Labels without glue

Labels without glue
: There’s a tempest boiling below with some folks — not many — decreeing that I can’t call myself liberal because they don’t approve. Since it’s my liberal blood that’s boiling, let me tell you what’s wrong with that:

First, these people simply don’t know what they’re talking about — because they’re talking about me. They don’t know what I have to say about abortion, the environment, health-care reform, taxes, gun control, gay marriage, separation of church and state, human rights (even of Iraqis!) — and, frankly, I don’t need to tell them just as I don’t need to bid for their approval. They make their judgment because I don’t agree with them about the war and because I dare to criticize my fellow liberals when they deserve it and because I don’t chant along with every bit of cant bashing Bush and his administration.

Second, these people are setting themselves up as judges of what and who are liberal and not. That’s not for them to say. But more important, that’s essentially exclusionary. And I thought that liberalism wanted to be inclusionary. I would think that at a time when liberals are out of power, they would need to be inclusionary, they would want to sell the viewpoint, to draw people in, not kick them out. But these people want to snipe; it’s sport for them, I guess. But it’s bad strategy. If you keep telling people that they can’t be liberal, if you keep calling them “right-wing” with venom in your voice if they dare to disagree with you, then you will drive them away and you will lose the next election. It’s stupid.

Third, when putting up signs with such labels, or trying to take down mine — you’re not liberal, you are right-wing — it’s a very short walk to Bigot Street: You’re not black enough. You’re too black. You’re not Jewish enough. You’re too Jewish. You’re not gay enough. You’re too gay. Pick your ethnic slap and slur. How far do you want to go, people? It’s all on the same route on MapQuest.

Fourth, it’s single-minded and simple-minded and just wrong. Life isn’t this simple; even politics isn’t. Read Totten or Simon. They gave up the liberal label because they thought it was too simplistic and because all of this disgusted them. I still hold onto it — except you don’t want me to. Well, to hell with you.

You know who you are, each and every one of you.

And you know what? You owe me an apology.

Shame on you. You’d think a liberal would know better. You’d think.

: Michael Totten has a few things to say.

53 responses to “Labels without glue”

  1. BF Avatar

    Great post Jeff. Give ’em hell, they deserve it.
    Or just tell ’em to MoveOn.

  2. anne.elk Avatar
    anne.elk

    Ah, but the strawberries, that’s where I had them!

  3. Michael J. Totten Avatar

    I wrote a post about this incident, and concluded with this:

    I can

  4. Oliver Avatar

    Nobody said you had to not bash liberals (I often do) or slam the Bush team at every opportunity or even be against the war (heck, I think there was a liberal case to be made for the war – the president just didn’t happen to make it). As far as labeling goes, you were the one who labeled yourself as a liberal Jeff.
    It’s when you take every chance conceivable to slam liberals and associate them with the same stereotypes the right smears them with, that’s when you question credentials. For instance, there are these guys from a so-called conservative group whose sole existence seems to be about slamming Ann Coulter (no, not that way) and they email me releases all the time. I don’t link ’em, because that’s a phony front.

  5. Charlie Avatar

    … and see my comment, same place. As I say, it’s fine with me if the Democrats define the lines of what’s politically acceptable so finely that they lose 49 states. Hell, let’s try for 50. They can have DC.
    I’ve seen it happen twice before, McGovern and Goldwater. Love it when it’s the other side doing it.

  6. Mithras Avatar

    You’re a victim of intolerance? I get it now. You’re a liberal … parody.
    Please accept my apology for doubting you.

  7. button Avatar

    This is why I became so convinced that the Iranian college students need to learn the skill of coalitioning. Sometimes you disagree with your allies about a dozen different issues, but you have to learn the skill of establishing common ground on the one issue on which the coalition is based. It’s O.K. and normal to disagree on lots of other issues. This is a skill that has to be developed. And these labels are not helpful; they are extraneous.

  8. Jeremy Avatar

    Unfortunately, today, unless you’ve got the same views as Robert Fisk, that Americans are evil, that 9/11 was deserved, the French are always right, etc, etc, etc, you’re not longer part of the in-crowd sort of “liberal”, typified by Mr. Fisk and people like Mr. Willis.
    Something similar is going on for right-wingers. Real ones, that is libertarians. The official party position was to oppose the war, which has driven many libertarians out of it.
    It is all about the war – none of your other beliefs matter anymore. That’s why Dean is winning. If you look at his record as a governor, he really isn’t that much of a liberal. At least compared to say, Gephardt, who is prety much a classic democrat. Yet Dean is backed by everyone, including many unions (basically stabbing Gephardt in the back, as he’s probably the biggest union supporting politician in the US), simply because of his hatred towards the US, Bush, and the war.

