On the definition of "liberal"
When the city of NYC rehoused almost 300 homeless men from the Bowery in NYC to the Upper West Side, journalist, David E. Smith wrote that it became "a flashpoint and a test of values for the Upper West Side — a neighborhood with a reputation as one of the most liberal enclaves in New York and in the entire country."
Perhaps without realizing it, Smith tapped into the ideological primordial soup, from which all political labels emerge, including the current and confusing stratification of the American Left.
The term liberal, which Smith uses so flippantly, is defined by Oxford Languages as "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.”
Is it liberal to, as Smith reports, cross the street when you see someone of a different demographic in your neighborhood? Is it liberal to be "[taken] by surprise," rather than happy that 300 people are now housed when they previously weren't because it inconveniences you and your neighborhood? Is it liberal to stop patronizing restaurants next to these hotels due to fear? And is it liberal that residents are blaming homeless people for the degradation of their neighborhood when they are a product of systemic oppression and racism (Black Americans make up 40 percent of the homeless population compared with just 13.4 percent of the country at large)?
The answer is no. What is liberal, in the context of modern 21st century Civil Rights, is to acknowledge systemic homelessness and how it is a direct result of systemic racism and corporate oligarchy, not blame the victims.
Designed by Jordan Shapiro
Now, back to the primordial soup.
This "liberal" stratification emerged most prominently in 2016 when Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) decided to run for the Democratic Presidential nomination. His platform of fundamental human rights for every American, at the time, seemed revolutionary. It was a niche narrative vehemently undermined by the NYTimes and much of the mainstream media establishment. At the time, though frustrating for his supporters, it isn't so hard to believe that the Democratic Party wouldn't welcome Senator Sanders' progressive platform, as he had never been a Democrat despite caucusing with them.
Fast forward to 2019 and 2020, when the blue wave swept progressive representatives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) into Washington, DC. They won on the very platforms that Senator Sanders championed for decades to, continued, general disdain from the Democrats. In fact, despite the overwhelming mandate to govern by their districts given to these freshmen Congresspeople, Democratic leadership, such as Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has publicly undermined their platforms and openly feuded with them, solely for wanting to bring high levels of competency, transparency, and human-rights-focused advocacy into the so-called liberal party.
But that's not the whole story.
For the last four years, we have watched the Democratic party shore up its ideological platform toward "purple voters" or "moderates," often at the expense of competing calls for radical equality. Many progressive ideas have become more mainstream. In 2015 Medicare for All, which only 60 percent of Democrats believed in, is now supported by 87 percent of Democrats. It remains, however, the subject of ridicule by the Democratic establishment.
Upon first reading that the Upper West Side is "one of the most liberal enclaves in New York and in the entire country," one can simply nod. The Upper West side's 700,000 residents are classified as 100 percent urban (a mark of a Democratic district) and have overwhelmingly voted in favor of sending Democrats to Congress since the mid-19th century. The neighborhood is 68 percent white, with a median income in the 91st percentile at $123,000 the 10th District of NY is most certainly one of the most Democratic districts in the country.
It is these very "liberals" that are holding up the fight for real justice.
I have lived in California for four years as of August 2020. California is home to the country's largest homeless population, although the state of New York has a higher amount of homelessness per-capita.
I have seen that every ballot initiative that attempts to support the most vulnerable in society at every shift toward housing reform is soundly rejected. These liberals, some from Nancy Pelosi's own district, reject the progressive change. Farhad Manjoo, an opinion columnist for the NYTimes, says it perfectly in his piece about the livability of American cities:
"Not-in-my-backyardism is a bipartisan sentiment, but because the largest American cities are populated and run by Democrats — many in states under complete Democratic control — this sort of nakedly exclusionary urban restrictionism is a particular shame of the left."
And now, This isn't a critique just on Democrats in cities. However, Democrat leaders of American cities are on the front lines of opportunities to destroy the causes of racial oppression. In San Francisco and New York City, these problems are only becoming worse.
Who are the real liberals?
When I look at Democratic representatives' faces, I am proud that those who identify most acutely with my views are four women of color and a white man who has never swayed from the march toward justice.
The idea that all Democrats are allowed to accept the moniker of "liberal" simply because they are more liberal than the increasingly far-right colleagues across the isle, is not only semantically wrong, but is also an insult to everyone who is campaigning to outright give up their privilege so that others can have their basic needs met. We're not advocating for everyone to be given a four-bedroom house and a two-car garage, but that everyone in this country can be fed and housed and have the opportunity for upward mobility.
How can we do that when the makeup of our government favors seniority? Seventy-three percent of Congress is over 50. How can we do that when it costs, on average, 10 million dollars to run for Congress? Baby Boomers still hold almost 60 percent of all the wealth in America (Gen X is about 15 percent and millennials a paltry 3 percent).
As the competing political forces draw us back into the primordial soup of ideas, it's time to reckon with labels and understand what core values define liberals, progressives, Democrats, and the New Left. Liberal means a willingness to accept new ideas and recognize when traditionalism is holding us back and needs to be set aside.
If the Democrats want to self-label as being the party of progressives (as they did on the second night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention), they also need to embrace the more fundamental values of liberal thought.
Change is scary, but if we want to embrace liberalism at its core, we need to be open to change, and iteration and improvement on that change, especially when that change promotes diverse voices. Every shift matters because the march to an equal society isn't a destination; it's a journey.