Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Stephen, face it, the Dems just aren’t as good at political ploys as the Reps are. I’m not saying who’s right or who’s wrong, the Republicans just play a better game. Until the Dems realize that the plurality of Americans really are dumb enough to believe Iraq has WMDs they won’t win the big elections with consistency.

Stephen:

Worse, we’ve let the Republicans decide our language for us, which has got us using their damned doublespeak. Frame the language, and you frame the debate. We need our own vocabulary for own beliefs. We do not need to be using Conservative words to remind the world of what lousy conservatives we are. We need our language to reflect our committments, not theirs.

You should run for Congress or something. You are “right on key”. Great post.

I disagree with those who say Republicans win because Americans are dumb. I agree more with those who would say Republicans are winning because Democrats are not doing what you are suggesting.

Getting over the “anger” and starting to lead is the way to rebuild.

Craig

Zeek-
Before the war, I believed there were WMDs. My intelligence rates a 141 IQ. What I trusted and others trusted was the word of my government, presenting convincing evidence of a threat. Unfortunately, that evidence wasn’t convincing because there was a threat, it was convincing because certain people in Washington manipulated the system to get the evidence they wanted for the war they wanted.

I think not enough Americans were familiar with the deep extent of the inconsistencies of the the case. I think the Republicans didn’t want to know how bad it was, and that we were to slow to bring up the issues with enough clarity and inevitable common sense. People aren’t stupid, but they’re not psychic either.

I think we should have admitted we were wanting to take Bush down from his lofty position. I think we should have made that point, and not let go of it. We should have even taken the mistakes of the Johnson Administration, which are eerily similar to Bush’s and trot them out. Our mistake was in expecting people to be as angry as we were without presenting them with the evidence of just what it was we were so steamed about.

Craig-
I think Republicans are winning because they are willing to pay a higher price to win. But that only works as long as people are buying. I think getting over the anger is not in the cards though. I think the anger is both necessary and justified, given what has happened.

My reaction to the events of the last two years is a product of my real, emotional response to what has gone on. I am sincerely outraged that my president failed to seek out the truth on my nation’s behalf. The lack of WMDs is especially galling, as it represents one of those little details that make you wonder how somebody could miss such a thing, if they really did a sincere investigation of the issue. That, and the fact that there wasn’t a big terrorist presence in Iraq when we invaded. Another one of those easily overlooked details.

That he chose to bash my party to get his war, then chose to bash us because we got angry at him misleading us, only makes it worse.

Trouble is, folks on the right think its utterly unjustified. They never were the designated scapegoats forBush’s security screwup, so it doesn’t have that added element of betrayal for them. If Bush had been right, he would have hear much less out of us. We would have been happy.

But since Bush wronged us in the process of making a collosal strategical error, it’s kind of hard to let bygones be bygones. We not only have party losses to avenge on him, but the troublesome situation our country’s been dragged into. I see no reason to let him get away with what he’s done.

Stephen,

“Before the war, I believed there were WMDs. My intelligence rates a 141 IQ.”

Ah… Stephen… Such things as wisdom cannot be measured with IQ points… Though I admit, I would have assumed someone such as yourself would have noticed immediately Bush’s peculiar method of speech when he talked about Iraq and WMD’s. First, I don’t think I ever heard Bush actually say Saddam had WMD’s, he just made it extremely obvious that that’s what he meant. Second, whenever Bush talked about two seemingly unrelated things (9/11 and Saddam) he always did so in a repetitive and predictable order (as though trying to brain-wash us). He constantly associated Saddam’s name with 9/11 while never implicating him in the attack.

When talks about invading Iraq arose I knew something wasn’t right. Why the hell would we invade a country that had no apparent connections to the terrorist group that had attacked us? None of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi after all, so wtf were we thinking? Also, despite the fact that this was supposedly about “homeland security,” Bush tried to take moral high-ground by claiming he was trying to spread democracy (among other “glitter” terms) in Iraq. I tried and tried to recall an instance where the US went to war on basis of ideology and the only thing I came up with was Vietnam (and we all know how that ended).

