The Republicans play to their base with phrases like, “support the troops” (support them do what, exactly? Being for the war in our own heads without sacrificing anything?) and “socialized medicine” (socialism wasn’t a bad thing until evil people – Stalin, Mao, Castro – stood behind that veil and became dictators. Using this phrase assumes Democrats are as evil as Stalin) and “loony left” (Get it? Two words, two “L”s in a row. It doesn’t rhyme, but still.)
So yes, L.B.J. was a liberal and messed up a lot of stuff, but consider his advances in public education, civil rights, and immigration reform. Obama would not be considered a potential presidential candidate today were it not for L.B.J. And let’s not forget that L.B.J.’s lowest approval ratings were still double George Bush’s current ratings.
Kennedy and F.D.R. were liberals, too. And they admitted it.
Nixon, both Bushes, Hoover, McCarthy – these are conservatives. Reagan would have been known far and wide as a failure were it not for the pope putting pressure on the Soviet Union, and Jimmy Carter beginning the complete and total destruction of Afghanistan, aiding the Mujahideen, giving the Soviet Army their own Vietnam.
Another problem is Bill Clinton won as a centrist – but just barely. The greatest asset to his campaign was his charm, and he’s seen in such a positive light today because of who succeeded him. Because he was arguably a successful centrist, that doesn’t make the centrist position always successful, as we’ve seen with Gore and Kerry.
The idea that these new Democrats are trying to coin the phrase “progressive” is a real shame. A Republican would argue that they too, are progressive because progress is a vague term defined by particular situations, not a philosophy. Calling your own philosophy progressive just sounds pretentious and fuels the stereotype of the liberal elitist.
The idea should be that liberalism is progressive because we’ve come to where we are through the act of liberals. Any time in our history that something new and innovative has come about, it’s by the work of liberals. The founding fathers, they were liberal. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Lincoln – liberals.
Of the front-runners for the Democratic ticket, none of them are all that exciting. Edwards seems like a phony, and his single-term in the senate is nothing to gloat about. Hillary is politics-as-usual. Obama doesn’t have the substance.
But it looks like they’re all holding back. I know they’re against NAFTA, war with Iran, free market healthcare, etc. Edwards, Hillary, Biden, Dodd – they were probably against the war in Iraq in the first place. I would have more respect for all of them if they just admitted that voting for the Iraq War resolution seemed politically smart at the time, even if it was against everything they believed. I’m sick of smart politicians trying to convince the American public that they were somehow tricked by Bush and his cronies.
I’d like to be excited about one of the frontrunners, but so far it looks like Biden is the only one with his head on straight – but he’s still far from perfect. He has the most foreign policy experience, isn’t afraid to speak his mind, and has, in my opinion, won every debate easily. Unfortunately, his best chances to change the world will come when he’s selected as secretary of state under – as long as they can stop pretending to be something they’re not – a liberal, Democratic administration. One that isn’t ashamed to say what it is, and realizes that the irrational stink emitted from the 14 million Americans who listen to political talk radio, or the 2-3 million who watch Fox News – and take it seriously – don’t deserve to vote for a liberal, anyway.
1 | 2
