Bob Herbert on Liberals' Shell Shock

Ignorance must really be bliss. How else, over so many years, could the G.O.P. get away with ridiculing all things liberal?

Troglodytes on the right are no respecters of reality. They say the most absurd things and hardly anyone calls them on it. Evolution? Don’t you believe it. Global warming? A figment of the liberal imagination.

Liberals have been so cowed by the pummeling they’ve taken from the right that they’ve tried to shed their own identity, calling themselves everything but liberal and hoping to pass conservative muster by presenting themselves as hyper-religious and lifelong lovers of rifles, handguns, whatever.

[...]

Anyway, the Republicans were back at it last week at their convention. Mitt Romney wasn’t content to insist that he personally knows that “liberals don’t have a clue.” He complained loudly that the federal government right now is too liberal.

“We need change, all right,” he said. “Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington.”

Why liberals don’t stand up to this garbage, I don’t know. Without the extraordinary contribution of liberals — from the mightiest presidents to the most unheralded protesters and organizers — the United States would be a much, much worse place than it is today.

There would be absolutely no chance that a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin could make a credible run for the highest offices in the land. Conservatives would never have allowed it.

Civil rights? Women’s rights? Liberals went to the mat for them time and again against ugly, vicious and sometimes murderous opposition. They should be forever proud.

The liberals who didn’t have a clue gave us Social Security and unemployment insurance, both of which were contained in the original Social Security Act. Most conservatives despised the very idea of this assistance to struggling Americans. Republicans hated Social Security, but most were afraid to give full throat to their opposition in public at the height of the Depression.

“In the procedural motions that preceded final passage,” wrote historian Jean Edward Smith in his biography, “FDR,” “House Republicans voted almost unanimously against Social Security. But when the final up-or-down vote came on April 19 [1935], fewer than half were prepared to go on record against.”

Liberals who didn’t have a clue gave us Medicare and Medicaid. Quick, how many of you (or your loved ones) are benefiting mightily from these programs, even as we speak. The idea that Republicans are proud of Ronald Reagan, who saw Medicare as “the advance wave of socialism,” while Democrats are ashamed of Lyndon Johnson, whose legislative genius made this wonderful, life-saving concept real, is insane.

When Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law in the presence of Harry Truman in 1965, he said: “No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine.”

Reagan, on the other hand, according to Johnson biographer Robert Dallek, “predicted that Medicare would compel Americans to spend their ‘sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was like in America when men were free.’ ”

Scary.

Without the many great and noble deeds of liberals over the past six or seven decades, America would hardly be recognizable to today’s young people. Liberals (including liberal Republicans, who have since been mostly drummed out of the party) ended legalized racial segregation and gender discrimination.

Humiliation imposed by custom and enforced by government had been the order of the day for blacks and women before men and women of good will and liberal persuasion stepped up their long (and not yet ended) campaign to change things. Liberals gave this country Head Start and legal services and the food stamp program. They fought for cleaner air (there was a time when you could barely see Los Angeles) and cleaner water (there were rivers in America that actually caught fire).

Liberals. Your food is safer because of them, and so are your children’s clothing and toys. Your workplace is safer. Your ability (or that of your children or grandchildren) to go to college is manifestly easier.

It would take volumes to adequately cover the enhancements to the quality of American lives and the greatness of American society that have been wrought by people whose politics were unabashedly liberal. It is a track record that deserves to be celebrated, not ridiculed or scorned.

Self-hatred is a terrible thing. Just ask that arch-conservative Clarence Thomas.

Liberals need to get over it.

"Oopsie" Contest: All-Time Grand Champion and Hall-of-Famer

This hunting season's Federal "Duck Stamps" have a phone number printed on them. The number is supposed to connect you to a place where you can order more stamps. Due to a mis-print, it actually connects to a phone sex line.

Abortion, the Election, and the Republicans

Via Angela in the comments, Dr. Robert Stackpole posted a series of essays...

http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=3248& PLID=75
http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=3265& PLID=75
http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=3258& PLID=75

...which contain his thoughts on how Catholics ought to vote, given Obama's unreserved support for abortion rights and McCain's problematic positions on other issues.

I come to a different conclusion than Dr.Stackpole, but I respect his decision and don't question the sincerity of his arguments.

As one of the commenters to part 3 said - there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of Republican's true commitment to opposition to abortion, leaving aside the notion that opposing abortion does not, in and of itself, make one "pro-life." They've had 8 years: remember the big push to pass a constitutional amendment protecting all life from conception until natural death? Neither do I.

For that matter, after Roberts and Alito took their seats on the Supreme Court, why didn't the Republican-controlled Congress itself pass a law outlawing abortion, so that the "Pro-Life" Bush administration could then send the Solicitor General to argue for it in front of the Supreme Court? Republican Congress, Republican Administration: why no real action?

