on becoming liberal...
Glenn Greenwald has a great article on the usurpation of the labels "liberal" and "conservative" by the far right; my favorite quote (stolen from Andrew Sullivan's blog:
Definitely worth a read, if only for a lesson in what lies ahead for those who don't drink the kool-aid.
"It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.Greenwald goes on to talk about how Sullivan has gone from golden-boy status to pariah of the right, simply because he no longer supports the fiasco that is the Bush Administration.
Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush.
Definitely worth a read, if only for a lesson in what lies ahead for those who don't drink the kool-aid.
posted by karmajunkie @ 2/12/2006 07:45:00 PM
8 Comments
8 Comments:
FROM SULLIVAN'S BLOG:
"OFF THE RESERVATION": Brent Bozell says I'm no "conservative." Enjoy. Label debates are silly. But I should say, for the record, that I favor the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been horrified by the incompetence of the occupation, but have been trying to make constructive arguments for how to win for quite a while now. Yes, I oppose the torture and abuse of military detainees. I'm a little stunned that this is now something that now requires one to be seen as a "liberal." I support almost all of Bush's tax cuts (I support the estate tax) but also believe in balanced budgets and spending restraint (heretic!); I oppose affirmative action; I oppose hate crime laws; I respect John Kerry's military service; I believe all abortion is morally wrong and that Roe vs Wade was dreadful constitutional law (but I do favor legal first trimester abortions); I support states' rights, especially in social policy, such as marriage; I oppose the expansion of the welfare state, as in the Medicare prescription drug plan; I supported John Roberts' nomination and Sam Alito's; I believe in a firm separation of religion and politics, but I certainly take faith seriously and wrestle with my own. As regular readers know, I'm no fan of the far left. At some point, I have endorsed every single Republican president in my adult life. All of that makes me a "liberal." Imagine what it now takes to be a "conservative" in Brent Bozell's eyes."
HOLY CRAP...I have found my political soulmate. How have I not been reading Andrew Sullivan all along? I agree with EVERYTHING he just said except the first trimester abortion bit.
I don't think that somebody that has those views is a liberal in any sense of the word. You know how I feel about Bush. I don't love him, but I don't hate him either. I think we have derailed economically and I think work needs to be done in Iraq. But I will definitely be reading Andrew Sullivan from now on.
see, i agree with almost everything he said EXCEPT the bit about Roe v. Wade :)
and just so you know, he's gay, so the soulmate thing is a possibility... ;)
HAHA...yeah, i know he is gay. I used to see him all the time and Hannity and Colmes, OReilly and Hardball. I knew he had a blog, but I haven't ever read it. But it will be a daily one now.
By the way, didn't you mean to say, "I DISagree with everything he said except the bit about Roe v. Wade" ????
nah, i'd say i only disagree with about half of what he said. Roe v. Wade i believe is good constitutional law. In principle, I support tax cuts as long as the budget is balanced; i oppose bush's implementation of said tax cuts because he is spending money like its going out of style, and because they are disproportionately given to the wealthy, even with adjustments for the percentage of total revenue that comes from the wealthy, and I believe that's exactly the opposite of what you want to do if you're going to stimulate the economy, which is his chief justification for the cuts. I'm not a fan of affirmative action except in a relatively few sets of circumstances, and as we covered earlier in the week I oppose hate crime laws. I support gay marriage (as does sullivan, incidentally) and states rights, but I see the marriage question as a civil rights issue that will eventually be decided by the supreme court, as you would expect a civil rights issue to be. (In other words, I don't believe states have the right to discriminate or otherwise deny civil rights to any minority, regardless of popular opinion--if they did, rosa parks would still be sitting at the back of the bus) I have a few ideas about healthcare but none of them are what I would classify as nanny-state ideas; i opposed the medicare drug benefit because bush's retarded ass deliberately crafted the bill so that congress wouldn't have any authority to negotiate lower drug prices, so its basically a giveaway to the drug companies. I didn't have a problem with Roberts, but I think Alito is going to do almost as much damage as Thomas and Scalia on the bench. i believe a firm and wide separation of church and state, although unlike Sullivan I have no problems wrestling with my faith (or lack thereof ):) And I've never, since i was old enough to vote anyway, supported a republican for president. Nor will I, if the republican party keeps putting forth candidates like bush, for president or any other office.
so there you go--the rundown of where sullivan and i agree and disagree....
