In response this week to my column on the benefits of legalizing marijuana, one of my friends good heartedly hurled an insult at me in response. His intent was in no way malicious, and was meant merely as a poke and not a stab. Because I was unable to ascertain his tone in his message, I overreacted and became very defensive--which I regret. So what did he call me? He called me a "Liberal!"
I didn't take offense because it's untrue (it's certainly not), I took offense because the word has become a reflexive pejorative. Nowadays, being called a liberal is only a baby step below racist or pedophile.
And why is that?
Well, for one, conservative talk show hosts and media types have done a fantastic job of demonizing the term since the Clinton Administration. Folks like Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck, and the rest of FOX News have brilliantly pigeon holed liberals--and even moderates--as god hating, gay loving, anti-American, buffoons who swing naked from the chandelier as soon as you turn your back on them. Eventually, as this perception began to take hold with a large--and rather vocal--minority, even conservative politicians have waded in with a similar opinion. John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Dick Cheney have no issues marginalizing or demonizing those on the left. Cries of "Armageddon," "You Lie!," and "Baby killer" have all been directed at Democrats/Liberals from the floor of congress. I'm just waiting for the bumper sticker that says "The only good liberal is a dead liberal."
Now, I'm not saying that those on the left in the media don't do the same to those on the right. However, either the left isn't as good at it, or they just don't do it as much. Because if they did, Republicans would run from the term "conservative" the way Democrats scurry away from the word "liberal." No! Not that! Anything but that! In fact, it's gone so far that left-leaning Democrats now call themselves "progressives." Because who doesn't like progress?
One of the things I find most frustrating with this semantic fear, is that history is filled with those who could be called "liberal" and have made a great, positive impact on society. People like Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Who as President of these United States led us safely through a depression and the eventual defeat of Hitler's Nazi Germany. He created the "New Deal" and Social Security. Not bad. Or how about Martin Luther King Jr. who changed this country's ideas about race and equality through the Civil Rights movement of the 60's? I'll take him. Or even recently, from another country altogether---Nelson Mandela. Who was jailed as a radical and a left wing terrorist by the heinous Apartheid regime of South Africa. A man who when finally released from prison over 27 years later, not only won an election to become President of his country, but found a way to heal his broken land through a process of reconciliation that allowed the oppressed and the oppressors to find a path to healing. He just might be the greatest person of the 20th century. And he--like Roosevelt and King--were/are liberals.
Of course, I've obviously cherry picked the best of the best to suit my reasoning. And I know that there are numerous examples of liberals that are far less forgiving. Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, and Louis Farrakhan come to mind. But what I would say, is that there has been more than one occasion when people like me have been on the right side of history. Whether it's Civil Rights or the Women's Suffragette movement. We're responsible (not solely, of course) for some pretty significant, healthy and democratic change in this country and in others. Not that you would always know it.
I suppose many think that with Barack Obama winning the presidency in 08, that we should be satisfied with our new "liberal" President. And I do like Obama very much. But let me say this: He's not particularly liberal. I know some may gasp at this statement, but let me explain. While I do think Obama has the heart of a liberal, he has the actions of a pragmatist. Which I think is fine. Too often politicians dig into their positions so deeply that they let "great" be the enemy of the "good." To give some specific examples of why I don't think the 44th President is all that wild-eyed, let me offer these:
--As part of the Stimulus Bill, he lowered taxes for 98% of Americans.
--He doubled down on Afghanistan.
--He opened up oil exploration along our coasts.
--Health Care Reform had no public option in it, and in fact, mirrored the bill created in Massachusetts by that noted socialist, Mitt Romney.
--He signed an executive order that guaranteed that the Hyde Amendment would be strictly applied to the new Health Care Reform bill, disallowing government funding of abortions.
--He has three Republicans in his cabinet, and would have a fourth if Judd Gregg hadn't reneged on his acceptance of the Commerce Secretary post.
--He does not favor gay marriage.
--He accepted a compromise on the FISA bill that continues to allow warrantless wire tapping of our citizens as well as granting immunity to telecoms that allowed our government to illegaly listen in on their customers.
--And lastly, he hasn't pushed for a single prosecution of those that committed or ordered illegal torturing of suspected terrorists.
Now, if I were to take Obama's name off of that list and just say candidate 'X' holds these positions, would you still think him liberal? Hell, I am a liberal and I don't agree with 2/3 of this list. And if it takes one to know one, then I'm here to tell ya, he ain't one.
Of course, many will disagree with me and find some liberal views of his that support their argument. However, all the items listed above are facts. And facts can be stubborn things. They can be covered up, but they never really go away.
Yeah, I still like my left leaning President very much even though I may not hold all the same positions as he does, or I may not like a particular policy that he has instituted. But as a true liberal, I do recognize that he's about the best that I could hope for. He doesn't seem to think the word "liberal" is a bad thing, he's certainly not insulting to my kind, and sometimes, he even listens to us. So, I'll take that.
Unfortunately, believing in a liberal ideology isn't often all that well accepted. But just so I'm clear, here are some things that I believe:
--No one should die or go broke because they can't afford health care.
--Global warming is real. And even if it isn't, shouldn't a cleaner, healthier world be a goal? Not to mention using new technologies to get ourselves off of foreign energy sources?
--The death penalty should be abolished.
--I am no fan of abortion, but I never want to see us go back to the days of coat hangers and back alleys.
--That if you want people in urban areas to say "no" to drugs, then you must give them something to say "yes" to.
--Although we have come a long way in terms of race relations, we still have far to go. Which makes affirmative action a necessity.
--A corporation is not a person and should not have the rights of one.
--The sins of slavery, internment camps, and the near total destruction of the American Indian must never be forgotten.
