Once again, Democrats are out-played
This will be an off-the-cuff political post filled (I'm sure) with factual inaccuracies and hypocrisy. Sorry about that, I just need to vent.
Once again the Dems are getting outplayed by the Republicans. Over the weekend Carl Rove said something about liberals wanting to understand the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 and put them into counseling. The Dems got up and denounced that statement, as they should. But now the Republican spin machine is emphasizing that Rove didn't attack democrats, but "liberals." The Dems, from what I've been reading, have largely responded by saying that is horsepucky and that of course it was an attack on Democrats... why, later in the interview Rove actually identified two Democrats by name!
Here's my take on it. First, it's a stupid thing for Rove to say... most (not all, certainly) liberals that I know were 100% behind going into Afghanistan. But we are also for trying to address the source of terrorism, rather than just throw bullets at the problem. Poverty, cultural imperialism, Israel/Palestine, U.S. support for middle-east dictatorships... these are just some of the issues that can help to breed the kind of anti-American sentiment that culminated in 9/11. Invading Iraq or even Afghanistand does NOTHING to addressing these core issues. Until they are addressed in some way more and more "terrorists" will be created in reaction to the perceived injustices.
Now, is that such a crazy idea? I think not, and I further think it is both the only rational approach to our problems and the liberal approach. To be sure, some liberals on the far left were opposed to Afghanistan, but it's not the consensus (of course I'm speaking out of my butt, here, I have no data to prove what is actually the consensus "liberal" position... anecdotally, though, most "liberals" who I know believe something close to this).
Rather than address the question head-on, however, Democrats have allowed the Republicans to paint "liberalism" as this extreme pacifist goody-goody kind of non-sense. By allowing them to even draw that dichotomy they are tacitly admitting that being a liberal is bad. Then when Democrat X runs for congress or president, and the Republicans trot out the term "liberal", the candidate has to try to hide from that label. They've been doing it since the 60s, and I know at least one reader of this blog that buys into that hogwash.
Liberalism is not bad. I think it's very, very good. To me, being a liberal means being open minded, thoughtful, worldy, and emphathetic. It means behaving according to reason, not faith. It means a constant search for the right balance between the preservation of personal liberty and the promotion of common good. It means taking a balanced approach to threats, including terrorism, that includes both military response and policy review.
Seeing the world in black and white is naive and dangerous. Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.
posted by Llama @ 6/28/2005 01:25:00 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Okay, that last comment in there just made me choke! Good blog!
Liberalism isn't an "extreme pacifist goody-goody kind of non-sense?" Well I guess reading something other than the classics CAN be educational; take that Mrs. Shows of English Lit. Llama, quit being hypocritical. You are close minded on as many issues as the other side, just different ones. For instance, I suspect that you haven't really considered being a Sith at all. I'm going to find a group hug and a self-empowerment meeting. I suggest you do the same, hippy.
Stuff like this is fun :)
OK, yes, the Star Wars quote is a bit out of context, but, truly, the whole "with us or against us" thing continues to bug the bejeezus out of me. And, it's a bit of levity.
Mr. Naughty, what are you going on about? You haven't been reading those Clinton-as-murder stories again?
On a slightly serious note - I don't know the 60s well enough to refute claims that main-stream "liberals" were a bunch of peaceniks. Certainly the anti-war movement was huge. But what's the point? Does anyone today actually think Vietnam was a good idea? Loki, put your hand down...
Many Southern Democrats successfully opposed enacting civil rights legislation for years - would you call them "liberal"? What about the "conservatives" that today, and in the 80s, support(ed) enormous budget deficits? Or supported the round-up of Japanese Americans in WWII? Or the curtailment of personal liberty today in exchange for greater government control? Does that fit your idea of "conservative"?
Politics and personal experience causes parties and individuals to often stray from their proclaimed ideology. Right-wing militias and facism illustrate the danger of being TOO conservative; enviro-terrorists and communism warns us against going too far the other way. That doesn't mean that either liberalism or conservatism in and of themselves are bad. Reasonable people can will takes bits of wisdom from both viewpoints to form a practical position somewhere in the middle.
For most of the last century that "middle" has included social safety nets such as wellfare, medicare, medicaid, and social security. It has also included managed capitalism that recognizes the role of the government in regulating ares of the economy in which the market is not efficient (such as the slow response of labor cost, pollution regulation, deficit spending, etc.). These are liberal ideas that have served our country well in the very time it has been most dominant on the world stage.
It's misleading and disingenious to denigrate the great accomplishments of liberalsm by simply calling it a bunch of anti-military wackos. We are all Americans, and we are stronger as a society when we can discuss the problems our country faces openly, without hostility, and exchange ideas about how to solve those problems.
