Editorial: 'Liberals' can get lost in Thai crisis

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
'Liberals' can get lost in Thai crisis
The Nation

Are those who consider themselves 'good guys' veering off course and becoming something the ideal proclaims to condemn?

BANGKOK: -- Thailand's prolonged political conflict has been described by some as a confrontation between "conservatives" and "liberals".

Although such belief has weakened somewhat, thanks largely to negative similarities or hypocrisy on both sides of the showdown, we continue to hear many people call themselves "liberals", which in their own context seem to mean "good guys". "Conservatives", meanwhile, seem to refer to those who are fighting tooth and nail to resist changes at the expense of liberty and equality.

Let's forget conservatism and focus on liberalism for a while. Is the latter truly a prevailing force in the Thai crisis or is it something else romanticised as liberalism? Is liberalism in Thailand veering off course and becoming something the ideal proclaims to renounce or condemn? Of course, liberals do not like conservatives, but is conservatism in this country, partly at least, liberalism gone astray?

Some purported "liberals" have deplored the controversial TV drama "Hormones".

They are lashing out at everything from the plot to the series' appeal to the "affluent" class. The "rebellious" teens in the series are not really rebellious, they say, because they have rich parents, whom they don't really hate, as a safety net.

The critics wonder, for example, why the producers did not go for a more meaningful or realistic plot, like one featuring the lives of poor kids driven by all kinds of trouble to risk their lives by racing motorcycles on the streets.

So much for liberal thinking. In this case, only the freedom to criticise has been invoked, and anything else associated with liberalism seems to have been locked in the drawers. One mistaken viewpoint about liberalism is that while one has the right to do anything, the others are wrong in whatever they do.

"Hormones" is just some people's attempts to convey their opinion in an art form. Critics have the right to scrutinise the work, but let's call it what it is. That the fact producers chose troubled "affluent" teens over motorcycle kids should never have been an issue, especially as far as liberalism is concerned.

In other words, if "liberals" feel the urge to tear the drama to pieces for not telling the social messages that they want, they should take a long, good look at themselves. They should let the others do the hating. Liberalism is supposed to be more understanding and open-minded, even if the understanding and open-mindedness benefit its opposite number more than itself.

The "Hormones" debate is just the tip of the political hypocrisy iceberg. "Conservatives" and "liberals" in Thailand have mixed up identities over many things worse.

"Freedom", "liberty", "democracy" or "national security" have always been cited with extreme prejudices.

Genuine liberalism can't apply more than one standard, particularly when people's lives, properties or the right to believe are at stake. When liberalism thinks of itself as absolutely right, the ideal ceases to exist.

Liberalism has to put itself hanging by a thread, because it's an ideal that foolishly cherish free will, even if that free will would endanger its very own existence.

Like it or not, living on the edge is what liberalism is supposed to do, because it's the only way the ideal can really truly survive. All the comfort zones are just illusions, places that will only turn liberalism into the very thing it hates.


-- The Nation 2013-08-26

[Pimay1]

Genuine liberalism can't apply more than one standard, particularly when people's lives, properties or the right to believe are at stake. When liberalism thinks of itself as absolutely right, the ideal ceases to exist.

Liberals claim to champion freedom of thought and speech. But they are quite hypocritical in that they think freedom of thought and speech is free only if it agrees with their idealism. In a debate they attack the messenger instead of the message.

[noitom]

Let's call it what it really is. It's a confrontation among different levels of sakdi na pecking order. Those on the bottom moving up and those on the top pressing them back down.

[Thai at Heart]

Liberalism and conservatism in Thailand?

I think the Thai mindset defies these definitions. Opinions and standpoints are mixed and far more extreme than that.

[peterquixote]

very philosophical post, but rubbish, Liberalism doesn't exist within the is a State machine turning democracy as we know it upside down.

Shortly the one party state will have control over the Senate and all bureaucracy and institutions.

I think you need to better than this article or let me write for you

[wwest5829]

Genuine liberalism can't apply more than one standard, particularly when people's lives, properties or the right to believe are at stake. When liberalism thinks of itself as absolutely right, the ideal ceases to exist.