--That there is no good legal reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.
--A strong defense is a must, but so is diplomacy.
--What happens in other countries matters.
--That an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of punishment.
--That marijuana should be legal. Not because I like it, but because it is no worse than alcohol.
--Fox News is unfair and unbalanced.
--That church and state should remain separate. The co-mingling of the two hasn't done much for the reputation of either.
--That unfettered capitalism is a bad thing.
--That calling someone a socialist or a Nazi when you don't understand the word is not only stupid but dangerous.
--That we should be above torture. Because in the end, its not about them its about us, and who we want to be.
--Habeas Corpus must be restored.
--We can try suspected terrorists in criminal courts without fear. They aren't super heroes, they're thugs.
--It should not have taken us 3 days to get to New Orleans after Katrina, and the President should not have been on vacation when the storm hit.
--If you want someone to respect your religion, you can start by respecting theirs.
--Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are war criminals.
--Banks and health insurance companies are the devil.
--The stimulus saved lives and Health Care Reform will too.
--Ignorance is bad, but being willfully uninformed is irresponsible.
--You can disagree without being disagreeable (although I fail at this more than I would like to admit).
--Animal cruelty should be a felony, and Michael Vick should still be in jail.
--And U2 is the greatest band of all time.
I don't believe any of this makes me a bad person. In fact, overall I think I'm a pretty good egg. And liberal or not, you might actually miss me if I weren't around. However, the next time someone calls me a "Liberal" with the intent of perjuring my reputation as a decent human being, I will not take it well. Friend or foe, you have been warned.
Sumo-Pop
April 16, 2010
"--And U2 is the greatest band of all time.Hahahaha...I would miss you if you weren gone, ya bleeding heart hippie. Go hug a tree. :)"
ReplyDeleteGotta give you a big thumbs-up for sticking yourself out there like that. Way to go. I enjoyed reading it. p.s. My bumper sticker has an *. ------> *except for David
ReplyDeleteI am not done reading, but have to make the statement that there needs to be a differentiation between what Obama "wanted" to accomplish and what he felt he "could" get passed. Some of the "conservative" points you listed were consessions and not part of the original proposals... just sayin'
ReplyDelete"While I do think Obama has the heart of a liberal, he has the actions of a pragmatist." It was there all the time. and if he were truly hardcore liberal, there would be no compromise on such issues. Someone once said that "politics is the art of compromise." He should be given credit for the effort
ReplyDeleteI agree. He would never have gotten elected or have accomplished what he has if he weren't a "pragmatic liberal." The pragmatic side is what scares conservatives.
ReplyDeleteBy the way... I ain't skerd! (you have been warned)"
ReplyDeleteWhy should conservatives be scared of his pragmatism? It means they might be able to work with him, if they tried.
ReplyDeleteSusan Haney Protheroe likes this.
ReplyDeleteGarry Powers likes this.
ReplyDeleteAnother FANTASTIC read David!!
ReplyDeleteGreat Read as usual! Only one disagreement, and that is Michael Vick should still be in jail. I can't go along with that. I have always been a dog lover, but have been turned into a cat lover. I will not get into prison time of induviduals I know that have committed murder. Let's just say if Vick had gotten probation or just six months like they did...........
ReplyDeleteThat would be a case of two wrongs. I certainly didn't mean to imply that he should get a longer sentence than rapists or murderers, but animal cruelty should be a felony. There is a direct correlation between that and other criminal behavior. Glad you enjoyed it otherwise. See us Dem's can disagree without being clowns. :)
ReplyDeleteNever really cared for U2. I'd. Say more, but I'm typing on my iPhone with a sleeping baby ; )
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I prefer the label hippie over liberal; )
I agree, read this short article
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=404
No one cares about your manifesto.
ReplyDeleteDavid as you can see some people come here to fart. They think it makes them sound intelligent
ReplyDeleteYet Joe took the time to read it. Fascinating
ReplyDeletesumopopblog: The
ReplyDelete'L' Word my friend liberal manefesto [a good read] http://bit.ly/bgTfLE
If I could be angred to rise to killing, abusing my dog, or my cat, would do it just as fast as it would for anyone else I know an love.
ReplyDeleteI have a pit mix myself, whom we rescued from the pound about 5 years ago. He's a big baby, he thinks he's a lap dog. When I read the testimony of how they were killing the dogs that underperformed I was horrified. They weren't just shooting these dogs quickly and putting the poor things out of their misery.....they were beating them on the ... See Moreground, electrocuting them, and strangling them. It's a special kind of sick person that would first use dogs to fight, then kill the poor animals, but on top of it all to kill them in such brutal methods....sickening.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Marion has a point on how people killing people often get light sentences....but I think the cruelty they showed in this case was immense.
It's a bad word because it means you are set to an extreme level toward one side. The terrorists are also all the way to one side to an extreme level. I am not saying that you are a terrorist but if you are so far to one side no one can work with you that doesn't agree with you 100%. It sucks that there are people like you on both sides because ... See Morethis "us vs. them" attitude is what is killing this country. That bothers me. Get off your high horse and realize that no one is 100% right and learn to work with others you child.
ReplyDeleteRight-wing projection syndrome. LOL
ReplyDeleteSounds like to me he's preaching to himself.
ReplyDeleteJoe, we meet again.
ReplyDeleteOh joe, I guess you missed the part where I praised Obama's pragmatic side. Its one thing to read an article and another thing to understand it. Maybe next time I'll use shorter sentences and smaller words. Nah, why pander to tools.
ReplyDeleteDavid Esposito likes this.
ReplyDeleteGREAT blog post!! Thanks for the link!! I don't disagree with a word!!
ReplyDelete