An upcoming Seattle pundit stakes his turf.
That is why despite the inherent inadequacy of political labels, I continue to proudly identify myself as a “liberal.”
I sorta and grudgingly agree, but mostly because the alternative is not plausible.
My only problem is that while the pundit also sees that there "...is certainly a legitimate debate to be had over the proper size and scope of government..." that debate, so far as property rights are concerned, never, ever happens within the confines of "liberalism," understood broadly as the Democratic Party. To acknowledge a legitimate debate is great rhetoric but nothing more. Liberals leave the debate about property rights, for example, to the know-nothings of the left and right. I never hear, either at the grassroots or among elected liberal officials, any discussions of the appropriate limits of government when it comes to property. That issue is left totally, and to the detriment of both the nation as well as the Democratic Party, in the hands of the Republicans. So far as liberals are concerned, government knows best — government certainly knows better than you — what to do with your property. Such a bland endorsement of government could only come from a person with little or no experience of the land use regulatory process.