I'm convinced it's because they don't want to actually settle the abortion question - firstly because there is (unfortunately) a clear majority of public opinion that abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances, and thus actually outlawing it would present huge problems for them in terms of a backlash ( I have read some of the contingency planning the pro-choice movement has done for the event that Roe is overturned; the backlash would be absolutely massive, trust me); and secondly because that would deprive them of an issue they can use to get elected. "Just give us the chance to nominate one more justice, and then - then! - we'll finally be able to outlaw abortion. I know you Pro-Life liberals hate our other policies, but you're morally obligated to vote for us because of this one over-riding issue."

Disingenuous in the extreme, in my view.

Ponder this: It occurs to me that real and substantial progress might be made on the abortion issue if pro-lifers did more outreach to Liberals (beyond just telling them to vote for Republicans - an obvious non-starter.)

Pro-lifers don't have a lot of growth potential with Republicans and conservatives: the ones who can be convinced, have been. So, why doesn't the Pro-Life movement reach out to liberals? You know, have a fellow liberal explain opposition to abortion in a way that makes sense to the world-view of your typical Democrat, using progressive world-views and framing. I do this myself: there is lots of growth potential here, believe me. (Note the link to the right to Democrats For Life.) Support for abortion is pretty soft among lots of the rank and file Democrats I'm acquainted with.

Yup

Conservatism unleashed has proven skilled in exactly two things, in government: coming up with creative rationales for ignoring existing law or gutting its intent or enforcement, and at staffing every nook and cranny of government with more conservative cronies. It is superb at the machinery of destruction; it has never built a single thing, and mocks the very premise.

I just finished Thomas Frank's new book, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, and Frank says that this is the very heart of the matter.

The premise of contemporary conservatism is that government doesn't work; the response to Katrina was, from this perspective, "good" because it "proved" that government is ineffective.

Peel away the cynicism and Christianist pandering, and you discover that contemporary Republicanism has become the enactment of the belief that governments only purpose is to help rich people make money, and protect the interests of the powerful; anything that interferes with that agenda must be defunded and destroyed.

I highly recommend Frank's book.

Seems Like Common Sense

[T]he housing bust has long way to go before the median price of a house is equivalent with the budget of the median income.

McCain's Heroism

MJ Rosenberg, in an essay at TPM Cafe, describes something that's been eating at the edge of my consciousness:

You would never know it from the media coverage but John McCain is not one of America's greatest war heroes. He is a former POW who survived, heroically. He deserves to be honored for that heroism.

But one thing distinguishes McCain from other war heroes, the kind whose heroism changes history rather than their life stories.

America's two greatest war heroes were Ulysses Grant and Dwight Eisenhower. Grant saved the union. And Ike saved civilization.

And neither one ever bragged about their experience. (Can you imagine Ike smacking down Adlai Stevenson by saying that while Adlai ran a nice medium-sized state, he was the Supreme Allied Commander who ran D-Day, defeated Hitler, and liberated Europe?).

Impossible. Like Grant, Eisenhower did not brag.

That "Elitist" Obama

Obama was raised by a single mother who was occasionally on food stamps, is black, and went to college on scholarships. Cindy McCain wore an outfit and accessories that literally cost more than the average American home…but Obama’s the elitist. Got it.

Obama on Labor, Unions,and What Binds Us Together

"Elitist Liberals"

Republicans define “elitism” with cultural signifiers: If you like latte, live on the coasts, eat organic food, drive a car made in northern Europe (Saab, Volvo, VW…) hunt birds rather than deer…etc.

Democrats, back in the days of Harry Truman and FDR, defined elitism in economic terms - “Malefactors of great wealth,” “economic royalists,” “the rich, lolling obscenely in opera boxes…” (actually, that was Mencken).

A reporter asked Sherrod Brown a couple years ago why so many rural and poor whites were voting for Republicans. His response: “Because Democrats stopped talking to them.”

A big piece of that has to do with the Civil and Voting Rights Acts, and their political aftermath. LBJ said that “we’ve lost the South for a generation” due to those Acts, but he lost more than the south: Racist whites everywhere were alienated from the Democratic Party. Part (at this point, only a small part, I hope) of the “elitist” charge is lingering resentment against urban northeastern Democrats for overturning the structures and privileges of Southern Post-Reconstruction society. The “outsiders” who tore down a system that had worked (for whites, anyway) for a hundred years were the original targets of the charge of elitism.

I am far to the left of most democrats these days because I’m an old-fashioned economic liberal - I’d love to see a far more progressive income tax, tilting the playing field in favor of union organizing, government regulation of public goods, single-payer health care, and so on.

Tucker On Palin's National Security "Experience"

Something tells me it's going to be a very, very long campaign for Tucker Bounds.

From the Great Woody Guthrie

I just sang this with my guitar, and I couldn't sing the final verse without tears interrupting.

As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - "no tress passin'"
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!

This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me

In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.

Good For Him

Obama has told his campaign that anyone who discusses Palin's family is going to be immediately canned.

Part of his statement:

"I have said before and I will repeat again: People's families are off limits. And people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor and/or her potential performance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18 and how a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn’t be a topic of our politics."

Can you imagine a Rove-advised candidate issuing a similar statement? Neither can I.