Tag liberals

It’s Good To Be A Liberal

Only eight more shopping days until Election Day, kids! I’m going to make a sincere effort this week to post about things other than You-Know-What, but to do that I have to get all of these links out of my system.

Recently, I read someone saying somewhere that people might be surprised at what genuinely nice individuals most politicians are. That the majority of people who go into professional politics do so out of a genuine desire to be of service to other people, regardless of their ideology. Republicans AND Democrats alike — contrary to the vicious rhetoric currently employed by the Republicans. Sometimes that commitment to public service gets obscured by personal ambitions and political obligations, but not always. I think there’s no question that Barack Obama is one of those people who has held on to his personal sense of service, and I hope he is able to continue to do so after he assumes the office of President.

This brief article in the Washington Post’s Sunday magazine lets Dennis Kucinich explain his mission in his own words, and here again you can grasp the sincere desire to help other people, especially people who otherwise have no one to help them. That, friends, is the heart of liberalism (or “progressivism”, if you’re a wimp). Kucinich was practically alone among the Democratic candidates in staking his claim firmly in progressive soil, while Clinton and Obama wrestled over who could be the most like the Republicans. This was and is my biggest qualm with Obama — that while he is a decent person, he is too easily swayed by the political wind. I do not have that sense at all about Dennis Kucinich, and that is why he’ll get my vote next week and why I will continue to support him in the future. The now-embryonic Obama Administration would do well indeed to find a place for Dennis Kucinich and foster his political future so that he might have a realistic chance at the White House eight years hence.

This is Bernie Sanders, the independent Senator from Vermont. Bernie (he prefers to be called “Bernie”) has been in the Senate since the Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006, but he had been Vermont’s single representative in the House for 16 years before that. Bernie’s political affiliation is one of the most interesting ones in modern American politics. He’s listed as an “independent”, caucuses with (and votes with) the Democrats, and describes himself as a Socialist. Indeed, in his earlier days prior to being elected mayor of the city of Burlington, VT, he was a member of an anti-war fringe party, the very sort that William Ayers was involved with (minus the bombs, I guess).

During the years of Alan Greenspan’s chairmanship of the Federal Reserve, Bernie was a vocal critic of Greenspan. At the time, Greenspan was widely considered as a near-magical figure by Washington leaders, able to keep the long boom of the Clinton years rolling along with a single well-directed word in his oracular statements to Congress. Last week, Greenspan, now retired, returned to Congress, hat in hand, to admit that he had “made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms”. This is what Bernie had to say about that.

Bernie Sanders has also been among the few progressive voices (along with Kucinich) speaking out agains the Wall Street bailout, and calling quite vocally for the sort of reforms and public service programs that Franklin Roosevelt enacted at the beginning of his administration. Give ‘em hell, Bernie!

The only part of this summer’s Democratic National Convention that I watched was the night that Ted Kennedy spoke. The man pulled himself out of a hospital bed, was wheeled into the arena, and lifted himself from a wheelchair to walk to the podium to make that speech. The reports from his family continue to be positive, but there could not have been anyone who heard that speech who did not know in their hearts that it would be the last convention speech he’ll make.

Ted Kennedy still plans to return to the floor of the Senate when it reconvenes in January, and it does seem that he will make good on his pledge. The Washington Times (you know, the one run by the Moonies) ran this story last week that describes how Teddy is spending his recuperation time: by crafting a vast piece of legislation to bring his life-long goal of universal health care to the floor of the Senate. While both Barack Obama and John McCain have health care proposals in their platforms, both are fundamentally flawed in many ways. I think there’s more than a little reason to be afraid that President Obama would try to move quickly on his program, putting the issue to bed with a lackluster approach that will haunt us for decades. People who have met with Kennedy to discuss his plan call it a much better alternative to Obama’s plan; it has buy-in from all the assorted interests, and an Obama representative has been kept in the loop as a way to entice Obama to embrace this plan over his own.

This is the most important cause of Kennedy’s long political career, and perhaps the single greatest domestic issue facing this country other than the Wall Street meltdown. The sense is that many in Washington are willing to take this on seriously. One of the executives who runs the AARP says that the prevailing feeling is “Let’s do it for Ted.”

Amen to that.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Lead, Follow, Or Get Out Of The Way

Here’s a very interesting graph, and one that Barack Obama would do well to pay attention to, if you ask me. It illustrate an estimate of how the American voting population falls along a traditional left-to-right, liberal-to-conservative spectrum based on public opinion polling data and compares it directly to the ideological positions of the total membership of the U.S. House Of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. As you can see, overall Congress is considerably more conservative than the geneal populace; while there’s not an extreme difference in the medians between the House and the public, there’s a greater discrepancy between the public and the Senate, and in terms of overall distribution there are substantially more liberals in the general populace than in either house.

Here’s the blog where this graph came from. The blog promotes a recently-published book about the inequities in America and how they translate into voting habits. If you check out that link, be sure to look at the three other graphs which compare the same sort of data for “red”, “blue” and “battleground” states. The picture changes a bit when you consider these graphs; in “blue” states, members of Congress are significantly more liberal than their constituents (especially in the House), and in “red states” the conservative extreme is even more pronounced.

