Liberal is derived from liber, which can literally be defined as the state or quality of being free. In the dust jacket of Ms. Coulter's new book it says, "Liberals loyalty to the United States is off-limits as a subject of political debate." Really? Since when? Does she suggest that being a liberal is tantamount to being disloyal to the United States? Those are fighting words; words that make one want to dump a truckload of tea in her stinky harbor.
Ms. Coulter's new book is titled, Guilty - Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America. Why she places "Guilty" in front of "Liberal" or why "Victims" follows "Liberal" I don't know. But there you have it, straight from the Coulter's mouth.
I call myself a liberal and I am very proud to embrace the ideals of liberalism and the freedoms they impart. So, I am happily and patriotically guilty of being a liberal. I proudly place my hand over my heart and pledge my allegiance to the flag. When I arrive at the last sentence, it gives me pause to reflect on the lives lost in the pursuit of liberty and justice for all.
I assume, not having read her book, that Ms. Coulter is implying that liberals feel victimized. By whom I wonder? By conservatives? I don't think so. I am not the victim of conservatives or their lifestyles. I may not agree with some conservatives or their lifestyles, but they do not victimize me. Sometimes I do feel sorrow for them. Liberals are, generally, very forgiving of individuals or groups that are not progressive thinkers or innovators. I appreciate how conservatives hold onto traditions and I believe that it is important to balance my liberalism with a small dose of conservatism. But I use it like salt, lightly, and with full understanding of the dangers to my health should I sprinkle it too heavily.
It's hard to imagine our modern world without the sacrifice of those liberal thinkers that paved the way of modern democracy. Imagine our societies without the abolition of slavery, secular government, child labor laws, trial by jury, or the Bill of Rights? Could Ms. Coulter be so loud and expressive without our freedom of expression and freedom of speech?
American soldiers are presently fighting for, amongst other things, the protection of the liberties we enjoy. The sooner liberated Afghan and Iraqi citizens appreciate and embrace the ideals of liberty and democracy the safer the whole world will be. Many people in those regions would prefer to hold onto their histories, refusing to embrace progressive thought. Much like so many conservatives around the globe and in America. American soldiers are not fighting "bad guys" so much as they are fighting an archaic government and theology. Let me ask you, isn't our current conflict a war against a "conservative" way of life. Conservative by definition is, support of established institutions or tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions. So we "Liberated" the Iraqi people from their "Conservative" government. Sounds like a good idea, but in my opinion revolutions should always start from within a country. Not something foreigners should try to impose, lest you find yourself fighting a war on two fronts. One against the oppressor, and a second against the people you are 'liberating."
Perhaps Ms. Coulter is just a poop stirrer. Her outbursts and loud declarations are just a way of attracting attention, like a child throwing a temper tantrum. Actors make their living playing outrageous characters so I know a little about this kind of behavior. Ms. Coulter is an interesting character and nothing to take too seriously. If you squint your eyes, just so, she can be rather entertaining. Like an old, opinionated relative that barks about the good old days. Maybe Ms. Coulter is just an old lady at heart.
Follow Matthew Modine on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MatthewModine