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?
Katie wrote, "Now I’m thinking I shouldn’t have claimed it for VFF. Who am I to say what liberal means for anyone but myself?"
We surely need to feel and be responsible for what we say and write, but this is meant to be a collaborative substack. In the truest sense of the word we all live and breathe collaboration here. We're meant to be learners.
Brian writes, "Obviously, all things are a matter of degree. That is where the labels become somewhat less useful. . . Meant as a tool for introspection, self examination, and self improvement, it [enneagram] quickly became a tool to analyze others, and label them. . . we need more, and smaller, engagement on specific issues, and we need to talk to one another."
Brian offers a good example of how words are turned into labels. Unfortunately, with the rise of fascism, I'm pretty sure it's mostly deliberate now and on what feels to be a massive scale. Labels are weaponized words to divide, control (in other words, we give the power-brokers permission), and then with our permission, we're plundered by them. But Brian offers the only way to fight back: ". . . talk to one another." Start with our experiences, share those experiences and what most matters with others in conversation. In light of our values, think about what our experiences mean. Instead of all the fascist noise that uses language to reduce real persons to caricatures of themselves and will turn OUR STORIES into conspiracy theories, turn away from all that and start writing and talking to each other.
This is the place to learn how to deny others that permission. First we have to feel strong enough to do so. Most of us don't even know how to escape the plundering because we're just too exhausted or we feel too alone. Not anymore.
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.
Thank you for all of the valid points you raise. Labels are troublesome, aren’t they? When we set out to introduce people to this place, there were many conversations about how to reach out to an audience appropriately. We asked, “How do we remain inclusive yet stay true to our shared mission as a party?” It was even said, “Can we say ‘anyone NOT MAGA?’” But therein lies the problem…
We are a group striving to define our own identity. Meanwhile, we’re coerced into forming our definition based on who “THEY” are or “they” SAY we are, rather than being able to take ownership of our own identity. There’s a faction that needn’t be named that wants to own everything and everyone. We will not be owned. This place is for us to stop that abuse and decide, define, and celebrate Who. We. Are (must credit a friend, Ed Singer, for this sentiment).
We want to hear more about “who you are” in the grand, often frustrating scheme of politics. You’re here. We want to know why.
So, when we say “Rural Voices, Liberal Values,” we mean “liberal” in its most broad definition: “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.”
We are affiliated with Defiance County Democratic Party, yes, but we welcome everyone and anyone who, as you said, strives for progress vs. regression.
Put simply, you are very welcome here. Please keep coming back!
Thanks, Katie for linking us to this exchange that you had with Brian. I have no experience discussing ideas on any social media platform (facebook, substack . . . or any of the "others" that I don't even know their names! ha, ha). So Brian or for that matter, Katie, I don't even know whether you'll see this? Maybe I'm talking to myself inside an invisible closet. At any rate, here it goes..
Brian, I love the way that you describe MAGA-fied Conservativism: this infatuation with the Gilded Age of 19th Century American liberalism. You say that today's "conservativism" is rudderless. More than that, it's empty of meaning. It's a force of nihilism -- personal, social, and political.
Katie, as I mentioned in the email to Vicki and the VFF team, I'm uncomfortable with the word "liberal." That doesn't mean that I'd like it banned from VFF (ha, ha). I guess it's just me confessing in the hyperpolarized culture we live, words become "labels" rather than clear windows to deeper meanings and understandings.
Stuck in my own world of "labels," your definition of "liberal" includes the notion of "free enterprise." What does that mean, exactly? I have to confess that the only context I've ever seen the term used is a capitalist shouting "free enterprise!" Or in a politician's speech; a politician, by the way, who is paid for by the Capitalist. I'm searching for a deeper meaning. Is there?