This webpage is where the graphs actually originate, and the purpose of the graphs was to respond to the Republican talking point that Obama was “the most liberal member of the Senate”. Once your head recovers from some of those animated cloud graphs, you should be able to see that based on his overall record in the Senate, Obama was nowhere NEAR the liberal end of the ideological spectrum. He plots firmly in the middle of the liberal “hump” of the Senate distribution, putting him very near the liberal hump of the general public — but that’s a long way from the far left end. McCain is similarly positioned on the right-hand side.

So, if this election is about the MIDDLE, why is it being waged on the right? Sam Smith, who publishes the political blog “The Progressive Review”, offers up a particularly scathing assessment of how far Obama is skidding to the right as he is supposedly “tracking to the middle”:


– Favors expanding the war in Afghanistan
– Leaving a sizable force in and near Iraq following what he calls a “withdrawal.” A large mercenary force would probably also be left.
– Aggressively opposed the impeachment of Bush. This same advisor says he would “be stunned” if his candidate appointed a strong critic of corporations to the Supreme Court.
– Has offered no major new ideas for dealing with the nation’s economic crisis.
– Supports Bill Clinton’s assault on social welfare.
– Supported making it harder to file class action suits in state courts
– Voted for a business-friendly tort bill
– Voted against a 30% interest rate cap on credit cards
– Had the most number of foreign lobbyist contributors in the primaries
– Is even more popular with Pentagon contractors than McCain
– Was most popular of the primary candidates with K Street lobbyists
– Has a top economic aide who has written enthusiastically about Milton Friedman and denounced the idea of a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures.
– Has no meaningful urban policy
– Supports the war on drugs
– Supports the crack-cocaine sentence disparity
– Supports Real ID
– Supports the PATRIOT Act
– Supports the death penalty
– Has lent his support to the neo-liberal Hamilton Project, which was formed, as one journalist put it, “to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party.”
– Has considered naming as vice president or cabinet members rightwing Republicans rated 0% by SANE, AFL-CIO, NARAL, Alliance for Retired Americans, Human Rights Coalition and the League of Conservation Voters, and who oppose abortion and favor privatizing Social Security
– Voted for a nuclear energy bill that included money for bunker buster bombs and full funding for Yucca Mountain.
– Supports federally funded ethanol and is unusually close to the ethanol industry.
– Supports the No Child Left Behind Act.
– Opposes reintroduction of the fairness doctrine for radio and television.
– Is using hawkish foreign policy advisors involved in past US misdeeds and failures.
– Strongly supports Israeli aggression and apartheid.
– Favors turning over Jerusalem to Israel
– Favored cluster bomb ban in civilian areas
– Opposes single payer healthcare
– Wouldn’t have photo taken with San Francisco mayor because he was afraid it would seem that he supported gay marriage
– Favors a national service plan that appears to be in sync with one being promoted by a new coalition that would make national service mandatory by 2020, and which is in line with a bill for such mandatory national service introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel.
– Has dissed both Ralph Nader and Paul Wellstone
– Supports immunity from prosecution for both telecoms engaged in illegal wiretapping and the government officials that had them do it.

You don’t have to imagine. It’s Barack Obama, whose nomination was assured thanks to a con game that even outdid the one that worked so well for Bill Clinton and which left America essentially without a liberal voice for eight years.

This May article by George Packer in The New Yorker documents the increasing downward slide of the Republican Party, which truly hit its pinnacle with Richard Nixon, not Ronald Reagan and makes the assertion that this election is as much a watershed for the re-emergence of the Democratic majority as 1964 was for the Republicans. And yet…and yet…Obama offers nothing, not one single thing in his platform to differentiate himself from the contemptible Pelosi and Reid or from the utterly corrupt McCain beyond flowery rhetoric. If this really is the end of the modern conservative movement, it’s not dying without the supposed liberal establishment trying to breathe a little more life into it.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

And They Smell Funny, Too

rockemsockem.jpg

The cutting edge folks at Psychology Today have given us this article which tries to summarize some of the research into the different mindsets of liberals and conservatives. How very 2004.

The results should surprise no one: liberals are open-minded, secure, able to perceive “shades of gray” in decision-making, are creative for creativity’s sake, had nurturing parents, and have a more accepting attitude about death. Conservatives were insecure children, rely on external authority for their own internal validation, dislike uncertainty or ambiguity, and have a hard time dealing with the concept of death. Education is a direct predictor of having a liberal viewpoint, but only to a point: MBAs, doctors, and lawyers tend to regress to more conservative stances after their professional training. And everybody gets more conservative if their own personal interests appear to be threatened.

The point of the article, actually, is to try to summarize some of the research in this avenue over the last five years. As the article points out, most researchers were more interested in trying to detail the very apparent “red shift” in the period after 9/11, not trying to add to the noise by laying loads of judgments on liberal vs. conservative. The consensus seems to be that the blunt confrontation with mortality that millions of people experienced by watching the collapse of the WTC towers was the triggering event that drew out latent conservative behavior across society. Now that we are five years beyond the emotional trigger, many people are reverting to their ability to view events through a dispassionate and rational process that favors a more liberal perspective. Which explains the near constant stream of messages from the political right trying to retain a modicum of fear in the general populace.

I thought this was worth reading, but when you strip away the academic mumbo-jumbo, it borders pretty close on your average “Department of Duh” bulletin.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

All Original Content Copyright © BrianKaneOnline
All Other Content Copyright © Its Original Authors

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress

Switch to our mobile site