None of this makes for a strong argument for Operation Iraqi Freedom. I didn’t have to be told before hand by various media outlets that I was being spoon-fed BS, I smelled it a mile off. I know it may seem callous to tell to people who feel betrayed that it’s too damned bad, but after telling people repeatedly they were being lied to and getting ridiculed for my effort, I’m not particularly disposed to care.

I’d have to say, zeek, that I was conflicted about going to war in Iraq. The presentation at the UN pushed me over the threshold to supporting the war. At last, a rational explantion for why we’re going out of our way to do this! Unfortunately, even bullshit can be rational. What angers me is that somebody prepared that report with that goal in mind, and I was conned. Many Democrats were conned.

We wanted something, I guess. We wanted the threats facing our country eradicated, and once the war was on, our nation victorious.

We were played, but blaming us for this is ludicrous. We’re not so simple in our characters that there has to be some guarantee we’ll recognize when we’re being had.

Stephen:

I understand those feelings. I really do!! I watched Bill Clinton “look me in the eye” and say “I did not have sexual relations with,,,”. He taught the grade school children of America what a blow job is. He cannot practice Law in his home state. On and on and on and on. Travel gate, “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is”.

It doesn’t do much good to argue because it is emotion, and a feeling of being betrayed by your President. Conservatives feel about Bill Clinton how you feel about George Bush.

I still stand by what I said about getting over the anger and leading. Leadership means going foward not living in the past. For instance back to Social Security. I see so much room for Democrats to position themselves as “the party of moderation”

If I were in Congress as a Republican and the Democratic leadership would decide not to take part in the partison hatefest (which makes it very difficult to vote for anything sponsored by a democrat) (I know Republicans are at lest fool partners in the hate fest), and sponsor a modest proposal to strengthen Social Security, I would vote for it.

Someone has to decide to “get over their anger” and lead. As a moderate inbetween the hate from the left and the hate from the right, my support will probably go with the side that “gets over it” first.

Liberals can’t lead by themselves because a majority of Americans aren’t liberal. They can lead a coalition of liberals and moderates. If the tent is only going to be people who are amgru at George Bush, then leave me out. But if the tent is for those who want moderate reasonable proposals to fix social security and medicare and address other important issues then I’m open.

Craig

Stephen,
Great post.
I recommend you to be a speech writer. This disseration had a ton of fire and passion. I don’t think the Democrats should hit a Moderate base. We know this. How? Look at the neocons. They have hit a far right base while screwing the people over at the same time. People still believe in them. We are more likely to hit a wider range of people by staying on the left. The reason is that we can get swing voter’s to believe in our cause if we articulate our points well enough like you just did. If we hit the moderates, we won’t gain any swing voters and we will likely alienate the 35% of our left wing voters. Having conviction, compassion, fire and vigor is just what we need to win. If they hate us, atleast they will respect us and not say, “the Democrats don’t have a plan.” Great post.

Craig:

“Someone has to decide to “get over their anger” and lead. As a moderate inbetween the hate from the left and the hate from the right, my support will probably go with the side that “gets over it” first.

Liberals can’t lead by themselves because a majority of Americans aren’t liberal. They can lead a coalition of liberals and moderates. If the tent is only going to be people who are amgru at George Bush, then leave me out. But if the tent is for those who want moderate reasonable proposals to fix social security and medicare and address other important issues then I’m open.”

Ding, Ding, Ding. We have a winner. As a past “conservative operative,” I got fed up with the constant anger, and left. Good public policy can be engaged without the ridiculous rhetoric of the both the far left and far right. I think the silent majority of moderates should stand up and either referee or simply tell the rest to sit down and shut up. If you can’t contribute constructively, then you aren’t contributing at all.

Donny, I don’t mind the anger - we’ve earned it - but I don’t think slamming to the left is the answer. Clinton proved that, and Bush got a lot of mileage out of painting Kerry as an ultra-liberal.

I suspect your 35% figure is a bit high for the left wing of the Democratic Party. I think we should stick with the Clinton formula: smaller government, conservative fiscal and foreign policy, and effective, progressive social programs.

Actually poll after poll the majority of Americans are on the Liberal side!!!