  9. Michael J. Totten Avatar

    I have my disagreements with Oliver Willis, but I have to say he isn’t anywhere near the type who thinks Americans are evil or that we deserved 9/11.
    Be careful who you lump in with whom, Jeremy.

  10. dick tuck Avatar
    dick tuck

    “…human rights (even of Iraqis!)”
    ’nuff said.

  11. Joshua Scholar Avatar
    Joshua Scholar

    Years ago I thought that progressives and liberals supported democracy, freedom, civil rights and an end to bigotry even in far flung parts of the world, say the middle east…
    Since 9/11 I’ve found out that “we” only support those things mildly and only when a fellow leftist (or at least someone close to our social cliques) can take credit.
    Real liberals would sooner kill an entire Kurdish village with their bare hands and eat the bodies than support a policy initiated under George W. Bush.

  12. Scott Partee Avatar

    Great post! I feel the same way. The other night, at a party, a bunch of Dean supporting folks told me I should just join the Republican Party since I supported the Iraq war. Rigid.

  13. Ben Avatar

    The problem is that the label is confused. You appear to see liberal in its old 19th century meaning, you know, individual freedom, rights of the minority etc. But to many, liberal is simply another word for leftie, someone who supports communism, socialism or some other variant or derivation. Which I think is a highly illiberal family of political philosophies.

  14. Jim Avatar

    Good point, Ben, but I think “liberal” still can be applied to non-lefties who are more in favor of redistributing the wealth than your average Republican but averse to the socialist ambitions of the left half of the Democratic Party.

  15. brb Avatar

    “I can

  16. Rabblais Avatar
    Rabblais

    I was a real liberal years ago. Worked for JFK in 1960 as a kid, then LBJ in 1964. Liberal idols then were people like JFK, Adenauer, Golda Meir, Nehru.
    Who do the liberals idolize now? Castro, Kim Il-Jong, Saddam Hussein, Assad in Syria, Arafat. Every one of them responsible for the deaths of many innocents. Yet admiration for these people seems to make you “respectable” and “intelligent.”
    Orwell said that there were some things so totally ridiculous that only an intellectual could believe in them. That is what we have now.
    I am still a liberal in terms of human rights. That’s why I prefer to let Tony Blair speak for me instead of Jacques Chirac. That is why I reject much of what the United Nations does. Why should a collection of the bloodiest-handed people on the planet suddently become wise and benevolent just because they work together?
    We need a realignment. Those (and they are on both the left and right who really believe the US is evil) can be in one party, and all the others in a second. Make sure the lines are clear— no fudging by media, etc. Then run an election. Interestingly, I would guess that both Bush and Hillary Clinton would be on the same team and they could face Dean and Buchanan.

  17. megapotamus Avatar
    megapotamus

    Bush/Clinton v Dean/Buchanan… genius.

  18. J-Mo Avatar

    I have to agree with brb. The Democrat party agenda has been controlled by a small minority with the biggest microphone (newspapers, TV, etc.) for years. Who can blame Dean for being smart enough to beat the party bosses (Carville, McAuliffe, et, al) at their own game? Its all been about rage, and he plays that game better than they do.
    As a real conservative, I read Jeff’s blog not because he is “less liberal” than other Democrats, but because he is an independent thinker with good ideas that are grounded more by what is right than by what is best for his party.
    The Democrat party perhaps needs the wake-up of a McGovernesque landslide in order to do some serious self-analysis of what the mainstream voters actually want. Only then may they admit that the elites and extremists that have been allowed to run roughshod over the party have their priorities out of order.
    But I wouldn’t even count on that to happen.

  19. Sandy P. Avatar
    Sandy P.

    Oliver says–…It’s when you take every chance conceivable to slam liberals and associate them with the same stereotypes the right smears them with, that’s when you question credentials….–
    Stereotypes weren’t developed since 2000. He’s seeing something in you which if you don’t admit it and do something about it, will seriously hurt your party.
    First you don’t listen to the opposition and now you’re not listening to the longtime members of your own party. You’re surfing, how many entries have you read which say something like, I was a liberal/democrat for X years, but….?
    Whether you like it or not, 9/11 thru open the doors and the radical (as far as I’m concerned) commie/Berserkely/68-hater ideology greeted the country naked at the door.
    (I can give you more stereotypes if you wish.)

