What Is A Liberal? Part I: Andrew Sullivan, Forbes, and Sarah Palin

This story is a few days old, but Forbes has put out their list of the 25 most influential liberals in the U.S. media. Now, this list has become quite controversial, and frankly, I find the premise problematic, starting with their definition of a liberal. The Forbes article defines a liberal thusly:

Broadly, a "liberal' subscribes to some or all of the following: progressive income taxation; universal health care of some kind; opposition to the war in Iraq, and a certain queasiness about the war on terror; an instinctive preference for international diplomacy; the right to gay marriage; a woman's right to an abortion; environmentalism in some Kyoto Protocol-friendly form; and a rejection of the McCain-Palin ticket.

Well, I really don't need to explain what's wrong with that description, do I? Surely various self-identified liberals would meet some of the characteristics, but last I checked, liberalism, both the classical and modern variants, is rooted in deeper soil than that.

First off, I, and I'm not alone in this, support the war in Iraq, and have no queasiness about the war on terror. Unwavering support for the fight for civilization against barbarism, is hardly incompatible with liberalism, and frankly, I support the GWOT because I'm a liberal. If by queasiness, they mean disagreements with certain Bush policies, then I guess they're onto something, but I suspect it's not just liberals that are. Getting to the larger point, based on their clunky and limited definition of liberal, certain people are named, such as Paul Krugman, Glenn Greenwald, Kos, Christopher Hitchens, Oprah, and Andrew Sullivan.

The choice of Sullivan bothered me, because while the argument for Sullivan as a liberal is not a new one made by the Right, it's still based on the same flimsy reasoning. If you read the description, the comments on Althouse, and if you pay attention to the general feeling of a lot of righty types, the general argument is that Sully is a liberal because he supported Obama (admittedly to the point of hero worship), supports gay marriage, has sharply criticized Bush (on torture, etc), and opposed Sarah Palin. Now, one can have varying opinions on the rightness or wrongness of these choices, but none of these facts makes Sullivan a liberal. Consider his own retort, as he defends his conservative cred:

For the record, I support a flat tax and, as my liberal readers know, find progressive taxation unjust and counter-productive; I'm skeptical of universal healthcare on European lines and have long defended a free market in healthcare and pharmaceuticals; I have no queasiness in fighting a war against Jihadist terror - in fact I have long been one of the most passionate supporters of it.

He continues:

I am skeptical of cap-and-trade and Kyoto-style approaches to climate change and favor a much higher tax on gas, balanced by a cut in payroll tax, to help innovate new energy sources. Not many liberals, I wager to say, endorsed Ron Paul for president for the GOP in the primaries. Not many liberals, I dare to say, have written books on conservatism which rest on a reading of key conservative thinkers such as Burke and Oakeshott and Montaigne and Hobbes. And the conservatism I adhere to, as any reader can tell, has remained very constant for twenty years. There is very little shift in tone or argument from my first book, "Intimations Pursued," to my last, "The Conservative Soul." It spans twenty years.

I'm a liberal, so it's not really up to me to validate Sullivan's conservative bona fides, but he does have a point. Opposing torture doesn't make you a liberal. Voting for Obama doesn't make you a liberal. Obama's not a conservative, so it's kind of understandable for conservatives to be startled at a conservative vote for Obama, but a lot of self-avowed conservatives voted for Obama for a variety of reasons. Many Democrats voted for Bush.

Opposing Bush's policies doesn't neccessarily make you a liberal. Conservatives of all stripes have opposed Bush on many issues, including gay marriage, and the Bush tax cuts. Sullivan supported those tax cuts, BTW. Turning against the war in Iraq doesn't make you a liberal, just as supporting the war doesn't make you a conservative.

Much has been made of Sullivan's attacks on Palin. My opinion of Palin has diminished quite a bit over the past few months, but I'll cede that he went too far a few times. However, opposing Sarah Palin doesn't make you a liberal, as high-profile conservatives have voiced opposition to her candidacy. I mean, David Frum hasn't lost his conservative cred, has he?

In fact, I'm not defending Andrew Sullivan-- I often find him worth reading, but his praise for Obama, and I say this as a proud Obama supporter--reached disquieting levels of hero worship. His obsession with Prop. 8 vexed me, as do his insane rants against Rick Warren. His use of the perjorative "Christianist," induces eye-rolling, my issues with the religious right notwithstanding. Considering the comments, many seem to think the he is a liberal, and not a conservative, simply because he's a jerk. Again, I'm not defending his faults, as I frankly think he has a tendency to display the instincts of an hysterical douchebag, which his endorsement of this vile anti-Hillary clip will attest, but being a douchebag doesn't make you a liberal. Or a conservative, for that matter.

So, what's the big deal, you ask? As the title attests, this is just the first part of my essay, but I just think words mean something, and governing principles mean something. Entry into the liberal camp ought to cost more than opposing Bush, or the Iraq war. Liberalism means more than that. Just sayin.'

More to come...