62% don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned
86% agree with the civil rights movement
83% agrree with goals of the enviromental movement
56% support 5day waiting to purchase guns
80% believe health insurance should be provided equally to all
52% say they’re willing to pay more taxes to see national healthcare
85% support equal opportunity in workplace for gays
68% support laws to punish work discrimation against gays

And finally Kerry got more votes then any other democrat in history! Remember Ronald Reagan beat mondale & Bush beat Ducakis by DOUBLE DIGIT percents!!! Kerry only lost to Bush by 2%.

TWO PERCENT!!! THAT’S THE BIG STORY the conservatives wish for you to miss!
Bush - a Conservative WARTIME president only beat the #1 LIBERAL by a mere 2%!!!!!

Reagan/Bush beat their opponants by DOUBLE DIGITS in peacetime! How in the world could an ULTRA-LIBERAL ticket come so close to beating a wartime conservative!

The answer is as simple as the popular movies & music….AMERICA IS MORE LIBERAL THEN EVER!

Do you think shows like Will & Grace or Ellen could have been popular in the 1950’s???

Conservatives are actually losing the culture war!

The only problem is since many Dems try to be Republican lite most people (which is most liberals ) don’t vote. MOST COMMON REASON = both candidates are about the same anyway!

Hopefully Howard Dean will lead Democrats back to victory!

I enjoy this kind of discussion, but worry that it misses the bigger problem. There’s a fundamental issue affecting both political parties, one which succumbs to the temptation to demonize those of other political perspectives. For lack of a better word, let’s just call this type of thinking “drama.”

In any type of drama, the world is divided into three categories — the bad guys (persecutors), the good guys (rescuers), and the victims. When we succumb to this type of thinking, we view disagreement or criticism as persecution, and look upon ourselves as victims. We then feel justified in attacking those who “attacked” us, and create a cycle of conflict that actively inhibits progress or resolution. When we speak of political deadlock, it is clear that “drama” is alive and kicking.

The opposite of “drama,” by the way, is problem-solving, the rational discussion of options and ways to solve problems.

My sense is that “drama” occurs for two primary reasons in American politics. The first is that this type of thinking is an instinctive response to disagreement on issues that are perceived to be of vital importance. The second reason for drama, however, lies in the pursuit of political power. Inspiring “drama” thinking in one’s constituents is a good way to “get out the vote,” as it were, or to make a case against voting for your opponent.

I would argue, by the way, that this is why political strategists are not so interested in a rational discourse of policy choices during an election — as they are in “framing the debate,” or (to put it another way) to frame your guy as the “rescuer” and the opponent as the “persecutor.” Both sides compete to characterize their opponent in these ways, and the real competition in a modern election lies in who is more effective in doing it.

The problem, of course, is that you create a system that fails to make much progress, where the American people get tired of all the overheated political rhetoric, and where animosity and suspicion runs amock. Hardly the kind of system one would want in any serious effort to resolve our nation’s most important problems.

I feel that leadership, real leadership, comes from being able to minimize drama, focus on solutions, and “getting people to use their heads.” In general people are in agreement with the Democrats on most issues. If we can get people beyond the emotion-driven “drama” thinking, and get them to really think (or to vote based on policies and positions they agree with) democrats will win the majority of the time.

feel that leadership, real leadership, comes from being able to minimize drama, focus on solutions, and “getting people to use their heads.”

You’re right of course. But good luck. Both parties use “drama” because it’s effective. IIRC, last year’s election saw the largest voter turnout in a long time.

You can’t win just by being right on the issues. Bush proved that. He lost every debate - even looked like a complete idiot in the first one - and still won the election. Bush very effectively used drama and pretty much eschewed “getting people to use their heads” altogether

Looking back, it seems pretty silly to believe that if Kerry were elected, he’d allow terrorists to come over here and cut our heads off, doesn’t it? But that was the basic Bush campaign theme. And it worked.

And now we have bugcrazy asking why health care is so expensive, as if Kerry didn’t answer that question a bazillion times on the campaign trail. But nobody cared at the time. They were all too busy wondering if Kerry really shot himself in the butt in Nam.