I do believe in capitalist markets with limited government intervention, that said there are regulations that are absolutely vital. I don't want people cutting corners in making drugs or processing food. There are, as in all things, times where the government goes too far. The current administration seems to be a model of government excess on every level from their immigration policies, to the very existance of the Department of Homeland security, to making indiscriminate cuts to government spending. It's funny because it seems that the Republican party usually runs on a platform of individual freedom and lack of government intervention, but now we have a bunch of hucksters in the cabinet that seem to be bent upon telling us exactly how we can live our lives. Perhaps the most stunning example of governmental chicanery in recent history was Ohio's abortion referendum. When it looked like the measure was going to pass the legislature made a mode to require a supermajority, which they knew it couldn't pass. They failed, and the measure passed by a sizable majority (56%) that clearly illustrated that the legislative representative in Ohio were clearly attempting to prevent the will of the people. Too often I see politicians of both stripes who want to call the shots, not represent the people. We are currently having some major problems with this in my small town in Massachusetts. I don't have any great answers, and right now I am just watching this criminal conspiracy (because this certainly isn't a Presidential Administration), with fear that we may not undo the damage they are doing in my lifetime.
I too believe in regulated capitalist markets if we are living in a capitalist society, which we are. I also think that "limited government" is a good idea; HOW MUCH limited, we might disagree on. I don't yearn for the overthrow of all capitalist markets, but I wouldn't be opposed to the peaceful withering away of those capitalist markets. Can I be a "liberal" and a "socialist," too? I don't know. :)
I think we would be pretty close on how limited. I believe in tighter gun laws, and I believe there are some business regulations that stifle progress. Obviously, all things are a matter of degree. That is where the labels become somewhat less useful. The other thing, I think, that has happened is that labels are usually used as pejorative for a third party. A similar thing was true years ago when the enneagram became popular. Meant as a tool for introspection, self examination, and self improvement, it quickly became a tool to analyze others, and label them. That, isn't terribly useful. I think we need more, and smaller, engagement on specific issues, and we need to talk to one another. Right now there is too much that is assumed to be "known" about those of a differing label, and what they believe. Often partisans level broad claims about their opponents without listening to the opposing side. Will Rogers would weep.
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?
Katie wrote, "Now I’m thinking I shouldn’t have claimed it for VFF. Who am I to say what liberal means for anyone but myself?"
We surely need to feel and be responsible for what we say and write, but this is meant to be a collaborative substack. In the truest sense of the word we all live and breathe collaboration here. We're meant to be learners.
Brian writes, "Obviously, all things are a matter of degree. That is where the labels become somewhat less useful. . . Meant as a tool for introspection, self examination, and self improvement, it [enneagram] quickly became a tool to analyze others, and label them. . . we need more, and smaller, engagement on specific issues, and we need to talk to one another."
Brian offers a good example of how words are turned into labels. Unfortunately, with the rise of fascism, I'm pretty sure it's mostly deliberate now and on what feels to be a massive scale. Labels are weaponized words to divide, control (in other words, we give the power-brokers permission), and then with our permission, we're plundered by them. But Brian offers the only way to fight back: ". . . talk to one another." Start with our experiences, share those experiences and what most matters with others in conversation. In light of our values, think about what our experiences mean. Instead of all the fascist noise that uses language to reduce real persons to caricatures of themselves and will turn OUR STORIES into conspiracy theories, turn away from all that and start writing and talking to each other.
At Voices From the Fields, let's learn together.
"with our permission, we're plundered by them"
This is the place to learn how to deny others that permission. First we have to feel strong enough to do so. Most of us don't even know how to escape the plundering because we're just too exhausted or we feel too alone. Not anymore.
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.
Hi Brian,
Thank you for all of the valid points you raise. Labels are troublesome, aren’t they? When we set out to introduce people to this place, there were many conversations about how to reach out to an audience appropriately. We asked, “How do we remain inclusive yet stay true to our shared mission as a party?” It was even said, “Can we say ‘anyone NOT MAGA?’” But therein lies the problem…
We are a group striving to define our own identity. Meanwhile, we’re coerced into forming our definition based on who “THEY” are or “they” SAY we are, rather than being able to take ownership of our own identity. There’s a faction that needn’t be named that wants to own everything and everyone. We will not be owned. This place is for us to stop that abuse and decide, define, and celebrate Who. We. Are (must credit a friend, Ed Singer, for this sentiment).
