Denying Liberalism

Don't blame repugs, or insurance companies, or Limpballs/Pecked/O'Wrongly or even racism for the ease with which the hooligans have hijacked the health care reform debate.

Blame Democrats.

When you spend decades running away from the political philosophy that brought us all the things Americans most cherish, don't be surprised when people attack even the most wonderful program because your opponents label it "liberal."

Gallup published a really striking poll yesterday:

The strength of "conservative" over "liberal" in the realm of political labels is vividly apparent in Gallup's state-level data, where a significantly higher percentage of Americans in most states -- even some solidly Democratic ones -- call themselves conservative rather than liberal....

SNIP

Democrats dominate the country, but liberals are a distinct minority.

A big problem here is that this is what happens when hardly any high-profile Democrat will stick up for the word "liberal" or the notion of liberalism. None of them will even try to find a way to equate liberalism with plain, decent, common-sense, common-good Americanism. Bill Clinton didn't do it. Barack Obama hasn't done it. (Both have at times done just the opposite.) We have no equivalent to Ronald Reagan, or Rush Limbaugh and the imitation Limbaughs who came in his wake, all of whom said, "Conservatism! Hell yeah!"

What's not clear to me is whether the people who are pro-Democrat but anti-liberal really aren't liberal or just reject the label. "Liberal" may be like "feminist" -- for years, polls have shown that many women don't want to call themselves feminists, yet support the vast majority of feminism's goals.

But whatever's going on, I find myself thinking that if we're never going to have Democrats who work to restore pride in liberalism, what the hell, we'd probably be better off with moderates running the country -- a President Powell or President Bloomberg. I'm not saying this because I prefer moderates -- I'm saying it because the fact that they're seen as moderates seems to give them cover to do some things we progressives want without stirring up crazies on the right, or at least to neutralize the rhetoric of the crazies. Whatever you may say about Bloomberg as mayor, the desire in New York City for a jackboot-wearing mayor on a balcony is gone -- nobody here wants Giuliani back in office, or anyone like him, playing group against group and stirring up hatreds.

I'm not rooting for a centrist president. I'm just saying that if the only apparent liberals we elect are those who won't work to make liberalism seem normal, rather than freakish and dangerous, then we'd probably be better off with a centrist.

And I mean someone who focuses on governing from the middle, and doesn't emphasize scoring political points against liberals, -- like the blowhard Blue Dogs and GOP "moderates" in Congress.

There's no such thing as a "conservative" Democrat; such creatures are repugs hiding in the closet.

Democrats who support civil and human rights including gay marriage; reproductive freedom; fact- and reality-based education; separation of church and state; a social safety net; good jobs at good pay with good benefits; strong regulations to prevent corporations from stealing from, maiming and killing people; diplomacy and working with allies in foreign affairs; a rational drug policy; a defense budget that supports troops, not private contractors; public investment in public infrastructure, and the Rule of Law are liberals.

Everybody else is wrong.