When I was a blogger at the ’04 Republican Convention, I was feeling very weird (almost out of body) since I had, until that time, never voted for – or even considered voting for – a Republican for President and I was about to pull the lever for Bush. In the midst of this, I was noticed by an old radical-liberal journalist buddy who grinned at me and wagged his finger, saying “You’ll be back!” (meaning back to the liberal fold, of course). I felt a sharp tinge of guilt. Maybe he was right.
Now that all seems ridiculous. Back to what? There is no there. Or, to once again paraphrase the great Preston Sturges: “Lberalism is not only dead, it’s decomposed.” (He was speaking of “chivalry.)
The ongoing Edwards comedy reminds me of all this. It is redolent of the old Roman legal principle “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” not just because Edwards is lying all over the place like a Shakespearean fool, but because the lie easily metastasizes from sex to his self-important pronouncements about the poor while building himself a 28000 square foot house (not your garden variety Mother Teresa).
But is it fair, as I do in the headline, to tarnish Obama with the Edwards brush? Isn’t Barack legitimately a liberal or a leftist or something? Isn’t there some ideology there? Well, frankly, I think not. The only ideology, if you can call it that, is to attract a certain number of brain-washed (mostly by the MSM) voters. Obama statements have already morphed completely into “McCain lite.” On energy, foreign policy, trade, etc. he is saying essentially the same thing now as McCain has been saying for months. There is, in Obama’s case, quite properly no there there. So is his ideology essentially a lie? Is there such a thing as liberalism anymore? Is there some place for me to go home to as my old friend suggested at the ’04 Convention? Where is it?
Better question to ask yourself, is why it took you so long? I moved over to the dark side in 1980 much to my family’s chagrin.
My name is Paul. I am a Republican.
“Hi Paul!.”
I worked my tail off for McGovern and then my journey to the dark side also started in 1980. In fact, my wife gave me a joke card the next year for my birthday. The front of the card read: ” I Married a Republican.”
Never looked back.
But things got even darker in 2002 when I switched from a MAC to a Dell.
Actually, this whole Edwards performance has me thinking of Al Gore. They share a self-righteous aire of privileged leadership, carefully tended hair, and bloviating oratory.
I can’t figure out why anyone was attracted to Edwards as a candidate in the first place. The man had no substance at all. That whole “two Americas” shtick was a joke (the last Democrat President was a man who grew up poor and abused, for goodness’ sake – if there really are “two Americas”, which one does Clinton belong to?). His only plan was to pander to better-off Americans by making them feel good about themselves and to poor Americans by promising to take money from the rich and give it to them.
These tactics are tried and true, pioneered by Wilson and FDR, perfected by LBJ, but are they any plan for running the country? They might get you elected, but they don’t help you once you take office.
Now, what is Obama’s plan? Hmmm.
If you looked at results, instead of the ideology, you could have come into the light, so much sooner. Russia is gone, and they really, really tried this out.
The cities in America, like Detroit and New Orleans, are in the toilet run by lefties. The black family has been devastated by the nanny state. The problem is, you keep doing the same thing to fix something…tax, spend more than add on more taxes. A successful small busines owner, has more smarts in refining what will work on a day-to-day basis….I wouldn’t hire Obama to run a taco stand.
Imagine, Obama embracing 20 years of “God damn America”, from Rev. Wright, is not a disqualifier to run for POTUS by the Democrats?…absolutely stunning. Not wearing a flag pin is a test of courage for Obama. He makes Kerry, Carter and Dukakis look like winners.
Paul, liberalism is the liberalism that you knew. You just never bothered to see the results till now.
For the time being (at least a few more election cycles) you can’t go home again, Roger. Classical liberalism is but a quaint, no, make that *faint*, memory to the modern Left. At some point, in order to ever regain the White House, the Dems will move back towards the “center” – wherever that is anymore. Which is fine, because we need two healthy parties. Then again, you’d think that a time of war would be reason enough to change course *right now* and not wait to lose a few more times, so maybe I’m giving them too much credit. Wait a minute, of course I am.
I haven’t looked back since the Florida circus, and of course, 9/11, and they haven’t given me one single reason to in all that time. So, to use their own classy vernacular, screw them!
{ cue the humorless trolls }
The problem you have Roger is that there is no ideology in politics anymore. Not much in the way of principle either. What you are looking for is not liberalism but old fashioned Democrats.
All too many pols are nothing but power hungry petty tyrants & demogogues.
The “liberals” won most all of their fights years ago, they just didn’t quit then because any movement is self-sustaining even long after its rationale for existence is gone.
