 As I observe the anger that has increasingly become a bedrock principle within our public discourse, I must ask why is the liberal so detested by its adversaries?
I’m not referring to the right wing constructed piñata that is conveniently defined as the very embodiment of wasteful spending arrogance and elitism. Nor do I advocate that opposing political factions lock arms and sing kumbaya, there are real differences in their respective vision of the country, and those differences should be debated passionately in the court of public opinion. Both sides of the left/right political continuum have its conspiracy theorists irrationals, and wing nuts. But speaking as a proud liberal, I don’t know anyone who fits the prototype offered by the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or Ann Coulter. What I find most remarkable are the negative connotations that liberals have been saddled the past few decades. Is liberalism the bastion of perfection? No. Moreover, when liberalism is in power it needs the contrarian conservative voice lest it become consumed with its own arrogance; and the same holds true for the other side. The dilemma that’s currently presented for liberals, there is no contrarian conservative voice. There is nothing within the current right-wing sophomoric rhetoric that reminds one of Edmund Burke, who is widely regarded as the patriarch of conservatism. Current conservatism holds Ronald Reagan as the titular head of the Republican Party, but not much beyond that. Conservatism and ostensibly the Republican Party are without ideas to address the complexity of the issues that confront the nation—many were created on their watch. I would have a better appreciation for the anger behind the healthcare legislation if a small portion of that fury were exhibited during the fiscal irresponsibility when Republicans controlled Congress six out of the eight years when George W. Bush was president. There is a hint of disingenuousness associated with the current anger that cannot be denied. What I find most amusing and ironic is that many of those in frothing dissent against liberals owe liberal policies a debt of gratitude. What would the country be without Social Security or Medicare? I suspect only the true believing wing nuts would argue that Social Security and Medicare have been bad for the country. Not only were these liberal policies, but also the conservative ideology initially opposed them.
Historically, who has supported the troops more so than liberals? It was President Franklin Roosevelt who signed Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, known to many as the G.I. Bill? The bill offered college or vocational education for those returning from WWII. It also provided many different types of loans for returning veterans to buy homes and start businesses. The impact that the G.I. Bill had on education alone is staggering. In 1939, two years before America’s entry into WWII approximately 160,000 U.S. citizens were in college. By 1950, the figure had risen to nearly 500,000 due in large measure to the G.I. Bill. The G.I. Bill has been a virtual gateway to the middle class. As for the demonized liberal activist court, where do I begin?
Brown v. Board of Education, which stated de jure segregation in public education, violated the 14th Amendment; I’m for that. Gideon v. Wainwright, which the Supreme Court ruled that courts are required under the 6th Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases if the defendant can’t afford their own attorney; I’m for that. Miranda v. Arizona, which states a defendant must be notified of their right to an attorney before being interrogated; I’m for that. Loving v. Virginia, which ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage; I’m for that one too.
Can anyone honestly state we would be better off today without the aforementioned liberal polices of the 20th century? Vietnam was indeed a disaster, and largely liberal presidents oversaw its escalation, but who was offering the contrarian perspective in 1964? It wasn’t conservatives; it was again liberals. I admit liberals could do a much better job of reminding people of their illustrious 20th century contributions. Alas, liberals, at least elected ones higher than dogcatcher are hard to locate, and almost impossible on Capitol Hill. It is an amazing political achievement in that those who have contributed least to society are the one’s holding the historical bullhorn shouting those with the most contributions into the submission of shame. Just imagine if so-called conservatism achieved half as much as liberals did in the 20th century, wouldn’t we be hearing about it ad nauseam?
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Post a Comment. 
