Why I am a liberal...

That may seem a strange title to a post by me. Before any of you start worrying that I have become a pod person and you need to come save me, let me explain. The definition of a liberal or conservative has changed from time to time over the years. Prior to FDR, a liberal had the following ideals:

-individual freedom
-limited government
-individual property rights
-natural rights (inherent in being a human being)
-the protection of civil liberties
-constitutional limitations on government
-free markets

Now in case you think I am just a walking encyclopedia, I am using resources such as Wikipedia and other online sites as reference material. With that disclaimer, let me get on with my explanation.

I believe that government was made to serve the people, but not to take away the ability of its citizens to act for themselves. A different way of saying this could be that the government is to protect us from outside hostile influences, not protect us from our own decisions. We should be free to act for ourselves, free to make choices in our lives, free to be all that we can be, or free to fail if our choices are bad ones. The only way we truly learn is by failing and then picking ourselves back up again. If at first you don't succeed, try and try again. Just like it took thousands of tries to come up with a reliable filament for the lightbulb, our path to success will be littered with the results of our failures. Is it bad to fail? As painful as it may be at the time, that is truly how we learn. If we don't learn the first time, then we have the chance to fail again, and again, and again until we get it right. Through the process of failure comes success. When we take away a persons right to fail, we also take away their right to succeed. You don't hear that every day, but if you think about it, I think you will find you agree.

Are there times in life where we need help to get through our situations? Absolutely. A few years ago, I found myself without a paying job, many financial obligations, and no real prospects for a paycheck. It was a dark time for me. With our savings dwindling away and no money coming in, I was faced with a difficult decision. Well, it wasn't really a decision per se, it was more of a dilemma. I needed to go to my church and ask for help financially. It was against everything I believed in to go and ask for money that I didn't earn. There was an element of shame and embarrasment that I had not felt before. I had failed in my responsibilities as a husband and father. It was a difficult meeting to say the least. They helped me, I later got a job, and now I give more than I did before because of the feeling of obligation I have. I was helped in a time of need, and now I can help others and I choose to do so.

I have thought about that experience often and I have wondered if I should have felt the way I did about taking that help. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the shame and embarasment are there for a reason. We should not feel comfortable taking from someone else the substance that they have worked for. It should be with great soul searching and agony that we make the decision to take from others what is rightfully theirs and that they have received as reward for their labors. That should only be taken when it is willfully given. What right do I have as someone in need to take forcefully that which has been legally and rightfully obtained by someone else. The only way that their substance should be given to me is if they willingly give it, and once it is given to me, I should feel the solemn obligation to spend that wisely.

We often talk of how we should help others in times of need. Unfortunately, the definition of liberalism has been twisted to now say that we are in need of a "benevolent dictator" to take forcefully from those that produce and give to those that do not. In doing this, we take away two very important concepts in our society: personal responsibility, and the joy of giving. There is a spiritual reward for giving, and I am not talking about some churchy thing. It is a natural law, with the benefits available to anyone. When we willingly help someone else, we help to make ourselves whole. I firmly believe that we have a mechanism built into us that when we are helping someone else, we are happier. If you are ever overwhelmed by the problems in your own life, see what happens when you willingly and lovingly forget yourself for a minute and help someone else. You will see what I mean very quickly.

The second part of that is the personal responsibility. We are all responsible for our own well being (well, we should be at least). Unfortunately, we have decided that the role of government is to save people from their mistakes. That could not be further from the truth. If it is true that we have inherent rights endowed upon us by our creator, and that those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then how can we justify the current attitudes towards the role of government? I especially like the way they phrased this. The concepts of life and liberty cannot be taken away. By our choices, we may lose either of those, through recklessness or disdain for the law. The last concept is the pursuit of happiness. We are not guaranteed happiness, it is not a right. Through our decisions and the attitudes we have, we may be happy and we may not be. Some may think that to be happy means to have a yacht and 3 vacation homes and a house with 8 bathrooms (in my case, having to clean 8 bathrooms puts a big damper on that for me). If this is your desire, you are free to pursue that dream. Others may think that happiness is a small cabin on a lake with no contact with the outside world. If you can do it, go for it. Nowhere in any of the founding documents of our country does it mention our right to happiness. There is a reason for that. Nobody but yourself can decide whether you are happy or not. If I were to give you everything you ever wanted, that would still not guarantee your happiness. Happiness is a state of mind, not a tangible thing. I have know truly happy people that have none of the things that you or I think are necessary for happiness. I have know truly unhappy people who seem to have everything you could ever want. What is the difference? The difference is their attitude.

So, now we have come down to what I think the difference between a classic liberal and a liberal (or progressive) is. Attitude. I believe that a classic liberal looks at the world as full of opportunity and possibility. We can achieve anything our heart desires as long as we don't have government interfering in it. A progressive believes that the world is full of inequities and the only way to make things fair for everyone is to have the government level the playing field. It is the old cup half empty/half full argument. Are there inequities in the world? Absolutely. Are there injustices? Are there people who have more challenges than others because of their color, religion, sex, or because they are not as good looking as someone else? Surely. Is it the job of government to "level the playing field" by mandating equal results for all? No way. It is the role of government to protect our freedom. Our freedom to thrive, our freedom to fail. The government should protect our land by sticking to the concepts of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We should not let anyone take those freedoms away, whether it be foreign foe or our own government. The role of government is to protect our borders so that we can have the freedom to follow our dreams.

OK, that is a really long post. It appears that you will rarely get a short one from me, no matter how hard I try. I now have to go to work so I can continue to pursue what I think will make me happy...