We want to hear more about “who you are” in the grand, often frustrating scheme of politics. You’re here. We want to know why.
So, when we say “Rural Voices, Liberal Values,” we mean “liberal” in its most broad definition: “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.”
We are affiliated with Defiance County Democratic Party, yes, but we welcome everyone and anyone who, as you said, strives for progress vs. regression.
Put simply, you are very welcome here. Please keep coming back!
Thanks, Katie for linking us to this exchange that you had with Brian. I have no experience discussing ideas on any social media platform (facebook, substack . . . or any of the "others" that I don't even know their names! ha, ha). So Brian or for that matter, Katie, I don't even know whether you'll see this? Maybe I'm talking to myself inside an invisible closet. At any rate, here it goes..
Brian, I love the way that you describe MAGA-fied Conservativism: this infatuation with the Gilded Age of 19th Century American liberalism. You say that today's "conservativism" is rudderless. More than that, it's empty of meaning. It's a force of nihilism -- personal, social, and political.
Katie, as I mentioned in the email to Vicki and the VFF team, I'm uncomfortable with the word "liberal." That doesn't mean that I'd like it banned from VFF (ha, ha). I guess it's just me confessing in the hyperpolarized culture we live, words become "labels" rather than clear windows to deeper meanings and understandings.
Stuck in my own world of "labels," your definition of "liberal" includes the notion of "free enterprise." What does that mean, exactly? I have to confess that the only context I've ever seen the term used is a capitalist shouting "free enterprise!" Or in a politician's speech; a politician, by the way, who is paid for by the Capitalist. I'm searching for a deeper meaning. Is there?
I do believe in capitalist markets with limited government intervention, that said there are regulations that are absolutely vital. I don't want people cutting corners in making drugs or processing food. There are, as in all things, times where the government goes too far. The current administration seems to be a model of government excess on every level from their immigration policies, to the very existance of the Department of Homeland security, to making indiscriminate cuts to government spending. It's funny because it seems that the Republican party usually runs on a platform of individual freedom and lack of government intervention, but now we have a bunch of hucksters in the cabinet that seem to be bent upon telling us exactly how we can live our lives. Perhaps the most stunning example of governmental chicanery in recent history was Ohio's abortion referendum. When it looked like the measure was going to pass the legislature made a mode to require a supermajority, which they knew it couldn't pass. They failed, and the measure passed by a sizable majority (56%) that clearly illustrated that the legislative representative in Ohio were clearly attempting to prevent the will of the people. Too often I see politicians of both stripes who want to call the shots, not represent the people. We are currently having some major problems with this in my small town in Massachusetts. I don't have any great answers, and right now I am just watching this criminal conspiracy (because this certainly isn't a Presidential Administration), with fear that we may not undo the damage they are doing in my lifetime.
Replied to you both below
I too believe in regulated capitalist markets if we are living in a capitalist society, which we are. I also think that "limited government" is a good idea; HOW MUCH limited, we might disagree on. I don't yearn for the overthrow of all capitalist markets, but I wouldn't be opposed to the peaceful withering away of those capitalist markets. Can I be a "liberal" and a "socialist," too? I don't know. :)
I think we would be pretty close on how limited. I believe in tighter gun laws, and I believe there are some business regulations that stifle progress. Obviously, all things are a matter of degree. That is where the labels become somewhat less useful. The other thing, I think, that has happened is that labels are usually used as pejorative for a third party. A similar thing was true years ago when the enneagram became popular. Meant as a tool for introspection, self examination, and self improvement, it quickly became a tool to analyze others, and label them. That, isn't terribly useful. I think we need more, and smaller, engagement on specific issues, and we need to talk to one another. Right now there is too much that is assumed to be "known" about those of a differing label, and what they believe. Often partisans level broad claims about their opponents without listening to the opposing side. Will Rogers would weep.
Replied to you both below