Home > Uncategorized > Say It Loud. I’m Liberal and I’m Proud

Say It Loud. I’m Liberal and I’m Proud

Post on May 25, 2007 by 10 Comments »

The biggest news of the day is obviously the Congressional compromise on Bush's Iraq war budget demands.  Trumpeted from the front page of every paper, it is clear that the Democrats gave in to an unpopular president out of fear that they will be perceived as weak on the national security.  It's hard to make the leap from a war of aggression to our national security, but Bush made it and the Democrats refuse to unmake it.  Naturally, this is sickening to principled people who oppose the war and wish for our troops to come home safely and in a timely fashion.  It also brings me to my point du jour.  In our state, compromise with a powerful and well-intentioned but wrong governor has gotten us a ridiculous and unreliable education funding mechanism.  It's just this week gotten us an utterly lame parity bill that doesn't cover substance abuse and affects less than one-sixth of North Carolina's insured.  It has gotten us a weak-ass de facto moratorium on the death penalty that could change at any time.  Compromise has brought us here and it's a disgraceful place to be.

This country has been driven so far to the right and been so confused by masterful rhetoric that we no longer act our values at home or abroad.  Don't worry, I'm not going to get all Lakoff on you, but I'm going to say that enough is enough.  Compromising has gotten us a vicious and hopeless foreign war, a war on a tactic (Terror's a tactic.  Was World War II a War on Strafing?), an unprecedented curtailment of our civil rights, and manifold other woes at home.  This has all come about because the Right has long had well-funded think tanks and fringe churches that issue extreme opinions on all manner of topics.  Sure, many are rejected, but they kept at it and the whole country met them more than halfway. 

I'm taking back the night and doing the same here.  This is a progressive think tank's blog.  I don't have to pretend to be palatable to business, and I don't have to worry about the tender sensibilities of a "Respect for Life" crowd that favors the death penalty, an unjust war, environmental decay, and the right to kill petty thieves.  Yes, I'm going for the Left, not for what's left when the not-as-Far-as-it-should-be Right have finished making a mockery of the American social contract.  When the NAACP can issue a 14-point agenda that gets wide and thoughtful coverage and meets with success, you'll know I've made a difference.  When legislators of one party can stand up to their own leaders (a la Janet Cowell, God love her) to do the right thing or say no to the wrong thing, you'll know I've made a difference.  When Respect for Life means caring for all the living – not just the unborn – and truly prizing human life and potential above all else – not just the few stray cells forgotten in the fertility clinic's freezer – you'll know I've made a difference.  When North Carolina is known for its beautifully clean rivers and beaches, the health and welfare of its children, and its enlightened social policies, not just for its corporate incentives, then you'll know I've succeeded.  When people matter more than profits, you'll know everyone came around.  If it means a few more visits from aggrieved apologists or angry posts by spineless conciliators, bring it on.  Just not at dinnertime, please.

No related posts.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments (Closed):10

  1. sturner
    May 25, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    Well said. And for national office, I’m particularly not interested in voting for anyone who will compromise on the Iraq War or on civil rights. I think Markos at DailyKos has it right. The Internet is going to need to pull the party to the left, away from the inside-the-beltway consultants.

    At this point, only John Edwards is a reliable progressive voice. It took a lot of guts for Edwards to denounce the “global war on terror” for the sham that it is.

  2. Andrea V
    May 25, 2007 at 1:09 pm

    You’re right, Steve, Edwards is really on it this go-round. He’s the only one who consistently talks about the poor.

    Thanks to your wise counsel, I’ve even come around on his health plan. Incrementalism is the only real way to make health care reform work. Right on, John.

  3. Mike
    May 25, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    Great post.

    And now for the news that isn’t as important… bush gets “dropped in on” by a bird.

    Here’s the ridiculous moment, in case you want to post it!

    http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/339736/US?c_id=jlt

  4. krm0517
    May 27, 2007 at 3:06 pm

    The Democrats “gave in” not because they “fear that they will be perceived as weak on the national security,” but because they want the war to still be an issue in 08. The powers that be in the DNC want the death toll to continue to rise so they can make the argument that if they had a bigger majority they could end the war immediately. It’s all about politics. It’s all about power. It’s all about the next election. It’s all about making you think that if you give them that power then you have done something grand and noble.

    Whether you are voting for a Democrat or a Republican you are voting for the status quo. They have been playing this game for centuries. Nothing will change as long as you are two scared to vote for a third party candidate because you are afraid you will be handing the election over to the “worst of two evils.” Either way, if you continue to play this game, your actions are neither grand nor noble.