  20. Steve Smith Avatar

    I believe what O-Dub is saying is that Mr. Jarvis, Mr. Totten et al are pretty much indistiguishable in their treatment of George Bush than Ari Fleischer, and that, as such, they have little credibility calling themselves liberal (or even “independent”, as Michael Totten now insists). If you don’t believe the issues on which you disagree with the President are important enough to write about on your site, then your criticisms about “liberalism” are going to be viewed with the same credibility that they would receive coming from Ari Fleischer.

  21. Jim Avatar

    Steve, do you mean to say that if you agree with Bush on an issue and write about it a lot because it’s of dire importance, then you’re not a liberal? That you must sacrifice what is of dire importance to the political needs of the party? Or do you have an argument that shows that Bush’s policy in the war on terror is indisputably illiberal? And if so, why would you even read writers who maintain positions you regard as indisputably illiberal? Or if they’re not indisputably illiberal, what makes you think a liberal can’t reasonably hold them?

  22. Rick C Avatar

    How can someone have “little credibility calling themselves ‘independent?’” That doesn’t make any sense.

  23. Randal Robinson Avatar

    I’m another person who has moderate to liberal leanings on social and domestic issues but I’m very much a Jacksonian when it comes to war and national defense. When America is attacked you strike back hard and relentlessly until the enemy is utterly defeated. I just don’t see that same attitude in the Democratic party which is why I’ll be voting for Bush this year after voting for Gore in the last election. If that means I can’t call myself a liberal anymore, so be it.

  24. Mahatma Avatar

    I looks like the loonatics need to be pushed out of the Democratic Party. Those of us who enjoyed the Clinton landslide got to watch Buchanan drag George Bush Sr. to the far right. Those were wonderful days to be a liberal.
    Today people with Buchanan’s mirror image on the left are dragging the Democratic Party off the same cliff. There is nothing positive to be gained by the likes of twits like Oliver telling people they can’t be Democrats or Liberals.
    This kind of moronic posing is exactly what Buchanan did to George Bush Sr. on the right. Oliver needs to watch himself…the party will kick him out if his behavior hurts the party. If you drive progressive minded independents from the party we do not want you. Go away.

  25. Steve Smith Avatar

    Jim, if the only issues you write about are issues on which you march in lockstep with the President, then any claim you are a really a “liberal” (or “independent”) becomes difficult to take seriously. If Tom Delay or Jesse Helms were to say that they were actually quite liberal on every issue on which they hadn’t taken a public stand, no one would pay attention, either.

  26. KMK Avatar

    I read the post below and this one last night and went to sleep an angry liberal too disgusted to write anything. I got up this morning and here in NY it’s 19 degrees. Yesterday and today coworkers from the two offices I consult out of helped me distribute blankets and coats my landlord lets me build up and store in our buildings basement. If you’ve ever been on Greenwich Street on a day like today you know the G-force wind tunnel effect. With these temps it’s like breathing ice. Anger kept me very warm today and I’m usually a pretty peaceful person but don’t confuse it with pacifism. I’m a liberal. Voted democrat and independent on all levels my whole life. Some of these comments sicken me. Your willingness to consort with socialist propaganda because of a common hatred of Bush and the loud sensationalist voice it gives doesn’t mean we are not liberal. Your the ones who are wavering not us. If you want to follow a group, any group, regardless of their politics because they hate Bush do so on your own. If Dean wins the democratic nomination then I will vote for Bush. Where were you on 9/11? Did you see what happened when we pull out of Vietnam? Did you see what happened after the Gulf war? Has your hatred of Bush hardened you to the point where you would vote for someone who let that be the fate of the Iraqi people? Not in my name. I’m willing to suffer under another 4 years of Bush’s crappy domestic policy and continue doing work at a local level. In the meantime I hope the democratic party can get it’s collective ass together and give me a liberal candidate I can vote for.

  27. Jim Avatar

    Steve’s logic:
    Jeff Jarvis and Michael Totten agree with Jesse Helms and Tom Delay about everything because JJ and MT agree with Bush about the war. The fact that they’ve stated otherwise is a lie, and the fact that they’ve explained that the war is so important as to be the only thing they have time to write about is a lie, too.
    Do you think that makes sense, Steve?

  28. Steve Smith Avatar

    Jim:
    You misunderstand. I wasn’t saying that JJ and MT agree with Helms and DeLay; I was saying that if Helms and DeLay were to claim that they had liberal views on other issues, but that they didn’t think those issues were important enough to ever discuss, liberals would not take the claim seriously, either.

