Liberal by any other name...

Forbes Magazine printed a list of the "25 most influencial Liberals in the Media".

It's interesting as a thought experiment. There are some truly liberal people on this list.

Josh Marshall, Rachel Maddow, Glenn Greenwald, Ezra Klein and the like are on the list. These are people who by all definition are actual liberals (though I might make the case that Glenn Greenwald is more of a civil libertarian but I digress). Mostly by self identification.

Where as people like Fred Hiatt, Fareed Zakaria, Chris Matthews and Andrew Sullivan are not liberal. They do not claim to be nor should they. These are individuals are moderate at best, but more often then not conservatives. Most disagreed with specific Bush-era policies or the pick of Sarah Palin as vice president. That is it.

For all intents and purposes, "liberal" is a self-identifier. You choose to be a member of that group. It is not a title that can be foisted upon someone else.

In my estimation some of the basic pillars of liberalism would probably include (not an exhaustive list), progressive income taxation, universal health care, anti-Iraq invasion (anti-imperialism based foriegn policy), and some sort of governmental response to the issue of climate change. Some would also toss in a commitment to gay marriage rights, or a woman's right to chose as well, but honestly I think that is servicable enough for my purposes.

But what seems to have been the deciding factor the folks at Forbes? Was a lack of interest in voting for the McCain/Palin ticket, or a down right dislike of that ticket.

That may be an over generalization, but only slightly. Interestingly enough Mr. Sullivan has some words to say about his inclusion on the list that I think accurately encapsulate the problem conservative/liberal labels have in being assigned in this day and age. Here are two posts he did on the subject 1 and 2.

I think they are informative for a couple different reasons. Here is one of the relevant points Mr. Sullivan raises:

None of these positions is in any way a mystery - every single one is in the public record multiple times. So why am I a liberal to these people, to someone smart and decent like Tunku Varadarajan? Why do I earn the prize of "most annoying liberal" out of countless others whose liberalism is avowed and long and uncomplicated, and none of whom supported Reagan and Thatcher and Bush in '88 and Dole and Bush in 2000? I mean: I'm more liberal than Michael Moore?

The answer, I think, is two-fold. The first is that I am openly and proudly gay - another fact that spans the last twenty years. Forbes writes the following:

His advocacy for gay marriage rights and his tendency to view virtually everything through a "gay" prism puts him at odds with many on the right.

Further in Andrew's piece I think he sums it up correctly by stating that "conservatism has become a religious movement". I take his meaning as, the religious right has cooped conservatism so much that no one to the left of Rush Limbaugh is considered conservative. So you are left with the Sean Hannitys, Pat Robinsons andJames Dobsons as your "conservative" voices.

Personally I think this does an immense disservice to actual conservatives. Those who believe in limited government, or more stringent fiscal policy are not the same as this definition of conservative.

So if you are for gay marriage, you are a liberal by default. Think government should play a bigger role in regulating utilities? Liberal. You can be for a flat tax, and be a defense hawk, but if you are not lock step in line with the new conservatism you are a liberal.

And that is why that list bothers me. It dilutes what it is to actually be a progressive. But even more so it diminishes what it means to offer informed decent as a conservative.

You can see the same sort of disease infecting the national medias depiction of various issues as well. Glenn Greenwald has an interesting post on this topic. If you believe in the rule of law, then yes, even terrorists have rights. They have a right to due process and a right to not be tortured. If you believet that then by conventional wisdom that makes you a liberal.

It is not true. Simply having a belief in the laws and constitutional structure our country is founded on is not a liberal belief. It is a belief held by any who understand that those rules and guidelines are there to protect us from governments tyrannical reach. That they are there to buttress us from the insatiable grasp of men (and women) who hunger for more and more power over their fellow citizens.

These are not liberal beliefs. These are ostensibly American beliefs. The precepts and common ground we all believe our country was founded on.

It is sad commentary when belief in such things as due process, prohibition of illegal torture or illegal surveillance of individuals, have become one of the hallmarks of liberalism, and not just the ideals posited by our founding fathers.

So yeah, I think the Forbes list kind of sucks.

-Cheers