Posted on 03/29/2004 11:19:32 AM PST by Graybeard58
"Why is it that liberals are so afraid to take their own side in an argument?" asks Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation and one of the world's hardest leftists. Her question was directed at Sen. John Kerry because he has been parsing his positions to mask the truth that he is the most liberal U.S. senator.
"But why allow the L-word to be defined — and turned into a negative — by thugs at the Republican National Committee?" she continued in her piece posted on the magazine's Web site. "Isn't it time, after more than 20 years of conservative ascendancy, for liberals to take the offensive, stop biting their tongues and declare forcefully — ‘I'm a liberal and proud of it!'"
Good for you, Ms. vanden Heuvel, but what's there to be proud of? Plenty, she says, ticking off the "triumphs of 20th century liberalism": "Women's suffrage; Social Security; unemployment compensation; the minimum wage; child labor laws; Head Start, food stamps; Medicare; federal housing laws barring discrimination; the Voting Rights Act; the Civil Rights Act; anti-pollution statutes, guaranteed student loan programs and the forty-hour work week."
Let's examine those "triumphs":
Woman's suffrage and child-labor laws ceased to be issues 75 years ago. Social Security and Medicare are fiscal train wrecks in waiting, with $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Only mammoth tax increases, significant benefit reductions, privatization or some combination will keep them from imploding.
Unemployment compensation replaced private insurance programs and made joblessness a career until reforms by a Republican Congress began to rein in abuses. With every uptick in the minimum wage, the least skilled and educated are denied entry to the work force. Head Start provides, at enormous cost, a minimal educational benefit that disappears by the fourth grade.
Food stamps are a component of the failed Welfare State, which discouraged initiative, self-reliance and achievement. Government giveaways give low-income people the wherewithal to pay for their cell phones, cable TV, cigarettes, etc. It is noteworthy that Ms. vanden Heuvel did not tout the Welfare State — liberalism's crowning achievement of the 20th century — among its triumphs.
Fair-housing laws ultimately evolved into mandates forcing housing projects built exclusively for the elderly to accept as tenants drug addicts, career criminals and the mentally ill, among other less-desirable elements. The Voting Rights Act ensured people's access to the polls, but unintended consequences included the systematic cheapening of the franchise and a dramatic decline in voter participation.
Contrary to her assertions, the Civil Rights Act wouldn't have passed if not for the near unanimous support of congressional Republicans in 1964. Apparently, she forgets that the "Dixiecrats" had bottled up that legislation for years. The Environmental Protection Agency was created during the Nixon administration, and many of its toughest anti-pollution regulations were promulgated during the Ford and Reagan years.
Guaranteed student-loan programs are the driving force behind the skyrocketing college costs. They flood the system with money and remove the motivation for schools to economize. And thanks to the many "triumphs" of big-government liberalism, fewer and fewer people — in the private sector, at least — are able to make ends meet working just 40 hours a week.
Ms. vanden Heuvel is mystified by the "more than 20 years of conservative ascendancy," but most reasonable people would be more bewildered by her assertion that liberalism has "a winning legacy."
"Why not stand on liberalism's proud heritage?" she advises Sen. Kerry. By all means, he should run on that legacy. And with the wholehearted support of the likes of Hanoi Jane, Howard Stern, al-Qaida, France, Spanish socialists and Ms. vanden Heuvel, maybe he'll qualify for the liberal pantheon dedicated to Al Gore, Michael Dukakis and Fritz Mondale.
Seeing Howard Stern's name in with that crowd is more than a little ironic. Right after 9/11 (i.e. long before the Janet Jackson boob incident), Howard had lamented that America had become "too liberal" and would not have the guts to stick through a long, bloody conflict to defeat the terrorists. He also had criticized the Hollywood Left crowd such as Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, etc. for bad-mouthing America and the Bush Admin's Iraq policies. But after the Janet Jackson incident when the FCC went apesh*t, he did a 180-degree turnaround, became a shill for Kerry, and no doubt lost a good part of his audience (myself included).
And conveniently forgetting that the FCC under an Algore administration would have gone after him just as harshly.
I guess some people just never grow up - especially if they're lefties at heart.
Thanks, Mr. B, for continuing to highlight this distinction. I'm glad I'm not the only one crying in the wilderness to stop abusing the term "liberal": by continuing to use "liberal" to describe leftists, we negate the true meaning of the term.
It's time to stop allowing the Left to set the parameters of cultural discourse. They're not "liberals", "progressives", or "social justice advocates". They're "leftists", "socialists", and "communists". Live it, learn it, love it!
Indeed. You make a good point in your entire post really. Stern must think that his listeners are total idiots. Either that, or he knows that they know that he's just attacking Bush now because he IS a "shock jock". (which is what my theory is)
I still listen to him though because quite frankly, my brain is too tired in the morning drive to think about much more than flatulence, boobs, and the gossip game with Mike Walker.
I don't think Howard really means anything he says, which is kind of sad. One day he'll wake up and realize his audience is gone, and no one will believe him anymore because he's flip flopped even more than Kerry. Everything he's said or will say is just for the "shock value". I don't know why people take him more seriously than that.
Until that day though, I'll still listen. Just because I listen though, doesn't mean I support him, or will answer his call to "defend him at the polls in November". I suspect the same is true for any conservative that listens to his show. Everyone's already made up their mind already about the election. He doesn't have as much power as he thinks.
Is it now part of that proud heritage, opposition to the liberation of the once suffering, tortured people of Iraq?
Actually, he's been doing less flatulence, boobs, and gossip games lately, and a lot more Bush-bashing. Maybe if he moves to XM satellite, he could be himself again.
--Boris
Good quote Boris, heck, claim it for yourself...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.