'Liberal' is a dirty word no more!

[Dorian Gray]

People avoid being branded a liberal, and shy away from the term, mostly because conservatives have somehow made it that way. The right has their Reagan conservatives or Reagan Republicans. Well I have a solution. I am a liberal.

A Stewart liberal.

How could that be wrong? Liberals are painted as big government, high tax, wussy, etc. But not Stewart liberals (Named after Jon, if that wasn't obvious.) How are they different? Well, unlike that crappy bloviated 'liberal', the Stewart liberal has liberal values while retaining the ability to think critically, even about other liberals.

Voted for Obama, so Obama til death, right or wrong? Not for the Stewart liberal. The Stewart liberal can support positions while criticizing all the bad parts about them, and support people while calling them on their flaws, no matter which side of the aisle they sit on. Conservatives can't do this! the old liberals can't do this!

Only the Stewart Liberals can.

[GreyICE]

Old liberals have the ability to do this. Clinton received nearly as much criticism from the left as the right, and most of the difference was made up by nutjobs criticizing him for killing Vince Foster.

Stewart is a classic liberal, read Eric Alterman sometime.

[Dorian Gray]

No. I'm talking about the ability to GIVE criticism to your side, not receive it. Jon Stewart, who is clearly a liberal, nevertheless can mock Obama or any Democrat/liberal for any policy that makes no sense. Of course, he does this with Republicans/conservatives too. My point is, the more famous or ubiquitous conservatives do no such thing with Republicans/conservatives. All their attacks are directed solely towards liberals or Democrats. The same is true of your Michael Moore types.

Stewart has the right idea, NOT my candidate right or wrong, NOT my ideology right or wrong. Stewart is what Fox wishes it was: fair and balanced. He is this in the sense that he mocks stupid nonsense no matter where it comes from.

Stewart liberal. I'm talking about on his show, by the way, if that wasn't painfully obvious. He basically got Crossfire on CNN cancelled. He basically publically spanked Jim Cramer from CNBC. He's a good guy who underneath it all knows what he's talking about, has read the books of the authors he interviews, and has well-reasoned opinions and thoughts.

[Brainster]

I think what you're saying is that he criticizes liberals from the right and conservatives from the left; a centrist/moderate in other words.

BTW, if you think that centrist Republicans like me aren't criticizing more conservative Republicans, you haven't been paying attention.

[Gangularis]

Jon is a realist, a liberal, and a moderate.. all rolled into one. By the way, Michael Moore has plenty to say about Dems.. i bet he's got some pretty serious criticisms of Obama, by now.

[GreyICE]

No. I'm talking about the ability to GIVE criticism to your side, not receive it. Jon Stewart, who is clearly a liberal, nevertheless can mock Obama or any Democrat/liberal for any policy that makes no sense. Of course, he does this with Republicans/conservatives too. My point is, the more famous or ubiquitous conservatives do no such thing with Republicans/conservatives. All their attacks are directed solely towards liberals or Democrats. The same is true of your Michael Moore types.

Um, Dorian, I said Clinton was criticized by the left. Because he was. Very heavily. Many of us think Clinton was basically a moderate-conservative. If he had been (R) he'd probably have been hailed as the next Gipper.

[Chaos]

Jon is a realist, a liberal, and a moderate.. all rolled into one. By the way, Michael Moore has plenty to say about Dems.. i bet he's got some pretty serious criticisms of Obama, by now.

I still recall how Moore bashed Clinton for the balanced budget thing. That must have been in "Downsize This!", I think.

[Oliver]

People avoid being branded a liberal, and shy away from the term, mostly because conservatives have somehow made it that way. The right has their Reagan conservatives or Reagan Republicans. Well I have a solution. I am a liberal.

A Stewart liberal.

How could that be wrong? Liberals are painted as big government, high tax, wussy, etc. But not Stewart liberals (Named after Jon, if that wasn't obvious.) How are they different? Well, unlike that crappy bloviated 'liberal', the Stewart liberal has liberal values while retaining the ability to think critically, even about other liberals.

Voted for Obama, so Obama til death, right or wrong? Not for the Stewart liberal. The Stewart liberal can support positions while criticizing all the bad parts about them, and support people while calling them on their flaws, no matter which side of the aisle they sit on. Conservatives can't do this! the old liberals can't do this!

Only the Stewart Liberals can.


Quite frankly, Stewart deserves a public forum that is beyond making fun in his daily show. My impression is that he got his heart at the right place, yet the mainstream doesn't dare to employ someone who isn't shy to open his mouth against everything without solely focusing on attacks against either left or right.