American Pundit — I would agree completely that both parties use “drama” because it is effective. Finding a way past the use of drama is challenging, to say the very least.

But it was Clinton himself who said that “…when people think, we [Democrats] win.” I don’t believe that “drama” is a prerequisite to political success. In fact, I would suggest that the political figures most driven by drama (DeLay comes to mind) often plant the seeds of their own demise — whereas those who indulge less in that kind of thinking (say, a moderate Republican like McCain, someone who reaches across political divides with some regularity) actually has broader political appeal. It’s almost a truism that McCain would win a presidential election in a landslide if he could just get nominated!

The truly great political figures in America’s history were also often those who made real efforts to unite this country (unlike Bush’s false promises to this effect). Lincoln, for example, who gave a top political post to someone who had considered him a sworn enemy. Rather than giving in to the urge to do what the Republicans have done (i.e., using “drama” to get elected), I believe the Democrats would be better served by studying these examples, learning to truly unite our country.

Although it’s getting a bit off-topic, I would even propose two ways in which this could be done. First, make the argument to Christian voters that the Republicans have been working for years to turn them into one or two issue voters. Basically, they’ve focused on abortion and the gay marriage issue, while basically ignoring issues with much deeper traditions within Christianity like social justice and the welfare of the poor. Secondly, I think Democrats should make the following argument on abortion: abortions are bad, even tragic when they happen. But the solution to reducing or eliminating abortions is not to make them illegal. It didn’t work when they were illegal, for one thing. The solution to abortion is to recognize that abortion is essentially an effort by women to solve a problem (i.e., an unwanted pregnancy) — and that to reduce abortions we need to solve the problem of why so many women are pregnant when they don’t want to be. In other words, we reach out and ask them to join us in making abortion UNNECESSARY rather than illegal. How? Well, that gets back to working on issues like poverty, sexual education that goes beyond “just say no,” and the kinds of social justice issues Democrats have always been stronger in.

Steve and American Pundit:

“American Pundit — I would agree completely that both parties use “drama” because it is effective. Finding a way past the use of drama is challenging, to say the very least.”

Let’s be careful here. It can be, but not always, effective to get elected. It is anything but effective when actually trying to solve a problem. When used during honest debate of an issue, drama is very detrimental. It makes people shut off their minds and just start to focus on their rebuttal. I use Bush/Kerry debates as the prime example. When either of them were finally starting to make good points, the drama took over the focus and no one really got the point. I agree that Kerry won the debates, but those viewers that he did not put to sleep, he pissed off by his drama.

Chi Chi — thanks for your comments. I would certainly agree that drama is not always effective in winning elections (particularly when it goes to an extreme). And as you noted, even milder forms of drama clearly interfere with getting something useful accomplished. But I also think that American Pundit has a point. This stuff works. It “energizes the base,” helps increase voter turnout — particularly in those with strong feelings on some issue.

In fact, I worry that in such a closely divided country (politically speaking), the use of drama is becoming more prevalent because of the perceived need to maximize voter turnout in one’s own constituency. Ultimately, I fear that this contributes to the polarization of our society.

Anyway, my point is just that I feel there is another way. A way of political success through uniting our country. Clinton did so when he began advocating some ideas that had previously been considered “conservative” (like pushing for fiscal responsibility), when he talked about the forces that unite our country being greater than those that divide us, etc.

Which is not to say that Clinton was an incredibly uniting figure. Clearly he wasn’t (witness the level of Republican hatred towards the man). But he was able to address certain important issues in a way that united enough Americans to become elected, even if this meant advocating what had previously been considered “conservative” ideas.

It never ceases to amaze me that the moment a cogent and well constructed argument such as Stephen’s is presented which effectively discredits Bush 43, a conservative or two will jump in and complain about Clinton. As if saying that a blow-job isn’t sex comes even close to misleading the American people about Iraq, WMD’s, and terrorism.
I voted against both Bush’es but on the evening of 9/11 I put my distaste for his politics aside and stood with my leaders. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, that connection was clear. When he started to make the case for Iraq, and still wanted to cut taxes, and started to sound like he was campaigning again, the hackles rose and have not gone down since.

