Defining a "liberal"

Geoffrey R. Stone wrote a recent op-ed piece in the Chicago Tribune called, "What it means to be a liberal". In it he lists ten propositions which he believes define "liberalism" today, and by implication these propositions would not define conservatism.

Jonathan Cohen, writing in today's American Thinker gives us his take on Stone's propositions:

Frankly, it strikes me as a collection of personal opinions masquerading as a set of ten principles which he labels as liberalism. While he begins by lamenting that the word "liberal" has become a pejorative for many, his op-ed piece is a wonderful example of why this has come to pass.

All of his commentary is worth your attention, but I want to focus on this. Here is Stone's "proposition":

10. "Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants."

And here is Cohen's response:

Once again, the devil is in the details. Nobody advocates the illegal imprisoning of innocent people. As for differing views about government surveillance, I don't know if this is a liberal vs. Conservativeative issue so much as a gut level view of the particular threats we are facing. Certainly liberals have never protested the infiltration of the Klan or rushed into court to contest the wiretapping of militias and white hate groups. Nor do they see any threats to privacy in the distributions of the private and extremely personal emails and Instant messages of Congressman Foley.

On the other hand, if you want to find one single issue on which liberals have earned the distrust of their fellow citizens it is this. Liberals claim that our civil liberties are seriously threatened because the government is using warrant less wiretaps to eavesdrop on telephone conversations between American citizens and known al Qaeda operatives. Such priorities do no strike me as coming from people who are concerned with national security.

I agree with all of Mr. Cohen's points and would add this. Everyone who agrees with the founding principles of the American Republic affirms that American citizens should be free of unreasonable searches and surveillance. The issue is what constitutes "unreasonable".

I, and most conservatives, believe that it is "reasonable" to tap the telephones of any American citizen whose telephone number is found in the possession of a terrorist. The truth is that most liberals believe this as well. However they know that they can accuse Chimpy of wanting to "spy on Americans" and gain a few political points.

They know that the surveillance will go on whatever they say because the government is currently being run by adults (Republicans) who take the security of the nation seriously.