So to me, Mr. Leibowitz strikes me as a self-critical, moderate Liberal. On the other Hand, being able to be self-critical seems to be liberal thing in general, is it not?

[mortimer]

What is it with you Liberals idolizing dudes who read stuff written by others off of teleprompters? :D

[Oliver]

What is it with you Liberals idolizing dudes who read stuff written by others off of teleprompters? :D


Actually, it's the interviews that show Stewart's true nature. I don't think the interviews are "teleprompted", do you?

[mortimer]

Actually, it's the interviews that show Stewart's true nature. I don't think the interviews are "teleprompted", do you?
I was trying to make a joke, but also make the point that being a "Stewart Liberal" is kinda silly, as he is but one of several people who write the content for the show. Why not be a Steve Bodow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bodow) Liberal?

[Oliver]

I was trying to make a joke, but also make the point that being a "Stewart Liberal" is kinda silly, as he is but one of several people who write the content for the show. Why not be a Steve Bodow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bodow) Liberal?


That striked me as odd as well. It's like saying I'm an O'Reilly Conservative, it indeed sounds crazy, especially since Stewart's job is doing comedy. That's why I think he deserves more than that, and he knows that as well.

[Dorian Gray]

I think what you're saying is that he criticizes liberals from the right and conservatives from the left; a centrist/moderate in other words.

BTW, if you think that centrist Republicans like me aren't criticizing more conservative Republicans, you haven't been paying attention. If you don't have a relatively popular media outlet, nobody has been paying attention.

[MattusMaximus]

Has anyone noticed how the new smear against "liberals" is to now call them "socialists"?

[Marc39]

The Liberal Party has been hijacked by the radical Left, alienating more traditional, mainstream Liberals who have since left the Party.

[Dorian Gray]

Um, Dorian, I said Clinton was criticized by the left. Because he was. Very heavily. Many of us think Clinton was basically a moderate-conservative. If he had been (R) he'd probably have been hailed as the next Gipper. Right. Clinton WAS CRITICIZED. Stewart CRITICIZES. One is passive. One is active. Why can't you see the difference?

Stewart criticizes and mocks whoever is in a position of power or celebrity, no matter his ideology or the ideology of the person being mocked. In other words, he is literally fair and balanced. Clinton getting slammed by most of the right and a few on the left hardly makes him centrist, much less a conservative. Besides, you seem to be shrinking away from the term 'liberal' - literally what this thread is about not doing.

[Dorian Gray]

Has anyone noticed how the new smear against "liberals" is to now call them "socialists"?
**looks at corporations newly owned by the government**
And?

[Dorian Gray]

That striked me as odd as well. It's like saying I'm an O'Reilly Conservative, it indeed sounds crazy, especially since Stewart's job is doing comedy. That's why I think he deserves more than that, and he knows that as well.No. O'Reilly utterly lacks the ability to be fair and balanced, and can hardly be said to have read or listened to whatever media his guests have produced, other than the title and a few canned talking points. O'Reilly talks over people.

In other news, when Jon Stewart isn't reading off a teleprompter (written about 15% by him), he destroys whole shows and gets them cancelled and attacks whole networks and eviscerates their spokesmen with well-reasoned and informed arguments. When O'Reilly isn't reading off a teleprompter, he's a pompous jackass. You won't see Bill O'Reilly broadcasting from Iraq, or getting his head shaved, or knowing his guests.

[MattusMaximus]

The Liberal Party has been hijacked by the radical Left, alienating more traditional, mainstream Liberals who have since left the Party.

Yes, because this would, of course, explain why the ranks of the Democratic party have grown in recent years :rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

When someone calls me a Liberal, I say "thanks."

[GreyICE]

Right. Clinton WAS CRITICIZED. Stewart CRITICIZES. One is passive. One is active. Why can't you see the difference?

Stewart criticizes and mocks whoever is in a position of power or celebrity, no matter his ideology or the ideology of the person being mocked. In other words, he is literally fair and balanced. Clinton getting slammed by most of the right and a few on the left hardly makes him centrist, much less a conservative. Besides, you seem to be shrinking away from the term 'liberal' - literally what this thread is about not doing.

A FEW on the left?

Wow, someone missed the 90s.

Clinton's politics made him a moderate who leaned conservative, not who criticized him. Your little fanboy rants aside, Stewart is an intelligent and fun commentator, but he's hardly something new and unique.