Liberals claim to champion freedom of thought and speech. But they are quite hypocritical in that they think freedom of thought and speech is free only if it agrees with their idealism. In a debate they attack the messenger instead of the message.

Pimay1, hmmm, food for thought. I count myself a liberal Democrat (American) but find myself supporting some conservative views (Buddha forgive me!). My main concern is those who take a "viva yo!" attitude versus an active sharing of the burden for all. (By the way, perhaps, I am a concern for some. A Liberal with a "carry license" ha!).

[Thai at Heart]

Genuine liberalism can't apply more than one standard, particularly when people's lives, properties or the right to believe are at stake. When liberalism thinks of itself as absolutely right, the ideal ceases to exist.

Liberals claim to champion freedom of thought and speech. But they are quite hypocritical in that they think freedom of thought and speech is free only if it agrees with their idealism. In a debate they attack the messenger instead of the message.

Pimay1, hmmm, food for thought. I count myself a liberal Democrat (American) but find myself supporting some conservative views (Buddha forgive me!). My main concern is those who take a "viva yo!" attitude versus an active sharing of the burden for all. (By the way, perhaps, I am a concern for some. A Liberal with a "carry license" ha!).

And that shows perfectly the efforts of the American media to polarise political issues into black and white.

[ridkun]

I don't see any liberals in Thailand. People who called themselves liberal were very quiet when Chai got sued by PM, when government threat FB users to sue anyone who "like" inappropriate contents and when the police said they will tap the Line connection by their own will without asking for court or anybody's approval.

In Thailand, they call themselves liberal because they are just against ones whom they labelled as conservatives, so anything this government, which is obviously against old "conservative" Democrats, do seems to be right thing for them.

[Pimay1]

Genuine liberalism can't apply more than one standard, particularly when people's lives, properties or the right to believe are at stake. When liberalism thinks of itself as absolutely right, the ideal ceases to exist.

Liberals claim to champion freedom of thought and speech. But they are quite hypocritical in that they think freedom of thought and speech is free only if it agrees with their idealism. In a debate they attack the messenger instead of the message.

Pimay1, hmmm, food for thought. I count myself a liberal Democrat (American) but find myself supporting some conservative views (Buddha forgive me!). My main concern is those who take a "viva yo!" attitude versus an active sharing of the burden for all. (By the way, perhaps, I am a concern for some. A Liberal with a "carry license" ha!).

I am a conservative Democrat so to speak. I also have a carry license. You can't be all bad . Seriously though I support some conservative causes and some liberal causes if they don't get too far out on the fringe. Nothing wrong with sharing as long as it is justified but don't ask me to share what I have worked for with those that have no intentions of trying to help themselves and relying on the tax payers to support their lifestyle.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Pimay1

[Puwa]

Thailand's political conflict is not one of liberals versus conservatives, but a struggle between two reactionary conservative ideologies. One seeks to preserve the privileges of a traditional elite. The other seeks to reassign those privileges to a new moneyed elite. In practice, both reject the basic ideas of a liberal viewpoint: the rule of law, freedom of thought and expression, good governance, and a serious public commitment to improving the welfare of the common man.

Thailand does have many liberals, but they choose not to enter into politics or government, but rather into civil society, academia, and business. Without a functioning democracy, their voices are seldom heard.

[Dag Ekeberg]

Thailand's political conflict is not one of liberals versus conservatives, but a struggle between two reactionary conservative ideologies. One seeks to preserve the privileges of a traditional elite. The other seeks to reassign those privileges to a new moneyed elite. In practice, both reject the basic ideas of a liberal viewpoint: the rule of law, freedom of thought and expression, good governance, and a serious public commitment to improving the welfare of the common man.

Thailand does have many liberals, but they choose not to enter into politics or government, but rather into civil society, academia, and business. Without a functioning democracy, their voices are seldom heard.

You might be thinking of libertarians, who don't endorse the police state...