As for why he won again, just look back at the news reports. Critical districts in urban areas of battleground states were lacking in voting booths. Lines in Ohio cities were hours long whereas lines in the burbs were non-existant. When things got close his proxy fallguys coordinated with churches to get-out-the-vote, risking their non-profit status. When he had to lie, he got the Swiftboat-Liars-for-Bush and others to do it for him.

The Republican party put winning power ahead of being American and the Democrats did not. Now that the RNC is in power, they are doing everything they can to force their agenda because it’s clear they will not stay in power for long.

Dave:

The Republican party put winning power ahead of being American and the Democrats did not. Now that the RNC is in power, they are doing everything they can to force their agenda because it’s clear they will not stay in power for long.

I disagree with your assesment. Angry is ugly. I know it plays well within liberal ranks, but I just don’t see it winning moderates.

There is much made from the left of Bush’s decline in the polls. If I were a democrat, I would be more worried about why democrats are also down in the polls. Congressional Democrats are more unpopular than Bush.

People also vote for optimism and vision. Like FDR!!

Losses have been so great, and discouragement so deep I wonder if it might be sometime until the nation hears a positive vision of America from the left. I think the angry is ugly, and a big turn off to voters. I don’t know how you can be angry and full of a positive vision at the same time.

Pew Research reported that only 57% of DEMOCRATS were satisfied with their leadership. This number is in decline. I don’t know how you win elections with numbers that low. For instance, if Democratic leadership can only convince 57% of their party that they know what they are doing then how can they convince the country?

I think some need to choose between being angry and winning. It is ok if you choose to hold on the anger and bitterness, but in doing so you may make the prophecy of domination of the right closer to reality. In the end of course it’s your choice.

Craig

It never ceases to amaze me that the moment a cogent and well constructed argument such as Stephen’s is presented which effectively discredits Bush 43, a conservative or two will jump in and complain about Clinton. As if saying that a blow-job isn’t sex comes even close to misleading the American people about Iraq, WMD’s, and terrorism.

Hear Hear, Dave. And even though conservatives know that there’s no comparison between the two, they continue this tactic ad nauseum.

BTW, Clinton didn’t teach kids about bj’s - Ken Starr and his backers did.

Clinton lied, nobody died.
Bush lied, thousands died.

Dave:

“This stuff works. It “energizes the base,” helps increase voter turnout — particularly in those with strong feelings on some issue.”

I have found that the drama, or hard line rhetoric, do energize the base. However, the best, most accurate estimates I have found are Dems 30%, Reps 30%, none-of-the-above 40%. And 30% doesn’t get people elected. Energizing the base during a primary might make sense. Energizing the base during a general election may just cost you as much as you gain. The drama that energizes the base pisses off the none-of-the-abovers (witness Howard Dean) to the extent that a front runner in a primary can quickly become an also ran.

With this slight modification, I find your post solid and well thought.

Sleemoth

Hear Hear, Dave. And even though conservatives know that there’s no comparison between the two, they continue this tactic ad nauseum.

The comparison between the two is that both men are very polarizing and yet won second terms.
Conservatives hated Clinton pretty much as much as liberals hate Bush. We could argue forever over who is more justified in their hatred, and both be convinced that we are the more justified.

I am just tired of the hate. I think the country is as well, which is why both parties are loosing support in the public opinion polls.

Liberals point to Bush’s decline in the poll numbers and cheer, but have a hard time dealing with their own recent decline.

Craig

Craig,
I’m not speaking ‘angry’ to win moderate votes, and I view politics for what it is, which is politics (duh?!?).

The reality is I am really really pissed at Bush 43 and the GOP. In my opinion, they betrayed us. I can no longer believe that they are operating to the best intrests of the country, only to their own interests (DeLay and ethics changes, Frist and filibusters, …). When I hear them speak, I hear WMD WMD and “all I know is the tax breaks will go to those at the bottom” etc… etc…

I haven’t really liked the person who was president since Carter (as ineffective as he was, I liked the man). But, I’ve trusted every President ever, until now, to do, in the end, what was right for the country even if I disagreed with the politics. That includes Nixon.

