Five More Days, But Years And Years Afterwords
Michael recently stepped out of the ranks of the undecideds (boy will I be happy when I stop hearing that word ten times a day) and declared his choice for November 2, 2004. I think he made a fine choice, the only good choice I think any centrist, rational-minded conservative can make this election. I’m hoping a lot of people who would otherwise vote Republican vote for Baradnik, not because I want him to be President or think he could make a good one, but because his platform and the libertarian party has come to represent much of what the Republican party could be and should be, if they really think what Democrats stand for is wrong and want to oppose it. I was in a similar position four years ago when I cast my vote for the Green Party because I really did feel that both Bush and Gore stood for more of the same at home and abroad, and I felt the Green Party stood for some of the change I wanted to see in America and in the Democratic party. The Greens are also extreme and idiotic in some respects (and have since killed themselves), and I turned out to be wrong about Bush being the same as Gore. But hey, what can you do? (Also, since I was in a “safe state” I would still vote Green in that election, even knowing what I know now.)
Personally, I’ll be voting for Kerry, but thanks to the election peculiarities in New York, I’ll be voting for him on the Working Families Party line — Row E. If you believe in liberal values (more below) and live in New York, please consider voting for Kerry on the WFP line — it counts just the same as a vote on the Democratic line, and also sends a message about your commitment to the progressive values that, say, Dean for America was all about. The Working Families Party is the only progressive third party with a statewide ballot line in New York. It’s not a “spoiler” party (in fact, they say they’re categorically against what Nader is doing). Typically, the WFP “cross-endorses” good Democrats and keeps them focused on issues like health care, jobs, civil rights and the environment. As I’ve learned more about them and what they do here in NYC, I think they’re doing a lot of good.
Now, I also wanted to comment on Michael’s use of “tax-and-spend liberal.” Admittedly, he qualified it as a talking points cliché, but I don’t think that’s quite good enough. The thing is, conservatives tax and spend, too. Without some spending, there is no government, and without some taxing, there can be no spending. Even a libertarian government would have to tax and spend a little, lest it deliver us to anarchy. The phrase “tax-and-spend liberal” is mere misdirection, designed to imply that only liberals tax. The real questions are: on what should we be spending, and how do we tax? Maybe it would be better if the noun/adjective arrangement was reversed to be “liberal tax-and-spender.” Yet that brings me to the “liberal” epithet — a silly thing to use derisivly, liberal ideals of course being the very notions upon which this nation was founded: a strong nation, broad prosperity, effective government, and mutual responsibility.
Maybe what rational conservatives mean to rail against when they use liberal as a term of derision is actually people who are not honest or fair, people who have hidden agendas, people who act irresponsibly and deny the equity and opportunities they owe to others. If so, there are people like that on both sides of the mythical “aisle.” I think we need to unite and simply deride the dishonest and unfair in our society, and then start talking about issues like, how do we really protect America, what does it mean for America to be strong? How do we as a community care for and act responsibly toward each other? How do we ensure fairness and opportunity for all? How do we encourage ethical business and maximise prosperity? How do we maximise democracy and keep government honest and open? The more time we talk about these issues and the less we fall back on attacking the illusory “other side” (and thus taking the bait of the media and the powerful whose interests are served by keeping us divided) the better we all will be.
Which is not saying I haven’t fallen for it in the past, either. I’m very guilty of it. But I’m trying to stop, I swear! Now I try to only do it in jest. And badly. I should probably stop that, too.
Posted: October 28th, 2004 under Damek, Politics.
Comments
Comment from Adam
Time Thursday, October 28, 2004 at 1:02 pm
I wasn’t sure what you mean by social handicapping, I’ve never heard the phrase before (it sounds like another talking-points buzzword). So I googled it, and googled it with quotes, and finally found one site that talks about affirmative action, which sounds like the sort of thing a conservative would be against. Well, I’m against it too - sort of. I think it’s just a very bad solution to a real problem (a complex one having to do with not just racism, but also economic hardship, class warfare, etc.) that still needs a solution. But no one ever talks about how to fix the problem, or acknowledges the problem. And many liberals just react, they don’t think through why conservatives would want to get rid of the only in-place solution to an obvious problem, so this feeds the image of liberals as unthinking bleeding hearts who want to put bad ideas into practice. We need discussion on these issues, not attacks and reactionary responses. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is the place for a long discussion of racism, class issues and reform plans.
To continue, it sounds like what you mean by equality is actually political correctness. I think I agree with the last four sentences of your second paragraph; I definitely agree with the last three.
I think our concepts of equality differ a little, and I think this whole thing is probably fodder for a different long-term discussion, rather than blog-comment flinging, so I’ll say no more here.
Anyway, back on topic, liberal may have been so widely redefined in our culture that it is now unusable, but then, don’t use it, right? I mean, it’s become for the right not much different than commie or wacko or, dare I compare it, some racist terms people use. It’s just a way to label a group of fellow citizens so they can be dismissed. The left has adopted “wingnut” to describe the idiocy on the right - it’s mildly better because it didn’t mean something good before. But it’s still just imprecise labelling so broad swaths of people can be dismissed.
Wouldn’t it be better if we just said “fundamentalist” or “extremist” when that’s what we mean, and use other precise labels when appropriate? For your purposes, if you want to complain that Bush is fiscally irresponsible, and you believe Kerry will be the same, why not just say so, if that’s what you really meant? If you really like “tax-and-spend” you could say they’re both tax-and-spend politicians. Damn politicians, I hate them. Anyway, where was I?
Mind you, I’m not such a “liberal” as to propose laws against using the word liberal. I’m just having a discussion here…
OK, that’s enough. Maybe we should go out for a bear sometime and have a big talk about class warfare and who started it, whether free markets really exist, and whether those tiny humans they found are really just an extinct species of ape…
Comment from Adam
Time Thursday, October 28, 2004 at 1:03 pm
My god that was long. Sorry. And I think I meant “beer” at the end there, not bear. Maybe it was a Freudian slip somehow…
Comment from Michael
Time Thursday, October 28, 2004 at 2:08 pm
OK, that’s enough. Maybe we should go out for a bear sometime and have a big talk about class warfare and who started it, whether free markets really exist, and whether those tiny humans they found are really just an extinct species of ape…
Definitely a beer. I’ll have to brush up on my free markets, though, to make myself sound intelligent. As for the hobbits, I personally think they were just small people and archeologists should get over themselves. I mean, have you ever met an Indonesian? Those people are teensy!
Comment from Michael
Time Thursday, October 28, 2004 at 11:51 am
A few comments on the tax-and-spend liberal comments; I forgot to make it clear that one of the reasons I would not vote for Bush is that he wasn’t fiscally conservative enough, but….. Kerry isn’t much better in that regard. I like your flip-flopping the phrase to liberal tax-and-spender, though; just like a Democrat to flip-flop!
As for the derisive use of the word liberal, of course it no longer means liberal in the original sense as it applies to politics. I have many liberal tendencies, and many “conservatives” also do. But self-described liberals today I view as exactly how you describe, dishonest. I don’t believe in social handicapping and I don’t believe in equality because people don’t have differences; I believe in treating people equally because I respect the one aspect of us that is equal, our humanity. What “liberals” see as inclusiveness I see as merely intolerance towards people who don’t believe in their view of what constitutes inclusiveness. I get tingly when I see the ACLU defend the rights of groups like the KKK, because that’s what protecting freedoms should be. There is absolutely no way that preaching against homosexuality from the pulpit, for example, should be a crime. None.
I think this comment got off track. I’m in the middle of eating lunch and people keep bothering me. maybe I’ll come back to it…