  29. Mithras Avatar

    Ed Cone nails it:
    Wow — people are arguing over the right to call themselves “liberals.” That’s a good sign, I think, after years of running from the label. …
    Liberals should stand up and say what they believe in, instead of letting conservatives — or self-appointed arbiters of liberal orthodoxy — define their terms.
    *applause* Over to you, Jarvis. Stand up and say what you believe in.

  30. Jim Treacher Avatar

    Well, I’m glad we cleared this up.

  31. Jim Avatar

    Steve, nevertheless, you stand by your word that MT and JJ are liars when they claim to be liberals. Right?
    Do you see the following difficulty for your argument? What makes it preposterous to believe that Delay and Helms are liberal is that there is a plethora of issues on which they’ve taken an anti-liberal stand. But MT and JJ have taken only one single stand which you deem to be anti-liberal. Do you think it impossible for a liberal to have a single, exceptional anti-liberal view on an issue?
    Will you provide an argument to put the lie to MT’s contention that the reason he only writes about the war is its overwhelming importance? Will you provide evidence of a motive for JJ and MT to tell these lies about their beliefs?

  32. EB Avatar

    And didn’t Hillary Clinton, a liberal, just make a joke yesterday about GHANDI ??? So, she isn’t a liberal either, she is not sensitive enough! Make her give up her liberal label and give it to someone who would never even MAKE A JOKE about Ghandi running a gas station!
    Now that I think about it, I don’t think people can label themselves at all, I think we need a cabinet appointment who can use the Homeland Security offices, on off hours, to correctly label people and make sure the color codes are matching.

  33. furious Avatar

    Jeff:
    There has been a se-change in the way in which “Liberals” and “Conservatives” deal with the divisions in their respective ranks:
    “Conservatives” seek converts.
    “Liberals” punish heretics.
    Not long ago (I submit the aftermaths of the ’64, ’76, and ’92 Republican Conventions as evidence) it was the other way around. Losing elections seems to focus the losing partiy on ideological purity and scapegoat-hunts. It’s one of those Immutable Iron Laws or something. Wait until my party suffers a(nother) national electoral wipeout like the three previously mentioned and the refugee flow will reverse itself.
    In the meantime, tell your Inquisitors where to stick it.
    –f_a

  34. furious Avatar

    Hey, Oliver!
    If enough liberal sterotypes keep snagging on you like so much litter against a storm-drain grate…
    …then maybe they aren’t stereotypes anymore.
    –f_a

  35. Sandy P. Avatar
    Sandy P.

    Did anyone read Al From in the WSJ Tuesday?
    This is part of the cluelessness that Jeff, AL and others of the principled liberals point out:
    From says, “We can win the war on terror and make international friends at the same time.” And says they need a plan. I have no problems w/this and most of that paragraph which I didn’t quote. He goes on to cite “tough-minded internationalism of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but, war, war, war & Bay of Pigs and war and treating terrorist attacks as criminal acts. He proposes nothing new, just what we usually do, bomb and throw money at the survivors to buy friends and placate the screaming mimis. (Man, I’m really getting cynical in my old age.)
    BUT:
    “…We’re ready to tackle the biggest challenges of the 21st century. Three years ago President Clinton talked about the 10 greatest challenges America would face in the 21st century. None is more pressing that the aging of America and the retirement of baby boomers, which will be upon us in the last year of the next presidential term…”
    —-
    So, the war on terror is not the most pressing or biggest challenge of the 21st century.
    Can someone please tell me how in the ()#*%)(#%*()#* can a boomer look his/her child/ren/grandchil/ren in the face and tell them the biggest challenge of the 21st century is making sure dad/grandpa has viagra?!
    Not even a tip of the hat that yes, while I already covered the War on Terror, and it is a pressing/big challenge here’s a couple more we think of.
    I don’t know, maybe it was poorly written, but YEESH. Rubbed me the WRONG way.

  36. miguel Avatar

    Amen! Amen! Amen! And pass the ammunition. Simple and profound.
    I share the same sentiment. As someone who still admires the Spanish Civil War (the Loyalists, not the fascists), I find it hard to understand when the left turned into a fascist mob. All I see are fascist tactics and lack of thought. And, well, that’s what defines fascism now, doesn’t it? As Mussolini said: “A fascist doesn’t think, he acts.” That’s what I see in the current leftists propaganda — no ideological or programatic content, just attack, attack, attack. It’s the 1930s all over again — and it’s not pretty.

