Did you love Professor Bronski's class on the Feminine Mystique last spring? Enjoying the Masculine Mystique with Professor Travis now?
If you answered yes to these questions, then boy, have I got a class for you!
I'm proposing a new class to explore one of the greatest mysteries of the modern day. In order to do so, we'll be doing readings from The New York Times and the works of Michael Moore. Viewings of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and "Real Time with Bill Maher" will be required. Students will also have to watch Nickelodeon's new video with Spongebob, Winnie the Pooh and the Rugrats singing "We Are Family" as they pledge to be tolerant of everyone, regardless of color, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
The course will be called "The Liberal Mystique," and it will be offered at the 10A timeslot.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "liberal" as a political standing "favorable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy," a definition which, upon first viewing, wouldn't necessarily shock or dismay many.
Wait freedom and democracy? Funny, I thought the Republicans had a patent on those.
Ah, nevermind.
In the past few decades, the word "liberal" has taken on a new meaning. Say "conservative" on the floor of the U.S. Senate and you'll hear cooing. Mention the L-word and you'll get enough harrumphs to trump the disapproving guttural noises during President Bush's recent State of the Union address.
Worse yet, you might be on the receiving end of a few choice words from the Vice President.
Pollsters avoid using the word, claiming that it causes people to react to questions differently than if they simply asked about more specific policy issues.
In the 2004 election, calling Kerry "the most liberal man in the Senate" as many from the right did was a cut to the quick, and probably had a factor in costing him the White House.
So why is it that a word that used to be associated with freedom and democracy now causes most people to cringe?
In the past, liberals were abolitionists and civil rights advocates. Today, liberals in Congress work for greater equality and better opportunities for working people. They want to protect the environment.
What's so terrible about that?
What about abortion, you say? What about gun control and gay marriage and school prayer?
These have always been divisive issues and will continue to be as such as long as we have a government dominated by religiously influenced policymakers.
A mandate from heaven should ring bells with everyone -- not just the bleeding-heart liberals.
On the streets of New York, there are hundreds of crazy people who say that God speaks to them. Slap a suit on one of them, give him a couple million dollars and a membership to the Republican Party, and he's fit to be President?
What the country needs now is not a split between Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and (God forbid) liberals, but rather, one governing group of rational, clear-headed politicians, bent on making good, fair policy -- not upholding a moral Christian code.
