Liberal

Dunay: Public can hold authority accountable without disrepect

On Dec. 27, a sea of blue and black flooded the streets of Queens, New York to honor slain NYPD officer Rafael Ramos. As the procession began, several of the officers slowly turned their back on New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio—only continuing the brash reaction across America.

After Officer Ramos, and his partner, Wenjian Liu, were killed on Dec. 20 while sitting in their patrol car, America erupted in argument.

Coupled with the events unfolding in Ferguson, Missouri following the death of Michael Brown, many factions in America quickly began to defend the authorities from the so-called liberalism of America’s minorities. Protesters voicing their distaste for the police and their authority were accused of being genuinely disrespectful.

The public should be allowed to hold the law accountable for their actions in the same way society is and not be accused of heresy.

Then as the debate shifted to the funeral arrangements and the officers’ act at the procession, a smaller debate began to re-emerge – how liberalism and leftism have come to conflict one another.



The contemporary concept of liberalism has established itself as that of an expanded government, more surveillance and more government intervention to provide for a diverse social state. The origins of leftism are said to be rooted in different schools of thought — unfairly though.

There is a common misconception that the founders of leftism in 19th century France —Rousseau, Locke, etc. — truly believed in the ideologies of life, liberty and the pursuit of private property. This has been accepted because of the common teaching point of the similarities between the American and French Revolutions. But, Locke and Rousseau truly preached for a social state of distributed wealth and a tolerant, accepting people — a force that could hold off the perils of capitalism.  Because of the comparisons between America and France, contemporary liberalism is incorrectly said to reject this founding leftism.

This contemporary liberalism is one that critics say prevents citizens from being personally responsible – instead relying on the government and social programs – and hoping the government will protect minorities from white privilege. This misconstrued yet accepted view of contemporary liberalism has given liberalism a weakness and a vulnerability allowing it to easily be attacked in times like this.

Because liberalism can’t seem to decide between a heightened government – i.e. a police state – and a government that provides equal opportunities for all these events and attacks have brought the spotlight upon liberals for all the wrong reasons.

With the importance of liberalism currently placed on protecting minorities from a broken authority consumed by white privilege, it is easy to convince society that there is a lack of respect for said authority.

But, as serious liberals, and even comedic ones, have pointed out, there is no divide between appreciating authority and holding them to the high standards of the law. The same ones we, ourselves, are held to. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Until we can, as a whole society, accept the need for reform then appreciation will continue to depreciate. A reformed public, however, could go a long way in embracing the liberalism and freedoms that our Founding Fathers expected.

Eric Dunay is a freshman in the School of Architecture.  His column appears weekly. He can be contacted at [email protected].

 





Top Stories