Bruner Blog

For a while now, I’ve been fishing for what is the label to call myself politically these days. I’d always been a “classic liberal,” though for a long time I’ve been fairly disaffected with politics. Clinton disappointed me big time, basically because I think he lacked big picture vision. He presided over the end of the Cold War, an epic moment in history, and what did he do with that historic opportunity to reshape international politics? Besides the world’s most famous blow job, what is “The Clinton Legacy”? Zilch. Likewise, none of the rest of the Democrats since have excited me much either, though I certainly prefer any of them to the jackass we have now in power.

While I don’t like all aspects of the Pax American plan that the neocons have put forward for reshaping the international landscape in the post-Cold War, post-9/11 era, I do respect that they have a plan. For a while, I’ve been half-heartedly calling myself a “neolib,” in that I feel like a liberal who’s waiting for “The New Plan” to emerge, but sadly, I’m waiting in vain.

I do know, however, that I’m not alone in this position: hawkish liberals who are fed up with toing the Left’s standard party line, which just seems out of step with the new reality of the world. As I’ve mentioned before (see link above), I see public commentators like Paul Berman, Thomas Friedman and Christopher Hitchens likewise stepping away from the standard liberal playbook, and I can count several of my friends who have similar feelings.

It struck me in the shower just now that what I feel is the most apt label for myself at this point is “liberalterian.” I see on Google that I’m not the first to coin the phrase, of course, but not many before me have used it. Another measure of its surprising originality is that all versions of it are presently unregistered as a web domain, though I have no particular interest in registering it myself.

I’m running out the door, so I don’t have time to elaborate on exactly what I mean by the term, but I would hope it’s relatively self-explanitory. I feel like a liberal-cum-libertarian. On many issues, where the classic liberal line would call for greater government intervention — trade, prostitution, healthcare, education — I lean more towards a laissez-faire attitude. With healthcare, for example, yes, I’d like to see some better baseline of support for those with no coverage, but at the same time, I think it is critical that we preserve the right for those who can afford to pay to be able to get the best coverage possible. Moreover, I want my tax dollars going to investing every ounce of medical might to preserve the last months of life of someone who took no personal responsibility for their health during the balance of their lives. I could see, for example, a health plan that give a baseline of support to everyone, but you lose credits if you partake in self-defeating habits like smoking, driving without a seatbelt, having unprotected sex, eating gluttonously, and so forth.

You get the idea, or at least I hope you do. I’m running out the door, so that’s all I got for now, but I wonder if anyone else thinks this is a term with legs. I’d be happy to take credit for the next “metrosexual” and, moreover, hasty articulation of a new political identity that should help the Left find its sense of direction and priorities again.

No tags for this post

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 11th, 2004 at 6:58 am and is filed under aa-home. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.