Maybe, just maybe…

Despite the fact that PatRoW legions failed to nominate me for Best New Weblog of 2006, my public service continues. And today I revisit an old, yet oddly forgotten theme – the bastardization of the word "liberal" by right-wing pundits.

A few months ago, I compared Republican tactics to some dialogue from one of my favorite movies: " There's a line in 'The Usual Suspects' in which Kevin Spacey's character opined that 'the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist'. Well, the greatest trick the Republicans ever pulled was convincing the country that 'liberal' is a 4-letter word." Today I've read something that expands upon my point as it explains the genesis and historical connotations of "The L Word".

I've always been in the JFK school of thought about the word "liberal", even as I never actually realized we occupied the same intellectual space. And yes, I realize that statement can be taken as both incredibly egotistical (I'm as smart as a former president!) and incredibly self-deprecating (I'm as smart as a dead guy!):

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label 'liberal'? If by a 'liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people--their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties--someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'liberal,' then I'm proud to say that I'm a 'liberal.'

FDR, the godfather of the notion of Democrats as "the bearer of liberalism and of progress", went even further in his definition of the term. He recognized "a deeper need--the need to find through government the instrument of our united purpose to solve for the individual the ever-rising problems of a complex civilization."

That need – the need for a government that serves its citizens is at the root of liberalism and seems difficult (for me at least) to argue against. And yet, it meets with outrage and contempt from not only Republican political opponents, but from the very middle- and lower-class Americans who would seem to benefit most from this highest of liberalism's high ideals.

The smear campaign began (in earnest) with Ronald Reagan, who "openly attacked both liberals and liberalism--painting them as soft on crime, foreign policy, and the work ethic--and won two presidential elections in the process". Liberals began to run away from the tag that had political benefited and accurately defined them after those slurs, yet it was still prevalent enough to be used as the focal point for Newt Gingrich's ire in 1994 – a race that drove the left from Congressional majorities for the first time in decades.

After reassuming control of the House and Senate a few months ago, one would assume there would be a race to embrace the symbolism of true liberalism, but alas, that has not proven to be the case. After decades of lies, damn lies and Rovian lies against our beloved ideals, liberals are still thought of as pansies and our proud label dismissed as irrelevant by some INSIDE OUR OWN PARTY who want Democrats to back away from a fight about semantics.

But here's the thing: I want to fight about semantics. I want to embrace the label that most accurately defines my ideals. I want to reclaim the word "liberal" from the black hole of political exile and restore it to its rightful place at the forefront of national debate.

Do we need a national re-branding campaign? Or maybe, just maybe, liberals around the country need to own up to what and who they are. Maybe, just maybe, there is one politician brave enough to stand in front of his constituency and declare, "My name is (insert imaginary representative here) and I am a liberal".

Maybe, just maybe, that's possible. Then again, maybe being an idealist serves no practical purpose, maybe I'm a condescending asshole who can't or won't relate to mainstream America, and maybe, just maybe, conservatives are right in saying liberals like me are pussies.

Nah…that can’t be right. Except the condescending asshole part – that’s probably a valid observation.

The PatRoW Manifesto

I was in New York this weekend, and spent some time discussing politics with one of PatRoW's most loyal readers – a conversation that helped me crystallize a few important ideas before tomorrow's election:


Talking points – though the self-inflicted damage has been reasonably limited this year, Democrats have still been guilty of confusing rubes the electorate with criticisms of one another and alternate (sometimes conflicting) messages. Republicans, on the other hand, do nothing better than presenting a unified front delivered in simple, and endlessly repetitive talking points.


Think back to the 2004 election and how many times were we bombarded with the notion that John Kerry was a flip-flopper. Sure, he gaffed with his "I voted for the war before I voted against it" line, but here's the thing – he was justified! If not for the Dems' politically cannibalistic natures, our response would have been that Kerry cast aside partisan politics and doubt to support the President of the United States when he made his case before Congress. When proof was discovered of Bush's deception and betrayal, Kerry led the charge against the president's illegal war. Of course, Democrats hemmed and hawed and idiots today still think Kerry is an elitist flip-flopper.