I bet that the big Zero has an ideology and principle at his core. But, he along with all the “progressives” also know that there is no way in hell that anyone would vote for them on that baisis. Marxism has never been a big seller and that’s what they have. So, he starts mouthing whatever platitudes he can to hid his principle (hopey, changey) and when people start asking for real positions he sounds like McC lite hoping to garner votes from those too dumb to notice.
What we need are two (or more) parties that put forth an honest to goodness platform based on core principles that are clearly enunciated. Positions on individual issues can then be shown to abide with the principles and necessary compromises identified. Two positions from contending pols could be the same but the underlying principles would allow you to understand the direction they want to go from that starting point.
After each presidential campaign in which they don’t run a southern governor, I expect the donks to reach rock bottom and drastically change tactics; and it never happens. And there’s no evidence they ever will; even McGovern didn’t teach them anything and I doubt that McGovern 2 in November will either.
“What you are looking for is not liberalism but old fashioned Democrats.”
In domestic policy conservatives would not have agreed with Hubert Humphrey or Henry Jackson. But on foreign and defense policy they were often more in tune with modern conservative (since neoconservative seems to be a tarnished term) thinking than were (and are) the paleoconservatives.
So if folks like Roger are looking for old-fashioned Democrats, they are NOT looking for old-fashioned Republicans.
To me the big issue in this election is that if the Democratic Party is pulled radically left (Obama wins) that it will destroy the precious political stability with which we have been blessed. I am a Republican. Have been for 60 years. I fervently wish for my children and their children that the Democratic Party can return to its former greatness.
Roger, you’re supporting a candidate who’s flipped on just about every “staunch” position he’s ever held — the possible exception being abortion, on which he remains an extremist. Given his amorphous nature, could McCain just as easily be considered “Obama lite”?
The only thing consistent about Obama’s stances is they have been (or seemed) politically expedient at the time. (His most recent neck-sprainer of course being his rhetoric over Russia’s invasion of Georgia.) The trouble is, that leaves those of us who might have voted for him with a “pig in the poke” problem.
God knows I have no love for the McCain of McCain-Feingold. I’d much rather be looking at the prospect of voting for a “government is not the solution, it’s (more often than not) the problem” kind of Republican. I don’t have that option. But what I will NOT vote for is a cypher who’s only defining traits are an ambition with queasy-making messianic overtones, combined with a Clintonesqe ability to tack into whatever wind gets him closer to his personal goals.
I’ll take the geriatric, belligerant, nannystate-enabling known quantity, thank you.
“Isn’t Barack legitimately a liberal or a leftist or something?”
Let’s not confuse Obama the candidate with Obama the potential president.
Because if by “something” you mean “socialist”, then yes, I would agree with that. His “move” toward the center is nothing but talk – campaign talk, the cheapest kind of cheap talk.
Once in the White House, it’s a different story. Even the clownish Dr. Phil is right that “The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior”, and when Obama isn’t talking, he’s taking other people’s money, and feels perfectly entitled to take more (see his 2006 comments about inheritance tax reform).
Scott
“The only ideology, if you can call it that, is to attract a certain number of brain-washed (mostly by the MSM) voters.”
Roger, you’d be much more credible in your questioning of a candidate’s substance if your entire rationale for supporting McCain weren’t that not supporting him (or, really, any other Republican) will somehow mean the imposition of Sharia law upon the United States. I’ve been reading you long enough to know that (and that, if there is an attack during a Republican administration, you will blame both the opposition party and the media).
If Obama is somehow a Messianic figure to some of his supporters, McCain is a father figure to supporters like yourself. Indeed, he is the weathered patriarch who will discharge his rifle when he thinks he sees a wolf in the yard (though it doesn’t seem to matter to his children if he actually hits a wolf) and tell Vietnam stories by the fireplace to alleviate the kiddies’ belated vet guilt.
tess:
That is not true. McCain has been remarkably consistent and when he did change positions, he did so for reasons he could explain. He did not just look at a poll and make a leap.
Jay:
Obama has spent most of the short time he has been a Senator, running for office. I am amazed that anyone would consider voting for someone who has virtually no record and no ideology and no experience. This the Presidency of the United States we are talking about, not a male lead in a George Cloony movie.
McCain knows more and has seen more and experienced more and has more of a record than Obama can begin to lay claim to.
Salute! To those that posted comments before me.
I think Roger posted an interesting question in whether or not there is a Leftist movement with any integrity.
AlanC claims all politicians are scum. From what I have seen these last 50 years, He is very likely correct, but that wasn’t the question.
Laraine claimed there never was a kernel of integrity in the American Leftist movement and points out any social system ultimately based on theft and coercion brings poverty and disaster.
