The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Sen. Robert Kennedy, circa 1967.
Writing earlier this week on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, I stated, "The Vietnam War killed liberalism. Bobby (Kennedy) might have avoided that fate."
The comments on the column are superb, so go back and read them if you can. But Emil rightly called me out for such doing an intellectual Jackson Pollock with such a broad brush.
So let me clarify.
Today, most Americans don't even know what "liberalism" means in this context. For examples, right-wingers are all for "neo-liberalism" in the economy, but rush to the barricades at the whiff of liberalism in politics. Liberals themselves have moved to the century-old term "progressive."
JFK identified my liberalism well:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal."
But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."