What’s so liberal about liberalism?

What’s so liberal about liberalism?

What liberal value will liberals cast aside next?

Last week it was religious freedom. Why was the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act championed by liberals in 1993 while Indiana’s was vilified — often by the same liberals — 22 years later?

Chuck Schumer’s protestations aside, the primary difference is who might seek protection under the law: peyote smokers versus pizzeria owners who believe in a definition of marriage that was almost universally held, as longtime gay marriage supporter Jonathan Rauch put it, “until practically the day before yesterday.”

This week it is the presumption of innocence, as Baghdad Bob-like progressive dead-enders grapple with the conclusive repudiation of Rolling Stone’s notorious, factually challenged University of Virginia rape story.

First prize in this genre goes to The New Republic’s Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig, who has performed the magazine’s finest acts of trolling since Stephen Glass went to hack heaven.

There’s enough wrong with the piece to crash Jukt Micronics, but the main problem is the trivialization of individual experiences in favor of the collective — especially little trivialities like individual guilt or innocence, which is presented as a fixation of the “rightwing” (sic) and “the reactionary peanut gallery.”

Continue reading →

For your convenience, you may leave commments below using either the Spot.IM commenting system or the Facebook commenting system. If Spot.IM is not appearing for you, please disable AdBlock to leave a comment.

Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.