The DNC may be a disorganized frat party but the GOP has become the Spanish inquisition, and it’s not the Python version.

Dave:

Being a moderate can be very powerful. For instance I live in a Republican area, that is very conservative. But I served until recently on a School Board for 10 years. So basically on the local level I worked with mostly Democrats to get things done in a mostly Republican community. And I am certainly a Republican.

Together in our community we have rebuilt the vast majority of our squarefootage, and have completely modernized our technology. We did that by passing bonds working shoulder to shoulder.

I consider the Union president a good personal friend. We have been to war and back many many times, but have a deep deep trust and respect for each other. I trust him and his counsel completely.

Since leaving the Board, many teachers have approached me to run for the state legislature. I think their theory is that if they can’t have a Democrat to represent them at least they can have a Republican they can trust and who will listen to their needs.

When I left, I was stunned by the many kind words from people on the left, some on the far left.
I guess what I am saying is that there is a better way out there. I have lived it on the local level. There is something about children that helps people to bring out their best.

I also thing the teachers liked it when I “slipped” and called “leave no child beind”, “leave all commonsense behind”. It is important to be optimistic and not loose hope. Wow, is it hard not to loose hope sometimes. We can’t let the bad guys win.

We fight and argue here alot, but I have to tell you that in real life, the farest wackiest left wing wacko is a very good friend, and we work together all the time on school issues, many times on the same side. (he wants me to run as well).

Anyway thanks for listening,

Craig

Craig Holmes — “We can’t let the bad guys win.”

First of all, thanks for a refreshing bit of hopefulness. I find myself agreeing with most of what you say, but (if I may be so bold) I’d modify it just slightly. I’d say that all of us need to guard against letting the darker side of our nature dominate our political discourse.

I’m sure there will be those who would call me naive on this one, but I tend not to believe that there are many “bad guys” in politics. Not in the sense of people who wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and ask how they’re going to hurt somebody or ruin the country. No, I believe that people act like jerks in the throes of “drama” (see the discussion of drama, above) — in other words, they feel justified in aggressive behavior when they feel threatened. But this merely leads to counterattacks, divisiveness, and political stalemate.

I think that we need people of hope, people of basic decency, people who respond in a manner of civility and respect regardless of how their opponents treat them. That is a leader. That is what we need in our halls of congress, in our public discourse. It sounds to me as if you strive for that. If so, best wishes in any political ambitions you might have.

What we need is drama. Not melodrama, where it’s all about emotional angst, but real drama, where our values are at stake when we take action.

What’s important, more than anything else, is that we convey as a part the drama implicit in political decision making. That is, not the fight between good and evil, though that is important, but the unfortunate position we often find ourselves in of having to weigh dilemmas that confront us with evil with either choice, or which pose to us competing goods that cannot be realized together.

The Republicans reflect the sentiments of that guy who played John McCone in Thirteen Days, that there is one clear answer, and wghen you see it you’ll thank God.

Unfortunately, those options are rarely as clear and clean as we would like, and the world often moves on from the approaches that do work. That is the importance of liberalism: to reconfigure our approach to life in freedom, to change with the times and with new ideas and facts.

The Republicans present a fantasy world where if you continue to do what was right before, you will always be right (always being the operative word) Fact is, sometimes to embody old values, one has to take new approaches to life and tradition, to recloth old virtues in action that effectively carries it out.

Are we a country that likes to believe that we invade countries for no damn reason? No. We like to believe that there should be a good reason to carry out so drastic a course of action. The Republicans want us to accept the dishonesty of their actions, by bribing us with dreams of better days ahead for Iraq. The Democrats, though, wish to confront the truth: That we attacked the wrong country, and that while it is only prudent to repair the damage and make the best of what’s happen, we must not compromise ourselves further by letting that kind of erroneous behavior become accepted, much less the habit of this great country.

The drama, ladies and gentlemen, is not winning over our political rivals, but the darker tendencies of our nature. In their zeal to win the first kind of battle, the Republicans have neglected to win the other fight.

A note to those responding here, so as to prevent mix-ups: I always post under the name “Stephen Daugherty” Any commentor who posts under Steve or Stephen is not me. I would hope that those posting under such names, in order to avoid mixups concerning their views and mine, would use their full names or a preferred handle in order to avoid mixups.

