Democrats have returned the term 'Liberal' to the political lexicon. Long live the 'L'.

The L word is back! No, I don’t mean the Showtime program of that name. I don’t even mean the “L word” that the program revolves around (for the uninitiated, it’s Lesbians.) I’m talking about a word that has gone undercover for a long, long time: Liberal.

With the re-election of Barack Obama, the passage of marriage equality in Maine, Maryland, and Washington; the legalization of medical marijuana in Connecticut and Massachusetts; the legalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana in Colorado and Washington; a record number of women elected to the House and Senate; the election of the first openly gay Senator, Tammy Baldwin; and the announcement by Nancy Pelosi that she intends to remain House Democratic Leader, the word 'liberal' has suddenly reappeared in force.

And the best news? The people using it are liberals themselves. They're finally reclaiming a label that they’ve run from the past two decades or so because Republicans did such a good job of rebranding liberalism as socialism.

You’ve got to hand it to Republican strategists—until now they’ve kicked Democrats’ butts in the language arena. This mastery of the game of Linguistics started with calling people who are anti-abortion “pro-life”, a truly clever maneuver. It simultaneously presented anti-abortionists as morally superior (they love life!) and people in favor of abortion rights as morally degenerate (they’re against life!). Note how the Democrats’ rejoinder—the term “pro-choice”—never really undid the damage that was already done.

In the months leading up to the 2008 election, the Democrats showed that they’ve got game, coining the phrase “War on Women” to describe some Republicans’ reactionary attitudes about abortion, access to contraception, equal pay for equal work, and other women’s issues. The phrase had staying power. And it stuck to Mitt Romney and some other Republican candidates, helping to end their bid for office.

And now Democrats have returned the term 'Liberal' to the political lexicon.

It was uttered by the Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher”; it’s in the headline of an article by Michael Tomasky on The Daily Beast, “Liberals: Hold Your Fire”; it’s used repeatedly by Al Sharpton on his show PoliticsNation on MSNBC; and it has appeared in headline after headline on Salon: “Liberals Have Won Nothing,” “Liberals: Don’t Let Us Down,” “Liberals Need Nancy [Pelosi],” and many more.

And then, if that weren’t proof enough, the liberal media started reflecting on the liberal media’s use of the word Liberal.

Chris Matthews, the love-him-or-hate-him host of MSNBC’s Hardball, devoted a segment to this phenomenon on 14 November. The teaser was: “Democrats running as liberals!” And Matthews started off the segment by saying that candidates no longer have to call themselves “moderate”. He continued, “You can say you’re a liberal now, and you can win.”

One of his guests, Susan Mulligan from U.S. News and World Report, agreed, saying, “The Democrats are coming home. The Democrats actually got back to the core principles that defined them as a Democratic party.” And she pointed to the speeches at the Democratic National Convention by Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts, Bill Clinton (who, ironically, may have been one of the first to shed the liberal mantle in favor of a more electable centrism), and Julian Castro, Mayor of San Antonio, as proof.

I believe those speeches are what made the convention such an energizing, exhilarating event—not just because of the superstars who delivered them or their soaring talent as orators—but because they were about traditional liberal values like fairness and equality and caring for those who need a helping hand (hey -- isn't that pro-life?). Liberalism was no longer in hiding; it was out in the open and the crowd loved it.

So, forget about 'moderate'. Forget about 'progressive'. 'Liberal' is back. Let's hope it’s here to stay.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.