Letters – Daily Lobo – Opinion

Political arguments need more than just the facts

Editor,

The column by Andrew Price, “The true meaning of ‘liberal,'” in Tuesday’s Daily Lobo provides a good lesson to all of us at UNM on the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

Price has apparently done his homework. Apparently, the word described a set of political beliefs that at that time in history were more in line with what we would call “libertarianism” today: Free markets, limited government, etc.
I applaud that academic rigor, but that’s where knowledge without the benefit of wisdom leaves us without anything of worth.

Price says today’s liberals, or “modern liberals,” are “more accurately described as ‘welfare liberals,’ who don’t believe the average person is capable of conducting his or her life.” He further states that “bureaucrats” – the word the right loves to use to degrade our fellow Americans who work in the government – should “make all the decisions and dole out the rights and freedoms as they see fit.”

I wonder if Price has spent time with anyone who identifies himself or herself as a “liberal,” because if he had, he wouldn’t have missed the mark so widely.

While I think labels such as “liberal” and “conservative” have been rendered mostly useless by the complexity of the political landscape in America, I’ll accept that label as indicative of my own beliefs: Appropriate governmental control over profit-motivated industry, environmental protections and health and welfare “safety nets” for those of us in need.

In all of my relationships with other “liberals,” I have never heard anyone express the thought that the average person isn’t capable of conducting his or her life. Where did that come from?

Liberals feel that due to circumstances beyond their control, some among us need help. I know that’s beyond the understanding of those on the right, who feel there are always jobs for everyone who wants one and bootstraps to pull oneself up by.

And the part about doling out rights and freedoms as they see fit? I love saddling liberals with that charge when today we live under a conservative regime that thinks it can dictate the appropriate level of rights over one’s body, the right to choose when not to extend life artificially and which people are appropriate marriage partners.

Price also takes on the Democrats and their opposition to the privatization of a portion of Social Security, saying former President Clinton was in favor of such a plan. That may be true, but since that time we’ve witnessed an unprecedented rise in corporate crime, the kind that can, and did, reduce some people’s life savings to a pittance.

Surely you remember the Enron scandal? These are the people we should trust with our retirement money? Surely you jest.
Price then embarks on teaching us a lesson on representative government and how the filibuster is a threat to it. This method of allowing a measure of control to the minority has been a part of our government since around the time the word liberal had its old meaning in the 1800s. In fact, the filibuster was used during the Clinton administration by right-wing senators to defeat gun-control laws.

Wise up there, Price. Your arguments sound more like a “Best of Rush” show than an intelligent argument.

John Steiner
UNM staff