  5. Steve Turner
    May 28, 2007 at 4:20 pm

    krm…what grand and noble purpose did your vote for Ralph Nader in 2000 serve? Still feeling good about that ideologically pure “protest” vote? To this day, Nader contends there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Clearly, the Nader votes were instrumental in Bush being elected.

    So, are you seriously going to tell me that America would not be a better place today if Al Gore had been President for the past 6 years rather than George Bush?

  6. krm0517
    May 29, 2007 at 9:10 am

    As long as people are frightened into voting for a D or an R rather than voting for change, nothing will change.

    I think two things would be different of Gore had won in 2000.

    One, if Gore had won, people would have been horrified by the fact that we just elected a Jewish Vice President (Lieberman) and were subsequently attacked by radical Muslims. Anti-semitism in this country could have been an extreme problem. And if you think we would not have gone into Afganistan after 9-11 with a D President, you are a fool. Except we would have been seen as Zionists with a Jewish controlled administration attacking a Muslim nation. We could have been drug into something far worse than just Iraq.

    Second, domestic spending and programs would be far fewer because the Republican Congress would have never allowed a D President to pass a prescription drug benefit for the elderly and the education and agricultural bills passed in recent years would have been much smaller. Domestically, less would have been accomplished with a divided government.

    Other than the way the war in the Middle East would have probably been different (and potentially much worse if Gore/Lieberman had won) nothing would fundamentally be much different.

  7. sturner
    May 29, 2007 at 10:55 am

    That comment is almost too silly to answer.

    One clarification. Gore said publicly at the time (and repeats in his just published book) that he supported Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan. So did I, for the record.

    Your comment “Other than the way the war in the Middle East …” Don’t you get it? There would have been no war in the Middle East. Somehow, that seems “fundamentally much different” to me.

    You contradict yourself in paragraph two. So a VP Joe Lieberman would have unleashed anti-semitism in our country, yet others would percieve us as a “Zionists with a Jewish controlled administration?” It seems to me that your two conspiracy theories are mutually exclusive, not to mention silly. The only thing missing is the blood myth from the “Protocols from the Elders of Zion.”

    Unwittingly, though, your religious conspiracies do prove my point from a previous post about religion and politics.

  8. krm0517
    May 29, 2007 at 1:16 pm

    There would have been no war in the Middle East? Why did 9-11 happen in the first place? It happened because of dissatisfaction among radical muslims that there was a US presence in the Middle East. Why was there a US presence in the Middle East? Because in 1991 the US, at the behest of the UN, ran Hussein out of Kuwait and stayed to enforce the no fly zones

    When bin Ladin issued the declaration of war on the US in 1998 he gave two reasons: US military presence in Iraq and the enforcement of the no fly zones over Iraq. Go read it sometime. They actually tell us why they are attacking us!

    September the 11th was all about Iraq regardless of how much people want to pretend it wasn’t so they can further their political objectives.

    Democrats argue that we should not have invaded Iraq and instead stayed to continue the very policy that we had been engaged in for over a decade and that led to 9-11 in the first place (weapon inspections/no fly zones). That’s called maintaining the status quo. Republicans don’t want to admit that 9-11 was a result of us being in Iraq in the first place. That’s called nationalism. So everyone is denying the truth for the sake of political posturing.

    That doesn’t change the fact that the radical muslims attacked us in order to drive us out of Iraq’s neighboring countries (from which our policies were being carried out).

  9. sturner
    May 29, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    Oddly, we agree on the root causes of 9/11. Much of the Muslim anger is blowback from our military policies.

    I still say a Democratic president (and most Republican presidents not named Bush with a VP not named Cheney) would not have invaded Iraq. Al Qaeda would have been pursued more vigorously in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    Also, don’t forget energy policy. We have two oilmen in the Whitehouse. Gore (particularly given his interest in climate change) might have used the mandate of 9/11 to actually start to free us from our dependence on Mideast oil. It is no coincidence that the most modern Arab states (ie least radical) are the ones that ran out of oil first. The sooner we stop buying their oil, the smaller the threat from the regimes which support radical Muslims.

  10. krm0517
    May 30, 2007 at 10:39 am

    Oilmen in the Whitehouse who are pushing for alternative fuel reseach more than any other administration in history… which just so happens to be a major reason why the price of gas is so high.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/business/24refinery.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin