The favorite sport of Conservatives seems to be Liberal-bashing. In today's political climate, where labels are all too often mistaken for substance, being tagged with the wrong label can mean being consigned to the political scrap heap of history. Conservatives seem to wield the hammer more effectively, if for no other reason than fear-mongering is a skill that they as a group seem to have a better handle on than Liberals. We could learn, I suppose, but we simply haven't done it, and frankly, we're too far behind at this point to have any hope of catching up.
What, really, is the root of Liberal-bashing? It's pretty simple, really. In polite company, and the political arena still entertains delusions of courtesy and respect, it is seen as being in bad form to refer to an opponent as "stupid", "ignorant", "evil", "scum of the earth", or similar pejoratives. It is much easier to employ the word "Liberal" and use it as code for those same pejoratives. Of course, using "Liberal" as a pejorative also works if you have no answer to an argument you abhor.
So what is this about really?
I can't even find any practical use for the whole liberal-conservative dichotomy. They try to set it up on CNN's "Crossfire" -- on the RIGHT, this guy, and on the LEFT, this guy -- and the show always falls apart because people end up taking positions they don't entirely believe in. But it's not their fault. What's more likely is that the issue doesn't break down on left-right lines. It might be triangular, or hexagonal, or so sticky with warring scientific theories that the debaters can't even agree on what they're debating about....
One of the curses of American politics is that we're saddled with just two political parties, which means that every topic tends to get polarized -- when what SHOULD happen is that there should be seven or eight widely divergent views.
In a parliamentary system, with proportional representation, American debate would flourish. We'd have a Green Party and a Red Party and a Pink Party and a Black Party and a Bull Moose Party, and each one might control just a fraction of Congress, but they would all hold key coalition votes. All these parties already exist, in one form or another -- mostly in the form of Political Action Committees. They just have no way to get into Congress.
So instead of real debate we have this constant hammering at the straw man called "the liberal."
Let me let you in on a little secret: THERE AREN'T THAT MANY OF THEM. And most of them are sociology professors anyway.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that entire careers -- Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Chris Matthews -- are based on killing people who don't exist? It's some bizarre form of reverse ancestor worship. It's ancestor desecration.
Another example: the environment. You simply can't break it down along liberal and conservative lines. There's no conservative in FAVOR of rainforest destruction. There's no "liberal" politician that I know of who believes there should be no harvesting of natural resources at all.
Historically the greatest proponents of conservation have been National Rifle Association members. None of them, as far as I know, have ever said, "Let's shoot Chinese pandas." And, by the same token, there's no leftist politician who believes we shouldn't have dams or logging. This is the kind of issue that always comes down to, "What's the best way to manage what we've got here?"
Was Abraham Lincoln a liberal or a conservative? I think I could make an argument either way.
Was Will Rogers a liberal? He said he believed that Americans were "fundamentally liberal," but if you tried to categorize him today, I think many of his positions would be claimed by self-described conservatives.
In other words, these labels aren't worth anything anymore. So why do we use them?
It's merely a sophisticated way to say "You're stupid and I'm not."
Surely we can do better than this.
Apparently not. People like Coulter, Limbaugh, Patrick Buchanan and their ilk have made entire careers out of painting "Liberals" as the political equivalent of the Anti-Christ. It's a time-honored Conservative tradition, and it's certainly easier than actually debating issues on their merits. When in doubt, demonize your opponent. Of course, we Liberals are just as guilty in our own right, having allowed such an unflattering portrayal of our views to take hold in much of the American political consciousness. Frankly, we've allowed Conservatives to define us, and the definition is not flattering.
The sad thing here is that both sides, Liberal and Conservative, have something to offer to public political thought. I would never claim to have all of the answers to the problems that face our nation. Yet many Conservatives act as if their point of view is not only blindingly, obviously correct, but also that those who disagree are somehow lacking morally and intellectually.
Of course, in our "Crossfire" culture, politics becomes a blood sport. The sad thing is that it really doesn't need to be that way. Back during the Vietnam War, I remember posters that said something along the lines of: "Imagine if our schools were fully funded and the Air Force had to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber." Well, how about we try this one on: "Imagine if we could discuss and resolve issues through civil discourse, and Ann Coulter had to file for extended unemployment." Now THAT would be progress....
(Thanks to Ginger Stampley)