A solution, as Bill Maher suggests, is to come up with some talking points of our own. But I'm afraid this won't work either, and it's because of fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. Republicans are "ends justify the means" people; they don't mind recycling someone else's verbiage in the effort to win. Democrats tend to be idealistic and care about the process as much as – or more than – the end result. We seem to prefer losing elections over giving up an ounce of our individually reached opinions.


And lose we do…too often…in homes and elections across America.


Two black sheep – speaking about John Kerry, he has officially disappeared from the campaign trail. Of course, I maintain he did nothing wrong, and even – for once – rebutted his critics properly. Yet conservatives continue to harp on Kerry's flubbed joke and may be able to use it to stem the tide of lost congressional seats.


Let me make this clear to the kind of people who probably aren't reading this – John Kerry should be an election non-sequitur. And let me make this clear to the kind of people who are (or should be) reading – so should Ted Haggard.


Haggard is a hypocrite, clearly, and most likely a liar as well. He's admitted to some of the allegations against him and denied others. We will probably never know the full truth, but we do know this – his transgressions hurt this country's "moral majority" movement, but we hurt liberal causes by politicizing the scandal for our own benefit. I don't believe that the Ted Haggards of the world are good people because of what they preach, but I similarly don't believe they are bad people because of what they (allegedly) practice.


Of course, basking in the schadenfreude is perfectly OK.


Illegal immigration – Some news show held an election focus group in a Columbus, Ohio diner. One key topic came up there that has come up across the country – illegal immigration.


There's a line in "The Usual Suspects" in which Kevin Spacey's character opined that "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist". Well, the greatest trick the Republicans ever pulled was convincing the country that "liberal" is a 4-letter word. Their second-greatest trick? Convincing Middle America that illegal immigration is a problem affecting their lives.


People of Ohio – listen closely because I'm only going to say this once. You didn't lose your assembly line and/or manufacturing jobs to "border-jumping wetbacks"; you lost them because our economy has become increasingly global and technology-based. The noble blue collar, dirty fingernails jobs that supported your family for generations have a limited role in 21 st Century America. This is unfortunate for you, of course, but illegal immigration is not the problem. What's the solution? Encourage your kids to learn Mandarin, Arabic and how to program your computer (setting the VCR clock just doesn't cut it anymore). At least they'll get to live the American dream you were unfortunate enough to miss out on.


Scandals, Lies and Doing Something about It – do you know anybody who is still undecided about the election? Well, the first step is to find out if your town allows the comatose to vote. The second step is to show them this – a "hit list" of atrocities perpetuated by the Interloper's administration in the last two years alone…clearly reason enough to persuade any independent with a brain that our country needs a change. Or, enough to shut up any conservative who likes to lie about how the world is a safer and better today than it was a few short years ago.

It’s about Ideas, Ideally

TNR's Peter Beinart opines that Democrats' best midterm election strategy is to be vague about agendas and clear about NOT being George W. Bush. And he makes some pretty good points:

Today, according to the Pew Research Center, Democrats are 16 points more likely to declare their enthusiasm for voting. Only 42 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are happy with their party's performance, down 19 points from 2004. And a plurality of * Republicans* think most members of Congress don't deserve reelection. This year, in other words, disgust will likely propel Democrats to the polls and leave Republicans sitting at home.

For the White House, getting these surly GOP couch potatoes to vote is the only way to prevent political Armageddon. And the best way to do that is to get them so enraged about the Democrats that they forget their frustration with their own side. That's why congressional Republicans spent the summer dredging up wedge issues like gay marriage, abortion, and flag-burning. It's why Dick Cheney said Ned Lamont's Connecticut Senate primary victory might embolden Al Qaeda. And it's why Republicans keep trying to bait Democrats into unveiling a detailed agenda--in hopes of convincing Republican voters that, no matter how disappointing Bush has proved, the other guys would be worse.