But, I suppose political attacks have been part of our system of government since we've had a system of government... I remember anecdotes about Congressmen throwing down on the floor for a good old fashioned brawl.
Just human nature, I guess.
In Louisiana, our legislators still come extremely close to throwing down and having good ole fashioned brawls right on the Floor.
Dominos, baby, dominos.
I do, however, like this brawl idea. Add some rules: fence straddlers get hit by both sides, taxpayers can come off the top ropes at any moment, any attempt to vote oneself a pay raise results in the immediate application of a metal chair to the head. We could sell tickets and tv rights to generate revenue for more of your hippy group-hug-fests. :)
Alternatively, we could label all these mudslinging politicians "verbal terrorists" and haul them off to Gitmo. Hmm, warm fuzzy feeling suddenly replaced by a cold and decidedly prickly one.
Awesome post, llama.
Instead of praising everything I agree with, I am going to grab one item with which I disagree. Or at least is not so clear cut. You say that liberals are governed by reason and not faith.
I can guess where this comes from, since the Republican party has found such power by mobilizing Christian conservatives as its primary base, but it is not the whole picture. Most of my friends and family who are conservative or at least would not identify as liberal are borderline atheist. Religion plays almost no part in their lives. I have even heard some of this stripe describe religion as essentially the opiate of the masses, which is amusing since that is of course a quote from none other than Marx. Instead they have the idea that they wish to govern their own lives as they deem fit and they want no one, not Church or the government, interfering. This is the libertarian version of conservatism.
At the same time, many liberals are governed very much by faith. What percentage of active Jews are Dems? Quite large isn't it? African-American churches are a bastion of the democratic party. It is only the noxious view of certain Republicans - say ummm Frist - who have tried to state that their political opinions are those of God which has lead to this perception. When it comes down to it, I am betting that large chunks of both parties, or conservatives and liberals, are people of faith. I would not be surprised if there is less than a 10% difference. (A studious person would try to look this up, but alas that is not me.)
There is also another type of faith which comes into play. The reason I am so upset now about the political direction of our nation is because I see it as moving against core moral values. One might say, "well faith is not the same as morality." The question then becomes faith in what? I cannot justify my moral beliefs with reasoned arguments. I find them to be basic primitives, which are not based on anything else, other than their self-evidence. I have faith in these moral values, and I can only hope that they serve me well, or more accurately that I can serve them well. Think of them as axioms in a geometric proof. There is no reason to justify them. Reason takes them for granted as true and moves on.
I propose a new department - the USCWF: United States Congress Wrestling Federation. Bouyah, get it on, boys.
Paca, you aren't supposed to point out any flaws in my argument! You must be in Rove's employ :)
Actually you bring up a point that many in the democratic party have been trying desparately to get the public to acknowledge - that faith doesn't belong to a single party. And, undoubtedly, a number of liberals are driven by the example set by their religious icons to be compassionate and promote social justice... I saw one left-wing commentator complain that Conservatives have taken the Christ out of Chistianity, that its really more of an old-testament fire-and-brimstone kind of thing now.
I could go off on this, but I won't. I'll just observe it's always dangerous to make statements in absolute terms... which is itself an absulte statement. Oh well. Wanna throw down?
Just to add to this:
First, yes I am in league with Rove.
Second, the idea of fighting for the Judeo-Christian values that our nation has been founded on has always really been code for a particular type of Christianity.
There is a tradition within various parts of our society and certain denominations to make their religious beliefs a very public exercise. You attend huge churches that seat 3000 people. You have a prayer vigil on the campus. You post John 3:14 as a bumper sticker on your car or wave it at the largest public gathering, usually a sporting event, that you can find.
If there is a person who views their religious beliefs as a private matter, perhaps between themselves and God alone or between themselves and their own Church, as something to keep close to the vest, then people from the other tradition are inclined to view them with some suspicion. If you have faith in the same God I do, why don't you want to proclaim it to the world at the top of your voice, they wonder.
But of course the two methods are simply that, different methods. It is the same thing with people discussing their love life. If you believe TV and the movies, the world is full of people who love to discuss the details of every sexual fling they have ever had with their friends, if not a national television audience. But the world is also filled with people who think those details are for themselves and the other person involved - and no one else. That does not make them any less sexual, just less noisy.
This distinction goes through-out life. It is quite prominent with patriotism at the moment. Put simply, he who loves his country the loudest doesnt necessarily love it the most.
They have bumper stickers with John 3:14?
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up" (King James Version)
Where can I get mine? I want to be lifted up like a serpent!
Post a Comment
<< Home