertarianism–both of which value liberty–may be that liberals believe government can legitimately be used to secure the rights of citizens, whereas libertarians seem to think that if only government would butt out, there would be no oppression and no need to secure rights. A ten-second glance at human history shows us that oppression can come from all kinds of places beside government, however. And I wonder if atheist libertarians believe rights are secured by the Human Rights Fairy? Just askin’.

Over at Altercation, Eric Alterman is starting up a dialogue on what liberals believe. The great thing about the Blogosphere is that we liberals, finally, can reach out to each other and have these conversations. I’ve been thinking about how it is liberalism lost itself, and one of these days I want to write about that. In the meantime, however, please join in the effort to bring liberalism back home.

Cross-posted at The Mahablog.