Dreaming of Life As a Liberal

In my more pensive moments (and believe me, there aren't many of them), I sometimes ask myself: what would my life at Harvard have been like had I been liberal? How much different would things really be? And so I engage in the occasional thought experiment, imagining myself in the tattered shoes and ripped jeans of a liberal. The results have been quite interesting.

At first I thought it would be a wonderful life. My views would be affirmed at every corner. Professors and teaching fellows would smile upon my eloquently-voiced liberal ideas. I would have fireside chats in my Adams or Dunster House suite, where my liberal friends and I would engage in pleasure-filled hours of ideological mutual masturbation.

"I believe in the welfare state, hmm yeah..."

"Oh, yes, oooh aaah, I believe in the welfare state! And touch me there again, if you would be so kind..."

Being liberal would also change my life as an editorialist. My ideas would be breathtakingly original. I can already imagine the titles of the controversial, ground-breaking editorials that would provoke heated discussion throughout the College.

"A Defense of Abortion." (With thanks to J.J.Thomson.)

"Three Cheers for Feminism!"

"Gay Rights: A Pretty Good Thing."

I wouldn't necessarily have to write for The Crimson though. I could write for Perspective, and spend my time not only preaching but also door dropping to the converted. (I would give anything for the title "Salmagundi Editor.")

But then I stop and ask myself more questions. Maybe being a liberal at Harvard isn't all it's cracked up to be. Would I be able to handle the boredom of being "just another Harvard liberal?" Or the anonymity associated with being just a statistic, one out of several thousand registered Democrats?

Even if you distinguish yourself as an outspoken and eloquent campus liberal, you're still just another bleeding heart. The only difference is that you bleed particularly well.

One of the drawbacks to being a member of the Left at Harvard is the apathy that plagues the entire liberal establishment. This apathy is undeniable: liberals themselves admit there is a big problem. In the most recent issue of Perspective Adam T. Conway '97 does an admirable job of exposing the apathy that strikes at the heart of Harvard's liberal community. As he reports, many major liberal groups and movements have experienced severe problems in galvanizing their membership.

Conway cites numerous examples: the low turnout at the Ethnic Studies teach-in and this year's Take Back the Night rally; the decline in Students for Choice membership from 80 to six; Amnesty International's active membership of five people.

At last year's elections for the College Democrats--a group that used to be a driving force for liberal activism on campus--20 people showed up (half of them were running for offices). One candidate summed up the situation in this way: "Look around this room. This turnout is pathetic."

This crippling apathy comes in part from the lack of a mission. Indeed, the goals of liberals at Harvard have been met. What more can the liberal community here do? Try and win the masthead of Peninsula over to liberalism?

Simply being in the majority does not necessarily mean liberals must be apathetic. If they had some ultimate goal or higher good to be struggling toward, they might manage to still be active and vital--despite their near-total triumph on this delightful campus.

The Left at Harvard has no broad, overarching philosophy. They suffer from the same problem President Bill Clinton suffers from: they lack "the vision thing." Although these words have evolved into something of a bad joke, they signify the need for a political movement to have some compelling explanation that ties together the important issues it seeks to address.

It is this coherent account which the Left at Harvard seriously lacks. The various liberal groups at Harvard all work towards their individual goals, ignoring the concerns of their liberal brethren. Although his argument as a whole was flawed, William Tate Dougherty '94 was correct when he observed in a Crimson editorial ("Fighting Apathy," opinion, Feb. 2, 1994), that liberal groups at Harvard have not been there for each other.

What is the solution for liberals? To work together and cooperate in areas of shared concern? Unfortunately for them, these goals are easier said then done, because they lack the foundation of a basic shared ideology.

Some liberals might argue: "We do have a common foundation. It's our commitment to the disenfranchised, the marginalized, etc. "But the self-evident idea, "Oppression is bad," is no solid foundation on which to build a movement. Given such a mission, many problems and doubts remain.

What do you when marginalized groups come into conflict with each other? How do you prioritize your struggles when your movement is based on radical equality and radical relativism, with no higher goal? How can you speak of standing up for the disenfranchised when you advocate the murder of 1.5 million babies each year? Being a liberal, when faced with such dilemmas, contradictions and widespread apathy, might not be so great after all.

When determining one's political views, the most important consideration is being true to one's core values. But other factors should also come into play. The message I have for the politically unsure, the fence-sitters, the people who can see themselves as conservatives, is this: Being conservative is a lot more fun.