'Liberals' can get lost in Thai crisis

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.