I hope this does not sound like I’m cross, but I think it’s important that in responding to posts that we can get whose views are whose straight. The writer known as “Steve” has posted quite a few good responses, but I do not want to have our views confused on issues, or either of us to be judged to be playing games based on contradictions between our views.

I saw video of Howard Dean at last weekend’s California Democratic Party convention. He’s definitely the right choice for DNC chair.

Unfortunately you need to register to see the video. If that bugs you, you can get a disposible email address from Yahoo, or something. But it’s definitely worth watching Dean address Democrat’s problems with our message.

On my darker days, I’m fully convinced this country is headed for civil war. Both sides’ rhetoric keeps getting hotter and hotter and nastier and nastier. And every few weeks (even days, sometimes), I hear a fresh call for more fuel for the fire, whether its from certain conservative organizations whose mailings I receive or whether its online on various blogs I read as leftists call for more hate (not in those words, of course) … more “righteous anger.”

On my brighter days, I read accounts of conservatives who meet liberals and are amazed that they’re really people … and liberals who meet evangelicals and find out they’re really not rapacious world-dominating monsters. And I remember my dear English professor - as far from my beliefs as day and night, but a fine lady and a passionate professor and a good friend. And I have hope.

If I asked those of you on the left what it is you want from us on the right, let me see if I can predict your answers: “drop dead.” The most common. “Admit you were wrong about everything and agree with us about everything (not stated so bluntly, of course).” “Admit Bush is evil.” “Admit Bush lied.” “Admit the war is Iraq was a lousy, rotten, stinking idea.” “Admit your secret desire for segregation and slavery, and the suppression of women and gays.” I’ll stop the list there.

You won’t get any of those out of me … except that I admit I have doubts about the war. A “lousy rotten stinking idea” … no. But a bad decision based on faulty intelligence … well, the faulty intelligence can’t be doubted, and the bad decision … I’m not sure yet.

Granted, I just (obviously) put words in your mouth; I imagine you’d say it better (and add some). But let me say what I want from you - the left. First … take a deep breath. Second … let it out. Repeat a few times. Third … let’s resume our debate … without all the name-calling and shouting.

I like the thought of this post - that liberals need to stand up for what they believe. I just want them to do it politely, as if they’re talking to human beings, not Nazis.

… because if you’re talking to Nazis, you shouldn’t be talking. You should be fighting.

Daniel, I have no idea what you’re talking about. There’s no hate here. That’s against the rules on WatchBlog. :)

Daniel-
Let me assure you my philosophy for the strong, assertive left is a pragmatic one more than an ideological one. I believe that it is the intense loyalty to ideology that hinders conservatism from being a constructive force in our society. It’s too attentive to matters of dogma when matters of fact need attention.

At least as far as I’m concerned, “Drop Dead” is the last thing that needs to be said. But we should, as Democrats demand that they admit their errors. And I don’t mean political errors. Those we can argue about all day. The real trouble is that there are real screwups that have occured, and this President and this Congress do not want to be held responsible. In times like these, such a lack of accountability on their part is inherently dangerous. If we can’t get them to admit their errors, or at least correct them, we will end up suffering for their lack of forthrightness and transparency.

Moreover, if they will not admit or correct their errors, they should not be rewarded with re-election.

Unfortunately, the Republican party has labelled any such requests for accountability or insistence on it as personal attacks of the candidates and officeholders. How can we possibly offer rational criticism of our political counterparts, if any criticism at all is labelled ad hominem? If the Bush administration has committed the mistakes and the offense we claim they have, don’t they deserve the loss of reputation?

Stephen,

Bravo! Do you mind if I plagiarize some of the last post? I can’t always be counted on to provide source reference :-)

Well, Dave, I’m sorry to say I can’t give you permission to plagiarize me. If I did, then it would be a sanctioned use of my material, and you would therefore no longer be plagiarizing me!

Heh. That’s like when I’m standing around and someone says, “Can I sneak by you?” I have to tell them: “No, I see you now. Go back and try it again.” Yuk, yuk.