Beinart says the GOP wants Democrats to submit a "Contract with America"-type plan, so that disenfranchised conservative voters have something to rally against. Democratic candidates' best strategy, he writes, is to "stick to vacuous slogans like 'time for a change' and 'had enough?'".

It sounds logical, yet I completely disagree. Being a "party of no ideas" is a solid plan to recapture the House (and dare we hope, the Senate) this fall, but is it really the direction we want to go? Does this strategy truly embody the party to which belong?

Despite history and experience telling us otherwise, I still believe that our political objectives should revolve around ideals rather than elections and power. Maybe it plays into the GOP's short-term plans, but I think congressional Democrats need to submit a "Contract with America"-type plan so we can redeem our values from exile and put our ideals into action instead of activist blogs.

Democrats have a unique opportunity this fall to remind this country that morality is not the exclusive domain of the Right. We count ourselves amongst the ranks of a majority of Americans who are dissatisfied outsiders looking in as the GOP leads us into one clusterfuck after another. Sure it can cost us a few seats in Congress this year, but we can make our ideals heard by the millions of morally strong Americans who label themselves as "independents" because Karl Rove and Fox News have brainwashed them into believing "liberal" is a 4-letter word.

Perhaps there's an inherent flaw in liberal DNA that causes conflict between ideals and a victorious political strategy. Republicans seem much more capable of sacrificing core beliefs for electoral gain, as they rationalize that one must control the legislature in order to legislate change. Maybe they're right…but isn't having uncompromised ideals the best thing about not being a Republican?

On Deck?

As the calendar brings us to June 2006, you surely know what political event is right around the corner? No, not mid-term congressional elections…I'm talking about the 2008 presidential campaign!

Senator Russ Feingold and Governor Mark Warner, two high-profile Democrats (and likely presidential candidates), were in New Hampshire over the weekend, speaking to and getting the rockstar treatment from the state's party convention (rockstar treatment meaning standing ovations and photo-ops, not lines of coke off of whore asses…though I wouldn't put it past that rascal Feingold). Notably absent was Hillary Clinton, who, though an extraordinarily competent politician, would do he party the most good by not challenging for the nomination.

Why are Feingold and Warner generating such early buzz? Salon suggests it is because they represent "the purist and pragmatic wings of the party".

Feingold has made other Democrats look timorous by championing withdrawal from Iraq and a Senate resolution censuring the president. Warner has emerged as the party's latest Southern white knight, the red-state dragon slayer who combines a sterling record as governor with an appealing business background as a mega-rich cellphone entrepreneur who helped found Nextel.

Sounds good, right? Perhaps if we get these two in front of the nation early, we can avoid a drawn out primary season filled with Democratic in-fighting. The problem is that Feingold may have a bit too much Dean in him to be a viable threat to carry battleground states in the Midwest, and Warner may not be different enough to truly bring the party back to its core values.

The Iraq war serves as a prime illustration of this yin-yang debate. Feingold in his speech was characteristically direct: "Why are so many Democrats too timid to say what everyone in America knows? It's time to redeploy the troops. It's time to bring the troops out of Iraq. I say bring them home by the end of the year."

"The new Iraqi government," Warner said, "has to …step up and disband the militias and try to bring about some level of stability. …The only way it can happen is if we involve the balance of the Iraqi neighbors. Bring them all to the table. Form some level of a Regional Contact Group, so this is no longer simply an American problem."

The Dean/Lieberman comparisons aside, the differences between the two candidates are more than, as Salon points out, a study in "dueling bumper stickers reading: 'Bring Our Troops Home for Xmas' and 'Form a Regional Contact Group – Now!'"

No, looking at Feingold and Warner today is really looking at the future of the Democratic Party. While Warner stands a much better chance of picking up support in swing states, Feingold is a more vocal bearer of liberal values. Is it worth sacrificing another presidential election to ensure that the party's core beliefs are represented in our candidate? I don't know, and I don't know if either guy can beat John McCain…but I guess we have 28 more months to figure things out.

