Breaking Myths about Liberals: An Interview with Myself (I)
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
I’ve been blogging around on JU for the last three weeks or so. I came here mobilized by claims that blog sites were doing much to encourage civil discourse and provide public domain pressure on the press not to drop important stories. I suspected those claims were a bit utopian and my reading and participation on discussion threads have only supported that suspicion. But I thought I would start a blog entry series that responds to some of the more common attributions posited about liberals. There are SO many different kinds of liberals, so please understand that I am only answering these charges for myself as a liberal.
Are you a Bush Hater?
No. The man is not evil. The man is not stupid. And the man did not “trick” his way into the White House. To believe these things is to give into cynicism about this country and its political processes. The truth of a democracy is that few citizens are 100% happy with their leaders at any given time. The beauty (and sometimes flaw) of US-style democracy is that those in (elected offices of) power are never there very long, all things considered. I disagree with many of the current administration’s policies – economic, foreign, environmental, healthcare, etc. I disagree with the current administration’s so-called “discipline” that limits the flow of information and treats the press as special interest lobbiests best suited for disseminating talking points. I disagree with the current administration’s deep involvement with powerful corporations and their tendencies to downplay or mask these involvements. But this is not hate. It is dissent and a firm conviction that these policies and practices are leading us in the wrong direction.
What I do hate is having my positions reduced to “hate for the President.” What I do hate is vacuous criticism that Kerry’s support is built more on anti-Bush feelings than pro-Kerry commitments. Even if that is true, it does not invalidate my concerns about the current administration’s polices and practices. Politics is the art of compromise. In supporting Kerry, I recognize that he will have some policies that I disagree with and some that I support. In the balance, though, I think his leadership will be better than the leadership we currently have. Does that make me more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry? Possibly, but I think that is a meaningless distinction. A similar semantic shift would claim that pro-Bush supporters are also anti-Anybody-But-Bush-Again people – or, taking it to its illogical extreme, that to be pro-Bush is to hate the rest of America (that is, not that the rest of America is ABBA, but that the rest of America is not Bush).
My point is that it is a politically viable and even noble position to be against the President in this election. Anti-Bush does not equal “I hate Bush.” And anti-Bush doesn’t mean I would support anybody and everybody else as favorable alternatives. It only means I am against Bush and his administration leading our country and I think Kerry, specifically, would be a better (but not perfect) alternative. By reducing liberals to “Bush haters,” those making the charge get to dismiss our concerns and shake their heads in condemnation of our hatred.
Is Michael Moore your God?
No. God is my God. Michael Moore and I are simply fellow citizens who share similar (but not the same) political views. I felt Michael Moore’s film, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” was a good film with important arguments. At times, I think Moore takes some liberties to make a point. At times, his “stunts” make me uncomfortable. I don’t believe 100% of his allegations are 100% accurate. However, even if just 50% of his allegations are accurate (and by my best estimates it is more like 80%), then they should give us all serious pause for concern.
What startles me is that, if the level of criticism mobilized against the film’s fact claims were mobilized against the rhetoric of the President, Vice-President, and other GOP leaders, they would not score any better (and probably far worse). Michael Moore asks hard questions and makes tough claims that, frankly, should have been asked long ago by our supposedly “free” press. I have learned a lot from the answers that the administration and its mouth-pieces have tried to provide for the film – in some cases, those answers have cleared up confusion. What irritates me is that, more often, instead of responding to the film’s charges, most have simply tried to dismiss the film in its entirety (often without seeing it). Conversely, if I found the film in any way valuable, I must be a Moore fanatic convinced that he's right about everything. It is a false dichotomy, much like the assumption that I hate Bush. It serves no purpose other than to shut down dialogue and oversimplify complex issues – strategies that ultimately seem to assist our overly secretive administration to implement its policies.
Do you favor big government?
Yet another charge that over-simplifies a complex issue. Republicans often campaign on the promise of smaller government. But has the government really shrunk in the last four years? There were more attempts to streamline the government under Clinton than under Reagan or either of the Bush’s.
The question is not whether government should be big or small, but what government should do. I don’t think government should regulate citizen’s rights based on (narrow) religious values. I do think the government should participate in the reduction of (involuntary) poverty among its citizens. I don’t think the government should place the rights of an unborn fetus above the rights of the mother and assume that legislators know better than that woman whether or not she should have an abortion. I do think government should reasonably regulate big business, recognizing that big businesses often make decisions based on profit at the expense of public good. I don’t think our federal government should support killing criminals, especially when that system has been shown to be flawed and racially biased. I do think the government is charged with providing national security, but I believe that is effectively done with strategies in addition to military service and weapons – strategies including diplomacy, negotiation, and humanitarian aid.
