Mainstream Liberalism Marginalizes Other Voices

by Lena Sze

Paternal white liberalism can be very patronizing. "Mainstream" or "traditional" liberalism, as represented so often in the history of this nation, has shown itself to be an overwhelmingly white, mostly male movement. The extraordinary under-representation of people of color and women occupying positions of power in "progressive" circles such as national journals and magazines has led to a monopoly on the "progressive" ideology. Because no movement that purports to be democratic should be dominated by just a few, liberalism in the United States definitely should not stifle the voices that challenge it.

Someone once told me about a conversation she had with a very progressive, white male. Even though he was obviously a liberal, their discussion made her feel bitter and frustrated, for it seemed as if his theories were pure academic exercise, his sympathetic remarks honed from a safe upbringing by parents who were there to teach him about liberal "etiquette," and his reactions responses that were never experienced in the heat of awful, soul-searing moments of racism, sexism, or classism.

As a woman of color who cares about gender, race, and class issues, I empathized with my friend. She was verbalizing something I had so often felt and could not describe, least of all to white liberals who so often seem well-meaning and sensitive to the topic of openness within liberalism. It stays at the back of my throat as I wonder if I, the only nonwhite progressive in a group of progressives, am the only person ever to have felt this way.

It is a difficult issue to address and often glossed over in the media. The picture of so-called liberalism is a very deceptive one, for white males who may not be liberals at all (as is the case with Clinton) are often bringing together people of different colors and genders and sexual orientations for photo opportunities. If you didn't know any better, this depiction seems to suggest a veritable rainbow coalition in the utopia that is liberal-land - not so.

There are countless examples of liberalism simply not making the grade in terms of trying to reconcile its theory with the reality of peoples' experience, or in terms of letting in provocative voices. This refusal to bend and live up to the diversity it tries so hard to promote can be seen in international, national, and local politics.

In international politics, Hong Kong's handover from Britain back to China this summer is an illuminating case. As portrayed by the media, there were two sides to the surrounding debate. On one hand, there were liberals, frightened at the prospect of diminished or abolished rights and freedoms and an increase in human rights abuses by China in Hong Kong, who rallied quite strongly against the transfer. These liberals discounted the horror of imperialism and colonialism and how Britain first obtained the island (through a war in which the Brits assertively sought to make Chinese men and women into addicts of opium). Other liberals, though few and dwindling, argued that Hong Kong's return to Chinese control was a good thing because it was a booty of war and a piece of the horribly embarrassing colonial past. To them, Communism would do the people of Hong Kong no harm. On the other hand, conservatives seemed either to act indignant about how they, as modern men and women, would have nothing to do with Britain's "dirty" past, or they encouraged the handover and looked to please the Chinese government in hope of wooing them into doing more business. Either position, taken by conservative and, unfortunately, by liberals as well, left the ordinary person from Hong Kong or China in the cold or the dark. There was no room for a grey area in the debate for the people directly affected by the handover to voice their opinions and feelings as certainly there should have been. Liberals fell into the trap of answering for the people; and so often the liberals that are broadcast are white males for which the issue is of extreme academic and intellectual importance, but of no immediate relevance to their lives.

Where liberalism borders on hypocrisy on the local level is in New York State and City. Seemingly liberal voters are asked for whom they will vote in the upcoming elections, and they respond, "Well, Pataki and Giuliani, I suppose, even though they are repressive and conservative-but look at what they've done for the state/city!" That condition-"but look at what they've done for us all"-is really mainstream liberals saying, "What they've done has worked for me, so I'm going to vote for them even if they represent and embody everything I do not believe in." Liberalism can't just be picked up and discarded when it becomes convenient to do so. With white male liberals, it's easier to do; it's less of a dilemma if the coat of liberalism is shed. Pataki and Giuliani have done things that are flat-out hurting people like children, the homeless, the poor, and those on welfare. In doing so, they can't be supported, and the feeling of ambivalence about whether to follow ideals or not is what becomes the sticking point between usually white, male liberals and other liberals.

This is a structural weakness in liberalism that, although it cannot be resolved easily, must be examined before it leads to cracks that will threaten all of progressive thought. There are no solutions other than to work for our ideals and hope that, one day, liberals of all sorts will truly be able to dream and build together.

Home | Archives | L-Word by Email | About The L-Word | Staff | Feedback