POLITICS AND NATURE

"Still other Republican leaders have insisted on calling themselves 'progressive' Conservatives. These formulations are tantamount to an admission that Conservatism is a narrow, mechanistic economic theory that may work very well as a bookkeeper's guide, but cannot be relied upon as a comprehensive political philosophy."

Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative

Progressives, Goldwater, Kennedy, Lyndon, and J. Edgar

Progressives have a long and storied past. Progressives in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries fought the consolidation of economic influence, corruption in government, environmental destruction, women's rights, and worker's rights. Goldwater wrote the influence of progressive thought weakened the strong fundamental principles which should guide conservative thought. Today's world sees liberals taking the name progressive instead of standing for a firm set of beliefs. The term has come to shroud ideological purity and to exhibit a willingness to compromise.

Liberals today are a dying breed. Proud traditions that kept the United States moving forward through its history are attacked as big government moves ever closer into personal lives. Goldwater was concerned with the freedom of man. He upheld individual rights but seemed to vacillate a bit over his lifetime regarding the tensions existing between those rights and state's rights. Goldwater was universally respected though. He stuck to his guns.

People in the modern conservative movement, which has become a sad parody of its old self, spend most of their time defending the Republican party at all costs. Something Goldwater refused to do in his little book back in 1960. He took on Republicans for their lack of orthodoxy. Today, the Grand Old Party has become a reflection of the Democratic Party in the '60s. Democratic power in the mid '60s was pervasive and reached into every nook and cranny of American life. Goldwater stood alone, as if his was a "voice crying in the wilderness" against a massive, state controlling party laughed him away from the White House. Johnson stomped Goldwater with 43 million votes versus Barry's 27 million. Barry limped from 1964 with 52 electoral votes to Johnson's 486 (www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html). Yet he set up the foundation for a resurgence in the Grand Old Party that would whip the wounded Democratic dogs for forty years.

I am no scholar on Goldwater, but it seems he liked John F. Kennedy. They disagreed and Kennedy asked Goldwater to stick to photography, but they planned a series of debates, modeled on the Lincoln - Douglas debates, over issues in 1964. Who knows if the planners, organizers, and political fixers would have allowed such a thing, but it is fun to think about. As it is, he was stuck running against Lyndon Johnson. Someone so vile, even the Kennedy's despised him. He brought important things to the 1960 Kennedy campaign, experience,  stature, southern credentials, and by granting him the vice presidency, they could keep an eye on him and keep him away from the halls of power. Who knows how J. Edgar Hoover played into the whole mess.

Hoover was like a dirty closet fag who hated homosexuality and knew a lust in his heart for power unlike any leader since Caligula. He was no progressive. He was into raw power. If ever there was a man that gained too much influence over elected officials in the United States, it was J. Edgar. He spied on everyone. We think we have problems today with FISA abuse, taping of individual citizens, and governmental privacy abuse. FISA was enacted partly because of Edgar's reign of terror. Hoover believed God gave him the right to know what all people were doing at all times. Hoover treated the FBI like his own private SS. Wire tapping were the least of public concerns. He watched 'em all and Lyndon relished hearing who was doing what and how they could take down whoever they chose. Of course, they were wrong.

Power of that sort likens the government to the level of school boys peeking through a hole at the girl's bathroom. The perversion of the '60s loomed large and nobody cared. No, Goldwater did not like Lyndon Johnson. Johnson claimed to have lost the South for a generation as he signed the Civil Rights Act. 40 years later, the South still hates Democrats, and Johnson's legacy looms larger as a man nearly as paranoid as Nixon and more ruthless, secret, and conflicted.

But that was then. The point is, for decades Republicans have been hammering away at liberalism. This phenomena did not start yesterday. Or with Reagan. Or even Dick Nixon. Barry set the stage and he succeeded in his losses. He is revered as a statesman and honored for his principles. Modern conservatives parse words to explain his separation from them on social issues like abortion and gay rights but his is the image of the purity in conservative circles. They'll sell him for what they can get and then move away when it suits their purposes.

Meanwhile Democrats have been avoiding the liberal label as if it were a political death sentence. No one wants to be a liberal anymore. True terror to a Democrat is being called a liberal. The word is never explained, but none of the leadership has been able to define what they do believe and, subsequently, they are defined by the constant drumbeat of modern conservative chanting instead of taking control and defining themselves. Bill Clinton did an admirable job of it but Newt and his boys attacked mercilessly and gained control in '94. Which worked out well for the country, if not for the Democrats.

Democrats are Sissies 

John Kennedy was taken on in 1960 for his liberalism. Voters were tired of the activism lasting from 1933 with the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt through 1952 and the election of Dwight Eisenhower. Goldwater even took on Dwight for claiming he was an economic conservative but progressive on social issues. Kennedy did not take that liberal label lying down, and he barely beat Richard Nixon in the race for a home on Pennsylvania Avenue. Kennedy gave a speech at the New York Liberal Party on September 14, 1960. Read what he has to say:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label 'Liberal?' If by 'Liberal' they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of 'Liberal.' But if by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal'. www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/psources/ps_nyliberal.html

I highly suggest anyone who cares goes to the PBS website listed above and read the entire speech. It is not very long but filled with lessons for people who care about this nation, its health, security, and its future. Today it can be said that conservatives argue that liberals support gay marriage, gays in the military, abortion, taxes, and big government. Kennedy's words have never been so true. 

