Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Voices From the Fields's avatar

I’m enjoying this conversation between Ed and Brian. Ed, your question about free enterprise has had my mind reeling today. Then, when I go on to consider Brian’s stance on labels, I begin to doubt my understanding of many things.

That was not my definition of “liberal” above, but the dictionary’s. Now I’m thinking I shouldn’t have claimed it for VFF. Who am I to say what liberal means for anyone but myself? It only matters in terms of whether or not I want to align with a group (I guess I do), but that group will also be trying to figure out that same answer (and here we are). What’s more important to me is that I’m with a group who allows that kind of space between its people to have those conversations. I find that tolerance in what society today calls the group “liberals.”

I guess I consider all Democrats, Independents, and Progressives to be “liberal” groups because of these basic similarities: “open to new ideas; relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise; a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and support social welfare.”

“Free enterprise” is indeed the sore thumb here. It’s the one making us uncomfortable. So, I have to ask why. It’s because liberal people prioritize social welfare and capitalism has failed to take care of people.

Free enterprise was “supposed” to mean that people who answer to opportunity, which is “supposed” to be readily available, and then work hard, would be able to provide for themselves and have what they need and maybe more. If we lived within a structure where free enterprise didn’t mean the few can accrue unlimited wealth at the expense of the many living paycheck to paycheck, maybe the word free enterprise wouldn’t feel so icky. For example, a structure where employees were the owners of their business. This is still free enterprise, but it cares more about righting social and economic inequality.

But I think, yes Ed, a person can be a liberal socialist. I think many in the Democratic Party are trying to marry the socialist philosophy of prioritizing economic and social inequality with the liberal values of social welfare. Even if they don’t call it socialist philosophy, well, “a rose by any other name…”

Personally, I just want to call myself a humanitarian. Then, I want to help whichever party’s policies get closest to helping humans, all the while challenging any and all of them to do more. Is that okay?

Expand full comment
Brian W Barnett's avatar

To be clear, I have never been a member of any political party. If one had to put on a label, I suppose I would be progressive. To do anything less than progress would seem pointless. Conservatism in its present state seems utterly pointless. It is a rudderless ship intent upon returning the the Gilded Age, an enterprise that is as anti conservative as it is unwise. I don't believe that this regression will Make America Great Again, I don't even think it will restore a benevolent wealthy class like Carnegie who donated the lobby of the Defiance Library. Instead I think it fuels a new realm of laborless gains with little to no contribution to the public good. I have always been a registered independent, a status that left me unable to vote in primary elections until I became a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I hold no animosity towards the Democratic Party, and in fact agree with them on a great many things. The same, I am afraid, can't be said of the current MAGA Republican Party. In its current state, the GOP is a pox on humanity. I send my fondest wishes that this can be a forum for ideas, where many voices and views can be dispassionately entertained. I hope that it will dodge the obstacle of becoming a one-sided echo-chamber. It is a tough needle to thread, but one that I think must be attempted.

To quote Murrow, good night, and good luck.

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts