It's 39 degree here in the balmy People's Republic of Seabrook this fine Sunday morning. I know that to those of you unfortunate enough to reside north of the Mason-Dixon Line that might not seem so bad. Even so, there is a reason that palm trees thrive here. Things that grow and live here (and that includes people) tend to like finding ice in their gin-and-tonics, not on their streets. But, I digress, and I've not even begun to spew forth what's on my mind....
I've been reading some of the recent comments y'all have been leaving for me, and it's made me rethink a few things. The recurring theme seems to be that, on some issues at least, I seem to be becoming "Conservative" or diplaying more "common sense". Now, I'm not smart enough to decipher the deep, underlying meaning in all of this, but this is a good illustration of why I hate labels.
One might think, judging from the comments, that "common sense" is a quality that seems to be the exclusive property of Conservatives. Au contraire, mon cheri, but that is an argument I'll leave for another day. (I don't want to use ALL my material....) I still believe strongly in Liberal political philosophy- which, I might add, brought us things like the New Deal, without which we'd probably be Canada. The essence of Liberalism, as I have come to understand it, is that the well-being of the community is every bit as, and in some cases more, important than the well-being of the individual. I believe it is our responsibility to look out for and after one another, not necessarily to the the point of providing handouts to the poor, but recognizing that those who have bear an obligation to support those who may not.
Where Liberalism runs into problems these days is on the terrorism, security, and law & order fronts. We Liberals have not done a good job of adapting to the realities of the post-9.11 world. Conservatives haven't exactly done a great job, either, but they have been able to better define the arguments in terms of their strengths, and Liberals have had no real answer. That is why terrorism, security, and law & order have become Republican strongholds.
Historically, I have been something of a pacifist, and while I still abhor violence, I'm beginning to see that non-violence is not a perfect solution to all problems (of course, neither is violence). I believe there are times when it is necessary to defeat Evil, whether with violence or the mere threat of violence. We may not in the end even need to invade Iraq, but I believe that we need to prepare for that possibility. I still have some mixed feelings about sending our young men and women to fight in the streets of Baghdad, but sometimes you have to do what needs to be done.
Living in Texas as I do, it is tough to miss the significance and the impact of the death penalty. Huntsville is a regular state-sanctioned death factory, but few in this state shed tears for the executed. Hell, most executions don't even merit but a couple column inches in the Houston Chronicle. Is it a good thing that we have grown accustomed to state-sanctioned assisted suicide? That's a good question, but one also best left for another time.
This is where I begin to show my "common-sensical" side, for lack of a better way of describing it. I believe that there are some crimes so heinous that the death penalty, as currently practiced, is almost a break for the accused. A good example would be the DC Snipers. I said a few weeks ago that a fitting punishment would be to blindfold the perps and tie them to pillars at a gas station. Of course, this gas station would have to have a clear line of fine from a good distance, because the families of the victims would be firing on the snipers using a .223 Bushmaster. The families wouldn't be shooting to kill, either; they'd would be winging the bastards, allowing them to suffer and die a slow painful death. A shoulder here, a kneecap there- just enough to make them realize what is happening to them. If we're going to have and use the death penalty, after all, why not make the punishment fit the crime?. After all, if it really is "an eye for an eye"...?
I suppose the point I'm trying to make here is that I am not some dogmatic, McGovernite, long-haired, pot-smoking, love-bead wearing, knee-jerk Liberal. We live not in a black-and-white world, but one colored in subtle (and not-so-subtle) shades of grey. Labels are a black-and-white, one-size-fits-all proposition. While I know in my heart that the day I vote Republican is the day they hang a drool bucket around my neck, there is more to me than that damned "Liberal" label.
Politics really is the "art of the possible" (a term, I might add, coined by that paragon of Liberalism, Tip O' Neill). Compromise is, and should be, part of the process. Unfortunately, politics today is too much of a zero-sum game. If we view it as a competition, one of us is generally going to win and the other lose. That does no one any good. Nut-case Conservatives (and Liberals) would do well to remember that they don't hold the patent on common sense and sound ideas.
So much for today's sermon. Thanks; you've been a wonderful audience. Enjoy Pablo Cruise....