As a liberal, I respect tradition but understand that times have changed. Newt Gingrich frequently harkens to the era of Republican leadership lasting from 1860 to 1933, minus two separate terms for Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson's eight years. He wants to re-create that 70 year reign again for the Republican Party. I have not heard him mention the progressive elements of the party at that time, the federal power used to end slavery and enact civil rights amendments to the Constitution, Teddy Roosevelt's abandonment of the party, or the ultimate downfall leading to the growth of the federal government under FDR and the New Deal. But, we all pick the moments we use to prove a point.  

Democrats need to stand up to the conservative leadership and its commentators. Take liberalism as a proud and gloried tradition. I consider Bill Clinton, who governed from the center, as a liberal. It is important to remember who got this country into the situation ending in the great depression, and who got us out of it.

I don't find it amazing at all that, as a self-proclaimed liberal, I want the government to be reduced or that I think it should work more efficiently. Liberals have tried to use government to get things done, in the pragmatic version of American idealism. There is no need to back away from a label, especially one with such a grand tradition.

Woodrow Wilson, president during WWI...liberal.

FDR, president during WWII...liberal.

Truman, president during the end of WWII and who designed reconstruction for Europe and Japan...liberal

John Kennedy, president during the Cuban Missile Crisis...liberal

Bill Clinton, president during unprecedented economic prosperity and respect around the world....liberal

Liberals do have Lyndon Johnson, who escalated the conflict in Viet Nam and left the White House with his tail between his legs and Jimmy Carter who, while moral and a good man who restored decency to the White House, was not a good leader, but conservatives have Richard Nixon, who fled the White House before getting tarred and feathered, and a list of those during the time Newt loves so much that includes Harding, Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover. Coolidge and Hoover, at least, were good men but they believed in a method of governance which proved wrong.

The Candidates

Democratic candidates offer the best view into the possibilities open within the party, comprising the "best and the brightest" field of options in a lifetime. 2008 will prove to be an all out brawl. There will be blood. Citizens will be running for cover, hiding from political operatives, learning from Elvis and shooting their tvs. Sales for tivo will rise phenomenally. Buy stock in tivo now and sell it on November 4, 2008. We will learn to hate the political process and few will get out unscathed. Every debate and angle will be covered in the Spin Room. The "No Spin Zone" backing the Republican Party will go all out in its effort to support the wishes of the big boss upstairs. The elevation of Hannity spewing hatred and lies may frighten small children and cause dogs to hide under the couch while Colms is forced to swallow the most egregious left wing fanaticism and support it as his own, and all liberals' views. Next year will prove good for Limbaugh, the Daily Kos, and, hopefully....me.

If we don't get beyond the prattle and din of ignorance erupting throughout the e-universe, we may wind up with who knows how many more years of dismantling government programs for private profit, enduring spite of the United States around the globe, violence, and trepidation.

Presidential debates do not enlighten us about the views of individuals. It offers a glimpse into how they would act on the world stage. How they would conduct diplomacy. How they may react with state leaders and members of Congress. What they will look like working on impending issues. If their heads look like they will explode like Dennis Kucinich does every time he asserts he is the only one in the race caring for the environment, worker's rights, and justice, despite the reality he couldn't figure out how to spend Cleveland's money wisely, let alone two trillion dollars of American wealth.

You look for things like Fred Thompson looking bored with all the subtleties of a campaign. Why would he not, his second wife is very pretty and half his age. You look at how Rudy can't get beyond the desire to build more jails. How Mitt couldn't care less about anything but getting the nomination. We know about the multiple marriages and we will find out about questionable financial details. What is important in debates is how these individuals react to pressure. And the Republican Party, sans one, failed this test miserably.

Hillary Clinton looked great in the debates. I will gladly trust her with my government. I would also trust Obama, Richardson, Dodd, and, of course, Biden. Dennis has no chance and I wouldn't trust him if he did. He brings something to the debate though and that can never be underestimated. I find John Edwards too angry and divisive and I would have a hard time supporting him if he won. That would take a great deal of thought. Mike Gravel is a loon. The only Republican I would trust is John McCain, despite the fact that he's the only elected official I have written (and I've written quite a few) that did not answer my letter, and despite serious disagreements with him.

I agree with Rudy on many issues but I think we're asking for Big Brother with him or Mitt. Mitt will just give big brother power over medicine and put cameras into the bedroom. Huck won't deal well with power at the national level. He'll wind up like Carter, spending the rest of his days trying to make up for his failed four years at the helm.

No matter what the result, however, the Democratic nominee and Democrats throughout the land need to stand up and fight for what is right and proudly wear the liberal label. Stand up and be counted for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and don't let conservatives simplify and demonize traditions crucial to America's development both historically and for the future.