What is a liberal? Discuss.

Rick on October 21, 2006 at 4:46 PM

I’ll give it a shot.

As someone who has considered himself a libertarian for the vast majority of his adult life but has found himself identifying more and more with conservatives ever since 9/11, I think defining liberalism is indeed important. We should never just use the word “liberal” as a thoughtless, knee-jerk insult. And since the definition of the word in popular usage has changed so much over the past couple of centuries, it would be good to have a clear idea of what set of beliefs we’re criticizing when we use the word today.

Yes, it’s often dangerous to pigeonhole people. But we’re human; categorizing is what we do. So I’ve tried to identify what appear to be some general tendencies applicable to those we call, or who call themselves, “liberal.” Please bear with my presumption, y’all, and I’ll try not to ramble on too long.

Liberals, I would say, are those who hold some combination of the following beliefs:

• Safety is more important than liberty.
• Equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity or equality before the law.
• Group identity is more important than individual identity. Indeed, the group is more important than the individual.

Liberals, further, are those who tend much more often than others to appeal to a combination of expertosis and elitism that expresses itself in one of the following basic forms:

• We’re all a bunch of morons who must be enlightened by our betters.
• We’re all a bunch of bastards who must be kept in line by our betters.
• We’re all a bunch of babies who must be protected by our betters.

(In fact, if I may include a personal note, it was largely this very attitude—”We’re smarter than you. We’re better educated than you. We’re better read than you. We’re more sensitive, sophisticated, and cultured than you. We’re wiser and more worldly than you. Face it; we’re just better than you. So why don’t you mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, gun-toting, God-fearing troglodytes finally wise up and admit we’re worthy to rule you?”—that seemed to underlie everything Democrats were saying that pissed me off enough to vote Republican for POTUS for the first time in my life in 2004 and makes me consider voting straight-ticket Republican this year and in 2008.)

Liberals are also those who believe in what I call the Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory of Economics™. This theory, acceptance of which requires ignorance or disregard of basic economic principles, divides the world into two classes (The Rich [the oppressors] and Everyone Else [the oppressed]) and has two corollaries:

• The Rich are always and only out to f*** Everyone Else. We can’t permit free enterprise because that only enables bigger and better ways for The Rich to f*** Everyone Else.
• No one can freely choose to buy a product or service of which I disapprove. That anyone does is necessarily the result of coercion or manipulation by evil others.

As useful as these beliefs seem to be in helping identify liberals or describe liberalism, however, they are ultimately not quite satisfying if one is seeking maximum parsimony. What is the lowest common denominator, so to speak, that these attitudes share? Is there a single essential element that underlies them all?

This was the sticking point with me for a long time, but I think I may have figured it out. The solution comes from one of the most valuable lessons I ever learned, something I was taught in high school and which has stuck with me for nearly 30 years now. It’s the concept of the locus of control, and it seems to explain the essential difference between how liberals see the world and how conservatives or libertarians see it. It explains the liberal emphasis on oppression and victimhood and the liberal denigration of personal freedom and responsibility.

Conservatives and libertarians see the locus of control as internal. Liberals see the locus of control as external. And that, as I see it, makes all the difference.

p.v. cornelius on October 22, 2006 at 8:59 AM