The following letter to a friend may have broader interest.
We got into a discussion of Liberalism and it became necessary
for me to discuss current meanings of the word.
Billy
============================================
September 12, 2014
To: XXXXX
I'm one of those people who believe that "Liberalism" gets a bad rap.
Indeed, I sometimes self-identify as a "Liberal" to this day. However,
the waters have become seriously muddied in the past 25 - 30 years
and all kinds of qualifications are necessary these days.
Think back to those thrilling days of yesteryear when JFK was president,
for instance. Today's so-called Liberals, if JFK was, say, a modern-day
Senator from Massachusetts, would regard him as some kind of
"Conservative."
I don't think it is progress to realize this has happened.
One reason I was attracted to Radical Centrism was because, in some ways,
it resembles the Liberalism of the pre-1968 era. There are some important
differences, to be sure, RC and the Liberalism of the ancien regime are
not the same thing. Still, there are some commonalities, like dedication
to free speech, dedication to science, and dedication to equal rights
for racial and ethnic minorities. Plus traditional Liberalism tends to be
highbrow,
and, needless to say, that has intrinsic appeal to me.
But I only take this so far. I'm also something of a Populist -which I
picked up
at Roosevelt U, where late 19th century Populism was sort of the rage,
given
its resemblance to then-current Democratic Socialism. Of course, Populism
has morphed into several different forms itself and more distinctions need
to be made to be sure of what gets communicated.
-----
What irritates me to the Nth degree are some types of liberalism (lower
case)
of the current era that are simply idiotic. This has little or nothing to
do with
"plain folks" liberalism / Liberalism in places like blue-collar Ohio or
much
of West Virginia or parts of Florida. You can even find that version of
Liberalism in areas of Colorado or, I think, downstate Illinois. But that
is not what I'm talking about.
I have more in mind Bill Mahar's mindless attacks on Fox News and
the wild Leftism of a celebrity pastor here in Eugene, Rev Dan Bryant.
But there are many others, including all kinds of lime-lighters in the
Democratic Party.
About Fox News, Mahar's attacks are an absurdity, and -as I see it-
typify "hard" political "liberalism," which is usually what I'm talking
about.
Mahar is so off the wall about this that it is ridiculous. Why do I say
this?
(1) This is standard Leftist scapegoating. It is based on the need to
hate someone, in this case, to hate a network. And, of course, with this
goes near-complete incapacity to be self-critical.
(2) Fox is becoming more-and-more "liberal" itself. Most of its stars
espouse Democratic Party positions, only not quite as far to the Left.
Hannity is increasingly marginalized. And some other on-screen veterans
like Greta, don't really have much of a following and never have had one.
(3) Fox News is pretty much a joke. Its ratings are falling. At one time
it was more-or-less a conservative alternative to the Left-wing media
but those days are fading fast.
(4) Despite it all, Fox still has the best panel discussion talk show in
the
business, "Special Report," plus its Sunday clone, "Fox News Sunday"
with Mike Wallace. There's nothing else like it, always with at least
some semblance of balance between Left and Right panelists even if,
yes, it tilts Right. And, yes, about some issues I now am "conservative"
although the operative word is "some" and this should not be taken
any further than facts warrant.
(5) And what are the alternatives? MSNBC is quasi-Marxist, CNN is
Political Correctness 24/7, and the networks ceased to have meaningful
news departments at least 20 years ago, what they provide now is puff news,
tons of human interest crap, weather reports at grand scale, and utterly
sanitized stories about Capitol Hill and its latest doings. That leaves PBS
and the foreign networks, about which there is no need to say much ,
since they are, by definition, not American. PBS has its moments
but it, too, is odiously Politically Correct.
The fact is, in other words, we don't have even one news service
that merits the name. THAT is the real problem, not Mahar's stupid rants
and certainly not Rush Limbaugh's even stupider rants.
Maybe this clarifies things a little.
Billy
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