The first half is true. The last half of that is also true, but it seems to me that some forms of federal activism DO help the average person. The few examples do not seem to fit any ideological system.
It might be possible to have an ethical Leftist Movement. It would probably be some weird variant of Libertarianism.
In pretty much any Presidential election, both candidates tend to pivot toward the center after they’ve won the nomination. That’s what you’re picking up on, but to suggest that means there aren’t actually real differences in positions, or that ‘liberalism’ doesn’t exist, is painting with an extremely wide brush, and makes me wonder how closely you’re paying attention.
Compare the two candidates tax plans. Or their health care proposals. Or, for that matter, what their various surrogates have been saying about Georgia for the past two days. And even on Iraq, there are very different ideas about how the US should interact with the Iraqi government, which speaks to very different ideas about how the US should approach its role in the world. Read Obama’s position papers on his website. (Also, Matt Yglesias’s new book, Head in the Sand, is a pretty convincing depiction of what a liberal approach to post-9/11 foreign policy might look like (convincing in the sense that it really is a different approach than we’ve seen from Bush and what McCain’s proposals, not convincing in the sense that I’d expect you to agree with it.) I think this post is pretty lazy analysis on your part.
Terrye:
You are right, this is for the Presidency of the USA, not a movie. I became an INDEPENDENT when our present
President was in his first term in office. We put him in the position of running our country when his ability to
even run a baseball team had failed as did all his leadership ventures. You are right regarding McCain and
since it has been narrowed down between these two men, “Practical Knowledge” should be the strongest
factor, not “Motivational Speaking”, this is not a game that can be replayed if an error is made.
If George (segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever) Wallace were alive and ran against Obama, Obama would pander to segregationist to derail Wallace’s bid.
Don’t ask me how, but I bet he would
I find it amazing that in a nation of three hundred million people the democrats have picked what is arguably the least qualified candidate in the last one hundred years. Setting ideology aside, Obama is a joke. The guy is running for the wrong job, he should be angling to be the anchorman on either the BS or NBC Nightly News. He has the looks, the voice and the ability to read of a teleprompter. The money is infinitely better than the presidents salary. The perks overall,are better (minus Air Force One)and the career is not limited to just a few years. In addition he won’t age as quickly. Barry go for the gold and forget the brass ring. Do yourself, your family and the nation a favor and apply to the networks.
Could someone here please help out Anita?
She seems to think that Texas failed while GWB was governor and I can’t seem to remember that. I do remember Texas Democrats praising his ability to work in a non-partisan manner. Something that the more partisan weasles in Washinton (and yes I mean “my” ugly senator blimpo) took advantage of from day 1.
just for instance, Roger, if you really think there is no such thing as liberalism anymore, read this oped from today’s WSJ and explain to me how there aren’t differences between the two candidates:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121867201724238901.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
The Republican Party has had two principles since Eisenhower became president; national defense and monetary conservatism. John Kennedy, for all his weakness as a leader early in his term (Vienna summit with Krushchev), subscribed to much the same principles. Lyndon Johnson set the Democrats adrift with his clumsy Vietnam actions. We ended up with a Democratic party alienated from the great middle class. Inflation and defeat in Vietnam radicalized a lot of young people and they took over the party in 1972. Nixon slowed the shift but, once he was discredited, the Democrats were unmoored from reality. Clinton won because we were at peace and Perot adopted the traditional Republican concern with government spending. The 1994 Republicans looked to bring back an era that would last at least 20 years but the lure of money and power ruined them.
The Democrats are a collection of interests that cluster around a least common denominator. There is no ideology there and hasn’t been since 1972. Obama is all sales pitch and marketing. There is no there there but marketing has gotten very powerful in a country whose education system no longer prepares people for adulthood.
AlanC.;
I did not say Texas failed, I just don’t see what he did besides being a “good old Texas Boy” to both parties.
By the way, I voted for him, his first time around as he seemed the better of the two. I failed to look at the real picture of why he was the chosen son.
Anita, you said “had failed as did all his leadership ventures”
Governor of Texas is a leadership venture and Texas, during his term, was very successful. Were you in Texas when he was there? Have you looked into what he accomplished?
He was a very successful governor. He has been a successful president, even though I don’t always agree with him, during incredibly difficult times.
AlanC;
Please give me examples and then I will apologize if you can present some that really qualified him to have
been our President.
I am not referring to since he has been in office, only prior.
“The Democrats are a collection of interests … There is no ideology there and hasn’t been since 1972.”
I don’t know about that. Growing up in a family with many outspoken progressives, I acquired (but later shed) the idea that is the core of the Democrats’ philosophy:
Democrats (and everyone who identifies as a progressive) are the good guys. Republicans are the bad guys.
