STOCKHOLM SYNDROME AND THE ECLIPSE OF COMPASSIONATE LIBERALISM

Let’s acknowledge reality: Talk radio is the province of American neo-conservatism. Even as an intrepid liberal, I believe that we should surrender that genre to them, not try to one-up them. Sometimes surrender is not surrender but a redeployment of ones best resources.

I listen to way too much talk radio. I justify my fascination by calling it “background noise” or “stylistically engaging.” I listen to the callers out of morbid curiosity, to hear what angry white men have to say in their delusions of disenfranchisement.

Naturally, I tend to overreact. Hearing talk radio and the rabble it rouses sometimes flummoxes me into believing that a reactionary, mean-spirited mindset dominates the American agenda. Then I return to reality and remind myself that talk radio is just another genre, one that is owned by a lowbrow, belligerent brand of conservatism, its overall influence questionable.

Liberals would be wise to realize that talk radio cannot and should not be the genre of their message. In the ideal, liberalism should be the antithesis of mainline talk radio’s cynicism, holier-than-thou-ism, black-and-white-ism, and shut-up-or-I’ll-cut-you-off-ism.

“In the ideal” is the pivotal phrase. I grew up on a liberalism that was hallmarked by its idealism, not by its belligerence, narrow-mindedness, and my-way-or-highway mentality. To the extent that contemporary liberalism has sold out to that kind of misanthropy, it has defamed its own legacy and been blinded by the Stockholm Syndrome – becoming like its captors instead of liberating itself from them. In the ideal, liberals do not see enemies as enemies. They do not resort to their enemies’ tactics in trying to transcend them. Hence, the fallacy of “liberal talk radio."

That prospect is a microcosm of liberalism’s descent into deservedly ugly disrepute. The images of liberalism that I venerate are of dignity, compassion, circumspection, honorable speech, openness, respect for ones opponents. They are images of JFK, Dr. King, Adlai Stevenson, Eleanor Roosevelt, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The bellicosity of James Carville and Al Sharpton betrays the virtues of classical liberalism. Likewise the sloth and boorishness of Michael Moore and the surly inarticulateness of Sean Penn. Al Franken is a terrific standup satirist. Trying to transform the same talents into substantive political commentary reduces his punchlines to little more than ill-tempered cheap shots. I am no great fan of Ronald Reagan. But, the demeaning treatment he is receiving from high-profile liberals in his debilitated state is not merely salacious. It desecrates the liberal virtues of compassion and respect, not derision, for the helpless soul.

We snicker at George Bush’s vaunted embrace of “compassionate conservatism.” The mission of today’s liberals must be to regain the defining genre of “compassionate liberalism.” The mandate is not to imitate our detractors but to rise above them. I have good faith that when the American public again hears the compassionate, visionary message of genuine liberalism, it, too, will reject mean-spiritedness and eagerly embrace the liberal values that we hold most dear.

So, feel free to call me a bleeding-heart liberal. I am not offended, but delighted by the genre. I would rather have a heart that bleeds for the poor and oppressed than a heart that is made of stone.