  37. stubby Avatar

    Sandy – I know it’s wrong to judge an entire generation by its most ridiculous members (and Jeff, no offense, cos you are definitely not one of the ridiculous ones), but holy crap. Lately my boomerphobia attacks are coming more frequently, lasting longer, and increasing in intensity. A mention today of Peter Yarrow performing at a Kerry benefit set off my last convvulsionn ohh no here ittttcco

  38. Buzz Avatar

    Aw, the so-called ‘liberals’ are just hot because GWB is a better ‘liberal’ than they are: he’s given millions of people a voice in their government around the world, responded fearlessly to terrorism when some of our ‘allies’ deserted us, ballooned the deficit to record heights (without them), and now he’s providing jobs for immigrants.
    I’d love to see what they would do if GWB were to be best man at his steel worker buddy’s gay wedding. (All the steel workers are gay if you watch the Simpsons.)

  39. Jim C. Avatar

    Rabblais gives an Orwell line that originates from his Notes on Nationalism. Here’s the actual quote and its context:

    The average intellectual of the Left believed, for instance, that the war was lost in 1940, that the Germans were bound to overrun Egypt in 1942, that the Japanese would never be driven out of the lands they had conquered, and that the Anglo-American bombing offensive was making no impression on Germany.

    He could believe these things because his hatred for the British ruling class forbade him to admit that British plans could succeed. There is no limit to the follies that can be swallowed if one is under the influence of feelings of this kind.

    Was Orwell psychic or what? ;) He continues:

    I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.

    Some extreme leftists have been saying there are scary similarities between Bush and Hitler. Orwell is describing “negative nationalists” in the excerpt above, and there are more and scarier similarities to the extreme left of today. The essay should be required reading for everyone. (He also criticizes nationalists such as G.K. Chesterton and Father Coughlin.)
    We should ask who is responsible for fanning the flames of Bush hatred (as opposed to principled, rational opposition) and what their motives are. Something tells me things like liberty are not among their goals.

  40. Sandy P. Avatar
    Sandy P.

    I’m a tail-end boomer and since my mid-20’s I have put the blame squarely on the 68-haters.
    And it dawned on me, From never mentioned the biggest internationalist of them all, Jaw-jaw Jimmah’. Of course, From prefaced internationalism w/tough-minded…
    “…Military power is essention but not sufficient to win the war on terror. Democrats need to show we have a plan to stop terror that uses all our weapons fully-good intelligence, diplomacy, nation-building, economic aid and trade.”
    After all, while we don’t have goo intel, we’ve been doing the rest for a few decades now and look where they’ve gotten us.
    I do like W’s revamping of international aid. Meet the steps, get cash. Don’t gravy train’s cut off, get it from the euros.

  41. RoguePlanet Avatar
    RoguePlanet

    Hell, why would you even WANT to call yourself a liberal? According to you, liberalism “is all about being against. It’s all about no.”
    Why does it surprise you that your bashing of liberalism would piss liberals off?

  42. Charlie Avatar

    Beacuse, Rogue, once upon a time “liberal” stood for something other than being a moron.

  43. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    “Some extreme leftists have been saying there are scary similarities between Bush and Hitler.”
    Extreme leftists have been throwing around Hitler comparisons since there was a Hitler. Frankly, they’re not that important… unless you happen to be a wingnut crank desperate to paint the Dems with that brush. But no, that couldn’t be the case here, could it?
    “Beacuse, Rogue, once upon a time “liberal” stood for something other than being a moron.”
    Oh, how rich the irony. Did being a conservative ever stand for anything other than being a moron?
    Well, actually, to judge from the number of card-carrying Republicans who have openly declared their disgust with the Shrub, maybe it did.

  44. nospam Avatar

    Mr. Rabblais says: “Who do the liberals idolize now? Castro, Kim Il-Jong, Saddam Hussein, Assad in Syria, Arafat.”
    Could you please name one noteworthy liberal that has said they idolize any of these people, Rabblais? And by “noteworthy liberal”, I mean a Democratic presidential candidate or otherwise politically important person in mainstream liberal circles, not some troll on Indymedia or some C-List celebrity who probably doesn’t vote anyway (and please include a cite that can be independently checked, or a working link). I suspect you can’t come up with one.
    I anxiously await your response.