Why I Hate the Left

So it's no secret that I have a bit of a political bias…OK, more than a bit. Despite my ideology, however, there is a reason that I feel disconnected from the Democratic Party, the same reason I believe the Democratic Party is struggling to reach the American public.

You see, American Liberalism has lost its course. I don't know when or how this happened (I'll leave the historical profile for smarter scholars and better writers), but somehow being a Liberal has become synonymous with being a ridiculously politically correct douchebag. And you know what? I don't want to be associated with this shit anymore.

While PC police are nothing new, a story from last week highlights my point. It seems that a St. Louis radio DJ was discussing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as the successor to outgoing NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue. KTRS's Dave Lenihan thought that Rice would be a great choice and rambled through some of the impressive reasons why before making a fateful slip of the tongue:

She's been chancellor of Stanford. She's got the patent resume of somebody that has serious skill. She loves football. She's African-American, which would kind of be a big coon. A big coon. Oh my God. I am totally, totally, totally, totally, totally sorry for that.

Now I didn't just read about this story, I actually heard the full clip of Lenihan on the air. He IMMEDIATELY realized that he said the wrong word and IMMEDIATELY issued a clear and genuine apology. I mean, this was no shock jock trying to grab headlines; Lenihan hosts a sports call-in show. His sincerity was obvious when he dropped the fast-talking (and hacky) DJ voice and issued his mea culpa.

(Lenihan would later comment that he was trying to say "a big coo". To me, it sounded like he combined the words "coo" and "boon", both of which would have been appropriate and contextually in-line with the rest of his rant).

No story, right? I mean, for a guy who makes his living talking, Lenihan should be better trained not to make such verbal slips, but this was an honest mistake, right?

Wrong. Twenty minutes later – that's right, TWENTY MINUTES LATER – station CEO Tim Dorsey went on the air to announce that Lenihan had been fired:

"It was a most unfortunate racial slur. There can be no excuse for what was said. Dave Lenihan has been let go. ... There is enough hate. We certainly are not going to fan those flames. That is not what we're about."

"There is enough hate"? Really? Was Lenihan all that hateful? Because to me, highlighting a black woman's tremendous achievements and advocating for her to assume one of the sports world's most visible and respected positions sure doesn't sound hateful to me. Hell, he called her an "African American" instead of a half a dozen less-PC terms that our society still finds acceptable.

Of course, because my fellow Liberals have to overreact, the NAACP got involved. In what had to be a first for them, Fox News reached out to the civil rights organization for comment:

NAACP chapter president Harold Crumpton called Dorsey at the station for an explanation and learned Lenihan had been fired. He said he accepted Dorsey's apology and commended him for his swift action.

He said Dorsey took the right action, adding it should send a message to other stations to do a better job of judging the character of on-air personalities.

Does anybody else remember when the NAACP used to be involved in real issues of racism and discrimination? Now they have to knee-jerk react to a non-story? I mean, isn't the fall-out more than a bit silly? St. Louis Post Dispatch columnist (and African American) Sylvester Brown, Jr. thinks so:

The…tragedy is that this issue may delegitimize real racial issues in the future. In a town that desperately needs to confront its racial hang-ups, Lenihan's verbal boo-boo provides a counterproductive distraction.


Are we clamoring for more serious racial dialogue? Are we challenging radio stations to provide serious forums for diverse voices? No, we're hot and bothered, blogging and debating the ramifications of a misspoken word.

Brown hits the nail on the head. America faces some serious race problems, and language (despite that I personally advocate the "sticks and stones" theory) plays a part. But by making Lenihan's blunder an issue – and that's what it was, a simple blunder – we ignore the larger problem. The black community is smart enough to decide for itself whether Lenihan is a racist and doesn't need any person or group to make a stink. Going overboard with political correctness is insulting to everyone's intelligence – black, white, red, brown, yellow and all hues in between. When someone tells me that something or someone is inappropriate, aren't they really telling me I can't think for myself?

Now that's what I find offensive.