Thursday, November 11, 2004
First Principles
There's no getting around it. Whether or not the vote-count effort results in any changes to the outcome of November 2, 2004 (about which I'm hopeful, but not optimistic), liberals have their work cut out for them.
The liberal movement in the USA has been demonized as wishy-washy, spineless before a tide of enemies both international and domestic, snobbish and condescending, overly intellectual, manipulators of the so-called liberal media, sore losers, anti-Christian, wine drinkers, Bush-haters, and -- well, choose your own favorite.
Even within the movement itself, some voices urge us (whispering in our ears, like Wormtongue) to Be More Like The Others. We've drifted too far from the heart of the American people, say these voices. We need to be more practical, more realistic, more, well, centrist.
From whichever side of the spectrum these complaints come, the complaints will not be going away. If Kerry-Edwards '04 had won in a landslide, we'd still be hearing them. For whatever reasons, we've let the debate get away from us. The agenda has been set by those who stand against us (sometimes aided, shamefully, by those nominally on our side).
I say it's time to take back the debate. I say we need to cease giving so much attention -- responding -- to what are, in essence, the ravings of lunatics. I say we need to assert our rightful place in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.
I can't recall where I first heard the phrase "common sense and decency." But that, wherever I picked it up, is at the core of liberalism. I'd argue further that of the two, if we had to elevate one to pride of place, it'd be decency. Ever said to yourself or aloud, "Y'know, I feel kind of sorry for [fill in the blank]"? Of course you have. It doesn't make any difference if you're a self-identified liberal -- you (whoever you are) are a liberal at the moment you think such thoughts. Stuck in traffic, have you ever let someone scoot in line ahead of you, maybe with a wave or a tootle of your horn? Of course you have. Welcome to liberalism, friend.
Note that I'm not drawing distinctions of decency based on identification with any particular institution, or even any particular kind of institution. Decent people donate to charitable causes through many means, for example, both through religious institutions and secular ones -- or strictly as individuals, for that matter. (Thank you, George Soros.)
Less obviously, maybe, I'm also not identifying the liberal instinct with a particular political party. We can argue into the night about whether the Republican Party truly "believes," as an organization, in all the myriad crackpot practices of greed, fear, shame, hatred, and self-righteousness which they've willingly adopted as their public face in the last 20-odd years. But I invite you to join me in recognizing that the majority of individual Republicans have more in common with you and me than they do with the grinning BushCheneyAshcroft(/Gonzales)RumsfeldRove hacks who currently bear their party's banner. If we can't (or won't) recognize that common ground, not only will we never obtain their support (however grudging), but more importantly, we won't deserve it. I may not be able to make any sense of why they voted for [insert name of rightwing nutjob here], but by damn, I will not let myself believe that those friends and family who did so are anything but decent people. There's too much evidence to the contrary.
As for common sense, this is a harder row to hoe. You can't tell a man or woman you've got more common sense than he or she does -- not without risking (or for that matter, earning) their resentment. Maybe we can take a page out of one of the books of my training as a programmer: When you're in a walkthrough of a proposed solution, you never address your critique to the one who proposed it. You address your critique to the "solution" itself. The way to do it is not "How can you be so stupid?" (however much we might be thinking that inside). The way to do it is "Let's look at the numbers/facts/principles we all agree on. Does this solution hold up?"
The point is that common sense (and thank you, Mr. Paine), together with decency, is a damned hard concept for someone, anyone, to say they won't stand for. It's true that some may (almost certainly will) make claims for what they feel are "common sense" solutions and beliefs which simply won't stand up to scrutiny. In this case, I hope we'll be relentless -- and decent -- in pointing this out, when it crops up.
One final thought... I'm not a believer in New-Agey feel-good "can't we all just get along?" politics. The attack dogs of the right wing have all the common sense and decency of, well, poorly trained pit bulls. Playing pattycake with them is stupid; we've done way too much of that already. All I ask is that you recognize our battle is not with them. Let them snarl, bark, howl at the moon, bare their teeth. If we spend too much time and energy meeting them head-on, we have accepted their rules of engagement, on their field of battle. Our battle must be waged in the hearts and minds of people of common sense and decency.
So here is Where Left Is Right. WLIR is not meant to be a place for Republican bashing, or Red State bashing, or fundamentalist Christian bashing (although I expect they will all occasionally come in for some sharp pokes in the ribs). It's a place to catch liberals of all parties and faiths and professions and locales and degrees of tolerance in the act of doing the right things -- in the act of fostering common sense and decency. I hope you'll come back often.
Update: No, no, no: Of course I'm not saying we shouldn't be angry, shouldn't be outraged, shouldn't defend ourselves when attacked unfairly -- or attack them when they deserve it. Lord knows there are enough opportunities for all the above.
What I am saying is that we've got plenty of places already for venting our outrage. (Some of my favorites are linked at the left (where else?).) With WLIR, though, I'm hoping we can talk about things we can do -- or are already doing -- to set liberals apart from the noisome pack following (or reacting to) the right-wing agenda. I mean, this covers a lot of ground:
The liberal movement in the USA has been demonized as wishy-washy, spineless before a tide of enemies both international and domestic, snobbish and condescending, overly intellectual, manipulators of the so-called liberal media, sore losers, anti-Christian, wine drinkers, Bush-haters, and -- well, choose your own favorite.