  45. Charlie Avatar

    Doctor Stack, I think you need to look up the word “irony”.
    As to idolizing Castro, I’d refer you to recent accounts of visits to Cuba by Arthur Miller, Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, &c.

  46. EB Avatar

    All those people you mention are celebrities.

  47. RoguePlanet Avatar
    RoguePlanet

    As to idolizing Castro, I’d refer you to recent accounts of visits to Cuba by Arthur Miller, Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, &c.
    What kind of, well, MORON, thinks the act of visiting another country constitutes “idolizing” its leader?

  48. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    ‘Doctor Stack, I think you need to look up the word “irony”.’
    *laughs harder*
    The irony piles itself thicker yet. And it’s even more hilariously ironic that you don’t understand why! Fucking beautiful.

  49. Bithead Avatar

    Oh, face it. You and the others fight the liberal label because you don’t like being grouped with people who are concsideed by the vast majority to be WRONG. Who wants that?
    Now… consider, that the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are contextual to the current situation, and the situation changes rather drasticly.
    For example; a conservative citizen of the former Soviet Union would be collectivist in nature, a stainch believer in the sacrafice of the individual for the common good, (though the common good never quite gets defined) etc, etc.
    OTOH, in the Western world someone who is a conservtaive would be someone who is a staunch individualist, someone who believes in limited government, freedom within constitutional and societal guidelines, and so on.
    And with liberals, it’s the other way around.For example; a ‘liberal’ citizen of the west, including the US Democrats, would be collectivist in nature, a stainch believer in the sacrafice of the individual for the common good, (though the common good never quite gets defined) etc, etc.
    OTOH, in the Former USSR, a liberal would be someone who is a staunch individualist, someone who believes in limited government, freedom within constitutional and societal guidelines, and so on.
    Context is the thing.

  50. Charlie Avatar

    Rogue, what kind of moron thinks “read the account of recent visits” means that the visit, per se, is the problem?
    Slack, I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

  51. Bruce Avatar

    Let me just say that in this debate of whose who and/or what, I find it appalling that folks define exclusionary as right-wing. Please people. The most left-wing idiots in history have been anything but inclusionary. Remember Mao? Stalin? Tito? I believe they murdered millions upon millions of their own people who “didn’t see it their way”. They were hardly right-wing and definitely not inclusionary.
    I am a conservative yet I fully believe in the big-tent theory. Bush isn’t doing a lot of things I like, but he is enabling the Right to defeat the Left on many fronts and that is a good thing, IMHO. Most of you would view my thoughts on issues as “right-wing”, yet I am anything but exclusionary.
    Thanks for the soapbox.

  52. Dan Pepper Avatar
    Dan Pepper

    Ok, first time caller and all. Never been at the sight before. I’ve got no problem with people calling themselves “liberals” I’ve been to prefer leftist for myself because “liberal” seems wrong, somehow. I suppose I’m caving to right wing propaganda focusing on clueless, easily-led college professor P.C. sorts and defining them as “liberals”
    I do see the more reasonable point of naming, which is if Ralph Nader were to go around saying ‘I’m a conservative’ eventually the term would lose meaning. (Please hold the anti-2000 campaign jokes vis a vis he might as well be)
    What I don’t get, reading the above comments is how unmainstream people believe the Democratic Party’s positions to be. I guess maybe because I’m (like Orwell) a socialist, free-speech, democracy and human rights absolutist, things scrunch together when they are viewed from my perspective. But why do people think Howard Dean (or any Democrat canidate save Kucinich) would pull troops out of Iraq? I haven’t heard them say that.
    Also, I believe the main difference between the Democratic canidates and Mr. Bush’s supporters is that the former believe Iraq to not be part of elminating Al Qaeda and its ilk and the latter do believe that. I do not really get the latter position. I’m conflicted about the war, myself, although those who claim a lot of war opposition is Bush opposition have a grain of truth. I don’t think they can be trusted to perform the promised liberation of the Iraqi people. I personally however, would not have been for the war under President Gore, either, because of the practical concern that invading Iraq weakens our position when trying to destroy Al Qaeda and its confederates. My original concerns had to do with getting a bunch of our troops gassed, but clearly that was never a real concern.
    As to the left admiration for Mao Zedong (sp?), to my way of thinking, Soviet Communism was indistinguisable from Fascism. Authoritarian communism is facism with P.R. and completely foreign and unrelated to the sort of democratic quasi-socialism I thought most “liberals” believed in. Basically a society with as much individual freedom and economic equality as possible.
    Yeah long post, sorry,
    Dan