Column for Oct. 4, 2007

So call me liberal…no, not that kind.

There are great mysteries of the universe that I still do not comprehend. The safety label on a curling iron that reads "For external use only!" is one such mystery. I don't understand the need for such a label, and will never comprehend the sort of person who needs that warning. Sometimes people must do stupid things and need the obvious stated to them.

One such mystery I ponder is the use of the term "liberal" by liberals. The various definitions of the term liberal can actually be quite diverse, even contradictory. As an adjective, liberal refers to "of or befitting a man of free birth". That is my definition of liberal, and in my estimation, the classic definition of liberal. As a noun, a liberal should be one who thinks, promotes, and exercises liberty.

Liberals can also be said to be those who adhere to the political thought of liberalism. Liberalism according to one definition by Merriam-Webster, is "a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity". The modern liberalism in today's America is far from that definition.

Another definition is actually a paradox in itself. Merriam Webster's dictionary also defines liberalism as "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties". The definition I gave pertaining to spiritual and ethical content does not pertain, for the most part, to what are today considered civil liberties. Unfortunately, what have become known as "civil liberties" are nothing more than excuses for sin and bondage. The Christian definition previously quoted also does not inherently believe in the goodness of the human race. It is quite the opposite, actually, hence the need for Christ in Christianity.

Just Monday I heard Gubernatorial Candidate Beverly Perdue espouse the desire for the expansion of Medicaid to include any and all people who are allegedly too poor to afford medical coverage. Doing so will cause the rest of the state's taxpayers to shell out for their medical coverage. I pay for my coverage. I have the liberty to elect to take the coverage or not. Nobody is forced to pay for my medical costs. Millions of people have and exercise the same choice. That is liberty.

Forcing people to pay for the medical costs of others may come under another definition of liberal, "given or provided in a generous and openhanded way". Unfortunately, the generosity is at the expense of others who are forced to pay for the generosity of some politicians. Money is extracted by force from the citizenry to pay for the things that other citizens work to obtain. This is inherently antithetical to the concept of liberty.

In Christianity, we are told that "the poor you will have with you always". We are also told to be generous as people and as a Body. According to the definitions shown herein, we are supposed to have ethics, be generous, and promote liberty. Where is any of that in a government doing it forcibly for us? Why is this the case? For one, we as a nation of Christian people have abrogated the responsibility of liberal generosity to a worldly government. Another reason is the paradox I described. The human race is not inherently good, it is inherently corrupt.

It is precisely because of that corruption that people do not take personal responsibility for their own personal welfare and that of their families. It is because of that corruption that those in power use that same power to take money from people by force and give it to others. It is that exercise of power that enslaves the recipients and fosters the loyalty of the enslaved to keep those who gave unto them in power to perpetuate the cycle.

Given the definitions of liberal and the current status of what is considered liberalism, why would anyone ever vote for someone that displays those ethics? Those who believe that people are basically good and the government should step in to help all people at all times at the expense of the liberty of others are just plain enemies of freedom, progress, and ethics. I much prefer the classic definition of liberal and choose to be one; someone who thinks, promotes, and exercises liberty.