In short, I think government is necessary. It paves the roads. It regulates the economy. It protects the borders. It represents us to the rest of the world. It protects its citizens from oppression. It enforces the laws. And it is open to all citizens’ participation – or it should be. But it takes resources and manpower to operate. I, for one, am prepared to pony up my taxes to that end. And yes, I think corporations and the wealthiest 1% should pony up a proportional (and possibly higher) amount.
(To be continued…)
Are you a Bush Hater?
No. The man is not evil. The man is not stupid. And the man did not “trick” his way into the White House. To believe these things is to give into cynicism about this country and its political processes. The truth of a democracy is that few citizens are 100% happy with their leaders at any given time. The beauty (and sometimes flaw) of US-style democracy is that those in (elected offices of) power are never there very long, all things considered. I disagree with many of the current administration’s policies – economic, foreign, environmental, healthcare, etc. I disagree with the current administration’s so-called “discipline” that limits the flow of information and treats the press as special interest lobbiests best suited for disseminating talking points. I disagree with the current administration’s deep involvement with powerful corporations and their tendencies to downplay or mask these involvements. But this is not hate. It is dissent and a firm conviction that these policies and practices are leading us in the wrong direction.
What I do hate is having my positions reduced to “hate for the President.” What I do hate is vacuous criticism that Kerry’s support is built more on anti-Bush feelings than pro-Kerry commitments. Even if that is true, it does not invalidate my concerns about the current administration’s polices and practices. Politics is the art of compromise. In supporting Kerry, I recognize that he will have some policies that I disagree with and some that I support. In the balance, though, I think his leadership will be better than the leadership we currently have. Does that make me more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry? Possibly, but I think that is a meaningless distinction. A similar semantic shift would claim that pro-Bush supporters are also anti-Anybody-But-Bush-Again people – or, taking it to its illogical extreme, that to be pro-Bush is to hate the rest of America (that is, not that the rest of America is ABBA, but that the rest of America is not Bush).
My point is that it is a politically viable and even noble position to be against the President in this election. Anti-Bush does not equal “I hate Bush.” And anti-Bush doesn’t mean I would support anybody and everybody else as favorable alternatives. It only means I am against Bush and his administration leading our country and I think Kerry, specifically, would be a better (but not perfect) alternative. By reducing liberals to “Bush haters,” those making the charge get to dismiss our concerns and shake their heads in condemnation of our hatred.
Is Michael Moore your God?
No. God is my God. Michael Moore and I are simply fellow citizens who share similar (but not the same) political views. I felt Michael Moore’s film, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” was a good film with important arguments. At times, I think Moore takes some liberties to make a point. At times, his “stunts” make me uncomfortable. I don’t believe 100% of his allegations are 100% accurate. However, even if just 50% of his allegations are accurate (and by my best estimates it is more like 80%), then they should give us all serious pause for concern.
What startles me is that, if the level of criticism mobilized against the film’s fact claims were mobilized against the rhetoric of the President, Vice-President, and other GOP leaders, they would not score any better (and probably far worse). Michael Moore asks hard questions and makes tough claims that, frankly, should have been asked long ago by our supposedly “free” press. I have learned a lot from the answers that the administration and its mouth-pieces have tried to provide for the film – in some cases, those answers have cleared up confusion. What irritates me is that, more often, instead of responding to the film’s charges, most have simply tried to dismiss the film in its entirety (often without seeing it). Conversely, if I found the film in any way valuable, I must be a Moore fanatic convinced that he's right about everything. It is a false dichotomy, much like the assumption that I hate Bush. It serves no purpose other than to shut down dialogue and oversimplify complex issues – strategies that ultimately seem to assist our overly secretive administration to implement its policies.
Do you favor big government?
Yet another charge that over-simplifies a complex issue. Republicans often campaign on the promise of smaller government. But has the government really shrunk in the last four years? There were more attempts to streamline the government under Clinton than under Reagan or either of the Bush’s.
The question is not whether government should be big or small, but what government should do. I don’t think government should regulate citizen’s rights based on (narrow) religious values. I do think the government should participate in the reduction of (involuntary) poverty among its citizens. I don’t think the government should place the rights of an unborn fetus above the rights of the mother and assume that legislators know better than that woman whether or not she should have an abortion. I do think government should reasonably regulate big business, recognizing that big businesses often make decisions based on profit at the expense of public good. I don’t think our federal government should support killing criminals, especially when that system has been shown to be flawed and racially biased. I do think the government is charged with providing national security, but I believe that is effectively done with strategies in addition to military service and weapons – strategies including diplomacy, negotiation, and humanitarian aid.
In short, I think government is necessary. It paves the roads. It regulates the economy. It protects the borders. It represents us to the rest of the world. It protects its citizens from oppression. It enforces the laws. And it is open to all citizens’ participation – or it should be. But it takes resources and manpower to operate. I, for one, am prepared to pony up my taxes to that end. And yes, I think corporations and the wealthiest 1% should pony up a proportional (and possibly higher) amount.
(To be continued…)
Great post.
PolMach Forums