The Prospect for Liberalism: Reveille or Taps?

December, 1980
Lakeland

The Prospect for Liberalism: Reveille or Taps?

The answer may hinge on what liberalism is for you and how you perceive the future trend of political and economic principles and issues.

The reason for choosing this topic at the end of 1980 is soon coming – the end of the Carter administration and the beginning of the Reagan years. Governor Reagan was decisively elected to office. Was this voter sentiment a rejection of liberalism and a demand that conservative values have priority? There has been shock in some so-called “liberal” circles at both the results and implications of the elections. Particularly the defeat of such liberals as McGovern, Culver, Magnuson, Church, has many worried that the time of emphasis on civil liberties and people-helping may be over. Taps for liberalism! Some fear the return of a tide of oppression.

Well, as Mark Twain advised, “get your facts first and then you can distort them as you please.”

One must deal with the continuing difficulty and ambiguity in using the words “liberal” and “conservative.” Because of unlike understandings of their meanings, many believe the words are no longer useful tools of understanding. For example, in the unabridged [dictionary] one will discover that “conservative” means preserving and conserving, tending to maintain existing institutions or views. Then is a conservative one who wishes to preserve the welfare bureaucracy or busing to achieve integration? That’s doubtful. If a conservative is one who is opposed to change, how come Governor Reagan was elected president?

A similar difficulty exists with the word “liberal.” The dictionary defines “liberal” as free, broad-minded, not bound by authority, orthodox tenets, or established forms. Yet the so-called “liberals” are identified in current and recent past times as urging limitations – higher income taxes, so that human assistance programs can be financed by a centralized government....

With such confusions of meanings, I must try to state with attempt at clarity what I mean by the word liberal – in the religious and philosophic sense. To me, liberal means:

- an openness to new truths and insights which can change old ways of believing and valuing
- the right to dissent from traditional doctrines, ideas, habits, moralism, institutions and their ways.
- recognizing the primary value of persons, their worth, their dignity, their right to freedom.

[CJW insert: John Dewey, replying to one of his critics: It is less important that we all believe alike than that we all alike inquire freely, and put at the disposal of one another such glimpses as we may obtain of the truth of which we are in search.]

I raise this subject among us because here we have a forum for sharing. Martin Buber said it well, “In a truly living community of opinion, the common opinion must ever again be tested and renewed in genuine meetings; the men (and women) who hold the same views must ever again loosen up one another’s views as they threaten to become encrusted, must ever again help one another to confront the changing reality in a new, unprejudiced looking.” (A Believing Humanism, p. 211)

First of all, in spite of undisguised elation on the part of Moral Majority and similar groups, the response to their causes may not have been the prevailing tide in the recent election. Polls are not a precise measure but exit polls did show that inflation and unemployment were decisive factors as well as a wide-spread feeling that change was necessary.

Second, I, for one, will make no advance judgment on the economic policies of President-Elect Reagan. This administration will have the support of a Republican majority in the Senate and probably considerably backing from conservative Democrats in the House. The electorate endorsed Reagan and even those who opposed him should give him a fair chance. His task is formidable. Probably we expect far too much of any President, for presidential powers have limitations – that we sometimes forget.

But in being quite willing to give a new administration a chance to announce and implement its economic agenda, I am not willing to give any kind of endorsement to such groups as Moral Majority with their intentions to secure passage of a number of constitutional amendments to achieve their moralistic demands. These efforts include for the most part attempts to indict and prevent individual behavior choices:

prevent the right of a woman to choose an abortion
compel the institution of prayers in public school
opposition to E.R.A.

Those, who like I do, defend on religious, philosophical, and social grounds the right of a woman to choose an abortion, cannot be complacent. The effort will be made to make such free choice illegal.

Those of us who continue to stand for the wall of separation of church and state will see organized efforts to break down that wall, not only in such matters as prayers in the public schools, but also, I fear, tapping public funds for private schools.

I get irritated at the moral arrogance and spiritual self-righteousness of Moral Majority and similar right-wing groups. However, irritation and anger will butter no parsnips, as it used to be said in New England. There is another saying that applies: “It’s a wise dog that scratches its own fleas.” That, I believe, can take place at least in two ways – first, a recognition to be shared, and second, a determination to be made known.

We are a pluralistic nation. That is a recognition to be shared and emphasized. We Americans are of many differing religions as well as millions who have no commitment or allegiance to any religion. There is a distinction between private morality and public good – a distinction that can be maintained with thoughtfulness, acceptance, and understanding.

Our nation is pluralistic in political parties, although two dominate.

The pluralism of our nation will be maintained by participation. Here it appears is a great failure of the part of eligible Americans to vote. (Context, 12/15/80): 1 out of 4 (26.5%) adult Americans voted for the President-Elect. 52.3% voted, the lowest in 32 years.

One is reminded of the comment columnist Mike Royko [made] when L.B.J. announced he would not run again. “Good-bye. You weren’t the best president the people ever had. But then, we aren’t the best people a president ever had.” The same might be a consolation to President Carter.

Now I surmise I am speaking to the already convinced. I’m sure most of you vote. But you, as I, do meet people who do not vote. There are many, 47.7% of the adult population. Make the effort to persuade. in the long run, I believe pluralism requires participation.

Then, there is a determination which many more could share. That is not to concede conscience to the loud shouters and professed majority. Our legislators should hear from us regularly – they will be hearing from the zealots. Of course informing the Senators and Representatives (National and Florida) is a task, tedious and requiring persistence. Cardinal Newman (famous English priest - 19th century) once wrote, “Men will die for a dogma who will not stir for a conclusion.” (Quoted by Nisbet)

Most of us respond in terms of conclusions rather than dogmas. The tendency is not to stir. But Newman reminds us that dogmatists with enthusiasm will be communicating ideas and supporting legislation repugnant to us. We need to stir unless we are content to concede conscience to those whose views we abhor.

Do you know the Sausage Principle? (Reader’s Digest, May 1980) “People who love sausage and respect the law should never watch either one being made.” Better advice is to watch the law being made, even if it’s not always a pretty sight. Watch. As Jean D’Arc said to Dunot - “We must make the bargainers behave.”

One more thing about not conceding conscience to loud shouters and dogmatists....

[CJW note: Silence]