I should clarify my position on marriage: I don't support state-sanctioned marriage for anyone. Marriage is a religious institution and should only be performed by churches. The civil aspect of marriage that is the so-called bedrock of our society (another load of crap) is just that: a civil union between two people that merges assets and assigns certain rights to each member of the union. To fail to grant this union to all citizens equally when desired is discriminatory. There is no legitmate reason to deny it to gay couples; no rigorously scientific study has ever demonstrated any level of damage to society in any form as a result of gay unions. (i'm sure james dobson and pat roberts can probably pull some "study" out of their ass, but until it shows up in a peer-reviewed journal, its propaganda as far as I'm concerned.)
so in my perfect world, you want to get married, you find a church to marry you. you want the tax, property, and legal benefits of what marriage confers, you get a civil union--regardless of what kind of couple you are. As I see it, its the only way to preserve both separation of church and state and avoid the civil rights question.
Or everybody on the religious right can get their panties out of their ass and get over their squeamishness at the thought of two men kissing.
As far as the gay marriage thing goes, I am not sure where I am on it. I gathered that Sullivan supports it (that is probably where he was going with the "states rights" part). I am almost at that point: allow the states to decide. The only problem there is with Full Faith and Credit, in my opinion. Who knows...i don't have problems with someone being gay, and I am not a homophobe. My uncle is gay and I spend every holiday with my family, including him and his life partner. They are basically married for all intents and purposes without actually having had a ceremony or certificate. Part of me says there is no problem with letting them marry, who cares. The other part of me has a hard time reconciling my faith with my secular values, and that is where the hang-up is. I also fear there may be a slippery slope, but most of the people that argue this are just exaggerating (like saying it will open the door for bigamy, etc.). I think that is where most people are on the issue. Our faith tells us that being gay is morally wrong, but no more than being an alcoholic or a pothead. I think it is our right to be anything we want, although that doesn't mean it isn't a "sin" in the eyes of God (I know I just made your head explode, Gaddis, and I am sorry).
I wrote a scathing opinion piece criticizing gay marriage/civil union in the school newspaper once...but I have backed off my position considerably since then. I haven't come through the clouds on this issue yet, and I have no definite position...man it sucks trying to find your identity sometimes :-)
I'm like you in that regard; i'd prefer to let the states decide, but there's the civil rights question for me, as well as the full faith and credit clause--although there seem to be a fair number of republicans that are convinced that clause doesn't affect marriage (including sullivan, strangely enough). It may just be that my legal self-education is lacking a bit in that area of con law...
as far as the struggle between your faith and your values, I had the same problem for a long time (I wasn't always the heretic you see before you :) ) Eventually I realized the struggle came from the fact that my faith didn't reflect my actual values, and I came to the conclusion that one of them had to give, and I trusted my own instincts more than what somebody else was telling me. And of course we all know the end result of that particular search for enlightenment :)
Its worth bearing in mind that Jesus Christ never once mentioned homosexuality in the New Testament; seems like if it was that big a deal he might have made a point of bringing it up. For that matter, both consumption of pork and fucking a woman on the rag were termed "abominations", but slavery wasn't such a big deal. Christians today don't seem to have much problem with the former, but I don't see anyone propping up the latter, so as long as the Christian community is picking and choosing which parts of the old testament they're going to swear by, I think they could probably find better targets for their ire. Then again, I'm a heathen, so my opinion is probably worth a grain of salt. :)
a pillar of salt HAHA
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home