Everything follows from this simple formula.
*****
As for the talk of the “center”, I see no middle ground between individual rights on one hand and collectivism on the other.
Roger, you are mostly a liberal.
Liberal (aka neoconservative): one who seeks the maximum level of individual, corporate and commercial freedom.
Progressive (aka social democrat, leftist or “liberal”): one who insists on national and international government action to address social ills, particularly those related to social or economic inequality.
Conservative (aka paleoconservative): one who seeks to protect a nation’s social cohesion and cultural and spiritual strength in the face of the insistent demands of liberals, progressives, capitalists, bankers, militarists, etc..
Anita, check the improvements in education in Texas under Bush they were particularly effective in the minority and poor areas. Also check out the tax regime (of course if you think taxes are too low you won’t like that)
After that you can do your own research.
AlanC;
You don’t know what I think about taxes, so don’t presume. I suggest you check out G W Bush”s pre- business ventures and achievements. It was his wife who was the family member working on educational
improvement, he followed her advise etc.
I have done research for years, again I think you have failed to give any adequate facts. Sorry.
Anita, i thought it was Dick Cheney that pulled the puppet strings. Now you tell me it was Laura. Well live and learn I guess.
Nice use of bait and switch by the way. You’re the one that said ALL of his leadership efforts were failures. Now it’s go back and to his pre-business ventures. What would a pre-business venture be by the way? Did he run an NGO?
Re: your tax position I may not know that, but, I do know that you can’t read for comprehension. I said that his tax policies in Texas were successful as he cut taxes. I also said that you may not think that counted as success depending on your take on taxation. Guess that distinction slipped by you, huh?
So, Do you think cutting taxes is good? If so, give him his due.
As I said, go do your own research if you’re so good at it.
In general (and, yes, I’m speaking in broad generalities here because you’re right, most people are hybrids), it boils down to this:
Liberals like to share, conservatives don’t. Liberals believe in change, movement, progression and are willing to take chances. Conservatives cling to the past and are frightened by change, especially if it carries the potential to lose money.
Liberals believe in helping everyone, share and share alike, and understand the need to legislate equality at least to the point where everyone has decent health, shelter and three square meals. Conservatives worry about themselves and their families, with occasional donations to charity to help assuage their guilt, if they’re lucky enough to have any.
Liberals believe we should embrace our neighbors and welcome exchanges of ideas and the practice of diplomacy to help make our world safer. Conservatives live in fear and, as a result, are willing to destroy their “enemies” (real or imagined) and take away their own freedoms to make them feel safe.
I’m not sure what clicked in your brain to make you blind to these simple truths, Roger, but I think perhaps you should see a doctor about it.
“Liberals believe in helping everyone, share and share alike”
“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”
RGB:
Since as you say, we’re “only speaking in broad generalities here,” allow me to add some parenthetical “simple truths” of my own:
Liberals like to share, (AS LONG AS SOMEONE ELSE IS PICKING UP THE TAB). Liberals believe in change, movement, progression and are willing to take chances [PROVIDED THEY PERSONALLY NEVER HAVE TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY BAD CHOICES THEY MAY MAKE)
Liberals believe in helping everyone, share and share alike,(SURE, AS LONG AS THAT HELP PRIMARILY COMES FROM A BENEFICENT, ALL-KNOWING NANNY STATE OH,AND FOR GOD’S SAKE NO RELIGIOUS-BASED CHARITY, AS IT DEFLECTS THE GOOD CITIZEN’S ATTENTION AND ADULATION AWAY FROM THE TRUE SOURCE OF POWER- POLITICS, THAT IS)
…and understand the need to legislate equality at least to the point where everyone has decent health, shelter and three square meals(AND THAT LEGISLATION OF EQUALITY HAS DONE WONDERS FOR THE FORMER SOVIET UNION, CUBA, N. KOREA, AND COMING SOON- VENEZUELA!)
Liberals believe we should embrace our neighbors and welcome exchanges of ideas and the practice of diplomacy to help make our world safer. (THAT PRACTICE TRANSLATED INTO ACTIONS BY LIBERALS: BEG FORGIVENESS AND PROSTRATE YOURSELF BEFORE TYRANTS, DICTATORS AND TERRORISTS, AND ALWAYS GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, MAN, WE LIKE, MADE THEM THAT WAY BECAUSE OUR FREEDOM, PROSPERITY, MILITARY MIGHT AND OPENNESS WERE ALL STOLEN FROM THE NATIVE PEOPLES WE DISPLACED BACK WHEN WE MADE THE BAD DECISION TO POPULATE THIS PLACE.
Thanks for the inspiration.