Even within the movement itself, some voices urge us (whispering in our ears, like Wormtongue) to Be More Like The Others. We've drifted too far from the heart of the American people, say these voices. We need to be more practical, more realistic, more, well, centrist.
From whichever side of the spectrum these complaints come, the complaints will not be going away. If Kerry-Edwards '04 had won in a landslide, we'd still be hearing them. For whatever reasons, we've let the debate get away from us. The agenda has been set by those who stand against us (sometimes aided, shamefully, by those nominally on our side).
I say it's time to take back the debate. I say we need to cease giving so much attention -- responding -- to what are, in essence, the ravings of lunatics. I say we need to assert our rightful place in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.
I can't recall where I first heard the phrase "common sense and decency." But that, wherever I picked it up, is at the core of liberalism. I'd argue further that of the two, if we had to elevate one to pride of place, it'd be decency. Ever said to yourself or aloud, "Y'know, I feel kind of sorry for [fill in the blank]"? Of course you have. It doesn't make any difference if you're a self-identified liberal -- you (whoever you are) are a liberal at the moment you think such thoughts. Stuck in traffic, have you ever let someone scoot in line ahead of you, maybe with a wave or a tootle of your horn? Of course you have. Welcome to liberalism, friend.
Note that I'm not drawing distinctions of decency based on identification with any particular institution, or even any particular kind of institution. Decent people donate to charitable causes through many means, for example, both through religious institutions and secular ones -- or strictly as individuals, for that matter. (Thank you, George Soros.)
Less obviously, maybe, I'm also not identifying the liberal instinct with a particular political party. We can argue into the night about whether the Republican Party truly "believes," as an organization, in all the myriad crackpot practices of greed, fear, shame, hatred, and self-righteousness which they've willingly adopted as their public face in the last 20-odd years. But I invite you to join me in recognizing that the majority of individual Republicans have more in common with you and me than they do with the grinning BushCheneyAshcroft(/Gonzales)RumsfeldRove hacks who currently bear their party's banner. If we can't (or won't) recognize that common ground, not only will we never obtain their support (however grudging), but more importantly, we won't deserve it. I may not be able to make any sense of why they voted for [insert name of rightwing nutjob here], but by damn, I will not let myself believe that those friends and family who did so are anything but decent people. There's too much evidence to the contrary.
As for common sense, this is a harder row to hoe. You can't tell a man or woman you've got more common sense than he or she does -- not without risking (or for that matter, earning) their resentment. Maybe we can take a page out of one of the books of my training as a programmer: When you're in a walkthrough of a proposed solution, you never address your critique to the one who proposed it. You address your critique to the "solution" itself. The way to do it is not "How can you be so stupid?" (however much we might be thinking that inside). The way to do it is "Let's look at the numbers/facts/principles we all agree on. Does this solution hold up?"
The point is that common sense (and thank you, Mr. Paine), together with decency, is a damned hard concept for someone, anyone, to say they won't stand for. It's true that some may (almost certainly will) make claims for what they feel are "common sense" solutions and beliefs which simply won't stand up to scrutiny. In this case, I hope we'll be relentless -- and decent -- in pointing this out, when it crops up.
One final thought... I'm not a believer in New-Agey feel-good "can't we all just get along?" politics. The attack dogs of the right wing have all the common sense and decency of, well, poorly trained pit bulls. Playing pattycake with them is stupid; we've done way too much of that already. All I ask is that you recognize our battle is not with them. Let them snarl, bark, howl at the moon, bare their teeth. If we spend too much time and energy meeting them head-on, we have accepted their rules of engagement, on their field of battle. Our battle must be waged in the hearts and minds of people of common sense and decency.
So here is Where Left Is Right. WLIR is not meant to be a place for Republican bashing, or Red State bashing, or fundamentalist Christian bashing (although I expect they will all occasionally come in for some sharp pokes in the ribs). It's a place to catch liberals of all parties and faiths and professions and locales and degrees of tolerance in the act of doing the right things -- in the act of fostering common sense and decency. I hope you'll come back often.
Update: No, no, no: Of course I'm not saying we shouldn't be angry, shouldn't be outraged, shouldn't defend ourselves when attacked unfairly -- or attack them when they deserve it. Lord knows there are enough opportunities for all the above.
What I am saying is that we've got plenty of places already for venting our outrage. (Some of my favorites are linked at the left (where else?).) With WLIR, though, I'm hoping we can talk about things we can do -- or are already doing -- to set liberals apart from the noisome pack following (or reacting to) the right-wing agenda. I mean, this covers a lot of ground:
- Quietly working to validate (or otherwise) the November 2nd vote
- Coordinating LTE campaigns
- Keeping the liberal agenda before the electorate all the time, not just in four-year cycles
- Linking local to statewide and national campaigns
- Establishing prayer groups
- Reframing the national political vocabulary