[Dorian Gray]

My one and only point is that conservatives have made 'liberal' a dirty word, but being a liberal like Jon Stewart is a liberal, retaining the ability to criticize stupid actions no matter which side they come from, and abandoning the 'my party right or wrong' mentality, makes being a liberal okay again.

Needless to say, I don't understand your motive behind mentioning Clinton is a moderate and/or conservative. If he's not a liberal, how is that relevant to this discussion whatsoever?

[Shadowdweller]

Has anyone noticed how the new smear against "liberals" is to now call them "socialists"?
What do you mean "new"?

[applecorped]

Has anyone noticed how the new smear against "liberals" is to now call them "socialists"?

New?

[maddog]

Maybe not completely new, but certainly more emphatically and more commonly than before. Which is accurate, because the left has been moving that direction (and for that matter, so has a bunch of the Republican party) for a while, especially with the nationalization of the banking and auto industries.

[HansMustermann]

Well, if we're at tacking comedian names to ideologies to make them more palatable, from now on I'm a Groucho Marxist ;)

[GreyICE]

Maybe not completely new, but certainly more emphatically and more commonly than before. Which is accurate, because the left has been moving that direction (and for that matter, so has a bunch of the Republican party) for a while, especially with the nationalization of the banking and auto industries.
This is a new and unusual definition of 'accurate.'

[marksman]

I don't think adding "Stewart" as a prefix to liberal is going to rehabilitate "liberal". If anything, it's going to diminish "Stewart". And that would be a tragedy.

[Tricky]

I don't think liberals ever lost the ability to laugh at themselves. Back in the seventies, shows like All in the Family made Mike (Meathead) out to be not very bright at all. Doonesbury was witheringly hilarious about both Carter and Clinton. (The difference is, both Carter and Clinton actually read Doonesbury. GHWBush treated it as if it were written on broccoli.) Stewart is just the latest in a long parade of liberal comics who don't mind laughing at themselves.

And, after all, what is so bad about having a pointy head?

[HansMustermann]

Well, more seriously this time, the way to reclaim a word is basically to stop playing along that it's an insult. Go "yes, I _am_ a liberal" instead of reacting like a closetted gay in a bible belt town (no offense meant) when the word for your kind comes around.

For my part: yes, I _am_ a socialist.

Personally I never understood how "liberal" started to mean "left wing" in the USA. Historically the liberals were the guys on the side of the industry and unregulated private initiative, and were only "left" in that the nobility was traditionally "right". They're the guys who repealed the protectionist corn laws in Britain, for example, in the hope that it will result in cheaper bread and they can then cut the workers' salaries down even more.

Kinda funny that a word like "libertarian" had to be invented, and from the same root, no less, just because "liberal" became a sort of "moderate socialist" over there.

But ok, so words change meanings. I can live with that.

But then why let it be turned into an insult in the first place? If you do believe that society should do more for its members, then why act offended when you're called whatever word for left wing? When did the USA become some cult of the sociopaths, where it's some shameful failure to even give a rat's a** about the fellow human?

Why act as if "higher taxes" is some kind of shameful failure... when the other party spent actually even more each time it was in power, it only did it by getting the country deeper in debt? When did "you have to earn X dollars a year before you spend X dollars a year" become a failure, instead of the other way around?

The USA is getting deeper and deeper in debt to China, and when China will start wanting _something_ for its trillion dollars or so, it's not going to be pretty. That debt will have to be repayed by everyone.

And for what? Invariably it's been to give more money to the already rich. I can see situation where a state going into debt can even be necessary -- e.g., to build up the industry -- but that's not what happened. We know since the Reaganomics that giving the uber-rich tax breaks just resulted in more yacts and not much else. The GDP or any other meaningful metric didn't rise proportionally or anything. It's been just taking more debt to subsidize the yachts of the already rich. It's been going into debt so some people can live even more of a life of Riley on someone else's money.

When did going into debt for that start being _not_ the failure option?

So really, why did you accept that "liberal" or "socialist" become insults in the first place? Why do you need to go roundabout about getting them back?

[Dorian Gray]

Roundabout? The only times I've gone roundabout are while at the park or while listening to Fragile. All I've done here is make an observation and join two things together, basically saying "So liberal is bad? Look at Jon Stewart. He's a liberal, and he attacks lunacy from both sides in a balanced way, yet is intelligent and well-read. So being a liberal isn't bad."

In other words, in a roundabout way, I HAVEN'T accepted it as an insult, I HAVE turned it around. There's someone I think you should meet: Hans, this is Point of the OP. Point, this is Hans.

The liberal I believe in ain't short of cash, mister.