Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

I guess I'm a Liberal in the Forbes Magazine definition.

Looking over the vote in the House on the Stimulus Package, where almost all the Democrats and none of the Republicans voting for Obama’s proposal (despite his extremely visible outreached hand, meetings, compromises on more than one issue, etc.), I realized that the Republican (read Neo-Conservative) Movement was still in full swing. It was one thing to go up against a majority of American economists, a growing number of unemployed workers, lower-middle-class homeowners whose mortgages were about to et their homes… but it is strictly another thing not to have any Party concessions (like one or two votes in favor) to show that the attempts at bipartisanship by the President would be somewhat acknowledged.

So I was wandering around the intelligence base of the right and found an article in Forbes Magazine about the 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media, and I found this definition of what a Liberal is:

Broadly, a “liberal’ subscribes to some or all of the following: progressive income taxation; universal health care of some kind; opposition to the war in Iraq, and a certain queasiness about the war on terror; an instinctive preference for international diplomacy; the right to gay marriage; a woman’s right to an abortion; environmentalism in some Kyoto Protocol-friendly form; and a rejection of the McCain-Palin ticket.

You know, aside from the “queasiness” on the War on Terror (I don’t think we’re at all queasy… we’re against “wars” that are unwinnable because there is no physically defined and geographically locatable enemy), I have to agree with Forbes.

What’s interesting to me is that, since the beloved Ronald Reagan – the first President elected on the grounds that the government he would lead was not worth having, strictly because it was “government” – these definitive things have been promoted by Republicans as negatives. As if absolute human rights could be negative! As if women should allow the despised “government” to control their bodies! As if cutting the carbon emissions from the atmosphere before we destroy our world-wide agricultural base is a lousy idea! As if McCain and Palin made sense last Fall!

Yet, taking this definition seriously, Forbes thinks Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens are definition Liberals. I guess this is because the first is a gay man who supports legalized gay marriage and the second is an acknowledged atheist. I can’t look at either as a Liberal, although I have great respect for Sullivan and think his support of Obama on his blog was a highly influential position for certain groups of Americans.

But I see myself as supporting these GOOD things and see them becoming more and more positive as the American mindset sees how necessary such concepts are in bringing us out of the absurd pit that Bush’s tax cuts and the corporate world’s polluting disregard of scientifically proven standards (in return for tremendous income to the top 1% of society) have brought us.

Maybe Forbes is trying to become a Liberal Magazine.

Maybe not.

Under The LobsterScope


  1. welcome to the moose.  hehe forbes a liberal mag…  

    i think that the word ‘liberal’ has been so demonized by the right in the US that they have tainted a word that should make most of us proud to call ourselves.

  2. Michelle

    So lemme work the opposite here with my word changes in bold:

    Broadly, a “conservative” subscribes to some or all of the following: regressive income taxation; health care for some; support for the war in Iraq, and a certain zealousness about the war on terror; an instinctive dislike for international diplomacy; no right to gay marriage; no woman’s right to an abortion; environmentalism in some anti– Kyoto Protocol form; and an acceptance of the McCain-Palin ticket.

    OH. HELL. NO.

    I am proud to LABEL myself LIBERAL!!!  My blood bleeds blue, just like a horseshoe crab. 😉

  3. Hollede

    Welcome to the Moose. Watch out for some of these folks. They have been known to induce “pee your pants” laughter!

  4. So great to have you on the Moose.

    By Forbes’ definition, most sane reasonable people are liberal. So liberal is becoming the dominant centrist position. That’s brilliant news.

    The right now look like whackos, and they’re really not helping themselves with internal witch hunting. This bodes well for the next eight years.  

  5. but if this is all it takes then, sure thing.  I am also very much a Capitalist Tool, so maybe by Forbes’ definition I am also a Conservative, but I really don’t care what category definitions other folks make at the best of times.

    As you say, short of the “queasiness” part, I agree with pretty well all of those.  Universal health care is something I have issues with depending on implementation and the results thereof (my fellow Mooses have heard sufficient on that from me), but our system has massive downsides and I know we can do better (as long as we don’t baby-bathwater, I’m cool with it).  And as for that “queasiness”, some to the Right might interpret that to mean “unwillingness to stand up to idiots” which is definitively not my position.  I have a hard time with a incredibly badly labeled conflict – of the words War, on  and Terror the only one I don’t have an issue with is “on” – but if the definition is “a conflict against violent extremism wherein you are willing to support the use of overwhelming force if necessary” then I am not “queasy” in the least.

    And if “some or all” is the metric, then I know many determined Republican conservatives who are, apparently, Liberals for adamantly opposing the Palin/McCain Learners’ Permit presidential ticket.

Comments are closed.