http://lastleftb4hooterville.blogspot.com/
Here's the text of the post and comments. I'm shifting into super-lazy mode.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Bush is the Symptom - Conservatism is the Disease
As many of us have predicted, the Republican presidential candidates are in a knock-down, drag-out battle to claim the mantle of 'the most conservative ever'. McCain, indeed, is labeled by the other candidates as a 'liberal', the pinnacle of epithets. 'Pedophile' would not be a more derogatory, insulting term. You might as well call him a 'Satanist who bites the heads off of blastocysts' and get it over with.
Conservatives revere and revel in the label 'conservative' in a way that liberals ceased to do in the sixties, when conservatives began blaming liberalism for every evil under the sun. Before that, the majority of Americans self-identified as liberals; liberalism represented the things in society that Americans valued - equality, diversity, making sure that everyone had a chance at the "American Dream". The economic programs that gave us a middle class - strong unions, the GI Bill, Social Security, Medicare - are liberal programs. Liberals believe that you can't sacrifice people so that corporations can grow fat. Liberals know that the 'trickle down theory' is, as Dubya's father once rightly said, 'voodoo economics', and that the only boats that a 'rising tide lifts' are yachts. Liberals believe that we as a nation have a responsibility, not for, but to all of our citizens (there's a difference) and that government is not the enemy, but 'We the People'. It's not 'them', it's 'us'. But when conservatives, backed by the limitless coffers of Big Business Republican think-tanks who saw their vision of conservative financial and social dominance slipping away, decided to attack liberalism as the symbol of all that's wrong with America, liberals did not challenge this assertion and it became part of the national narrative without liberals quite knowing what happened.
So, while statistics show that the economy does better under Democratic leadership and worse under Republican leadership, conservatives brag about belonging to the party of 'fiscal responsibility.' While Republicans accuse Democrats of being 'soft on terror', their party and their President have increased and encouraged terrorism by attacking and occupying a sovereign nation without the resources to defend themselves, and created terrorism where there was none before. While Republicans consider themselves to be the party of Morality and accuse Democrats of having no values, in the most egregious examples of 'do as I say, not as I do', the overwhelming majority of sex and corruption scandals have involved Republicans, not Democrats. The party that supposedly believes in 'small government' inevitably bloats it to unprecedented numbers. The party that harps upon Personal Responsibility seems congenitally incapable of accepting responsibility for its failings, always blaming them on others.
Please note that I am not giving Dems a free pass here - no one can be in politics and keep their hands perfectly clean - no one. It's the way the system is set up. But the ones who claim to be more moral than everyone else because of their high religious principles and who are constantly pointing their fingers at others seem to be the ones that are doing every immoral thing they condemn others for.
And these are the people who are proudly claiming the mantle of conservatism.
For those conservatives who have reluctantly admitted that the Bush Administrtion has been, shall we say, less than stellar - is the reason for George W.'s failure as President simply that he is not conservative enough? Is that his problem? For the true believers, conservatism never fails - it is only failed.
Somehow, with a Republican president, complete Republican control of Congress, and a majority of conservative Supreme Court justices - as well as a religious right that has been calling the shots in Washington for almost eight years - conservatism has not been given a real chance!
Please pardon me if I'm not hopping on that particular bandwagon. Yes, the party with absolute control of everything, that left Democrats completely shut out and voiceless for six years and when they got the tiniest sliver of a majority back, filibusters them into irrelevance without a murmur of dissent - that party has not had a fair shot at giving conservatism a chance.
I beg to differ, comrades.
We have had the implementation of unfettered conservatism for the past twenty-five years. In my upcoming book the Price of Right I've set myself the task to make clear why it is not just George W. Bush that is the problem - it is the ideology of conservatism itself.
Bush is the symptom; conservatism is the disease.
Even as liberals debate conservatives, we cede them the ‘rightness’ of their basic tenets, which I think is a mistake. I hope to show that conservatism – both social and economic – is detrimental to a democratic society. By ‘conservatism’ I do not mean prudence and moderation - which is what many people take conservatism to mean – but the political and social meaning which includes the myth of the ‘free market’, the elimination of as much regulation and taxes as can be gotten away with, the myth that privatization is the best way to deal with society’s needs, and that government is in itself a bad thing. The (usually) unspoken corollary to this is the ‘Conservative Golden Rule’ – he who has the gold makes the rules. In other words, the people with money and power are the best and most deserving – simply because they have the money and power! This is a strongly-held belief of many people, but it is not acceptable to say in so many words, so there are many euphemisms to describe it - ‘meritocracy’, ‘pulling yourself up by your bootstraps’, ‘reverse discrimination’, and so on. Conservatism’s message is connected to some very powerful societal myths that resonate deeply in the subconscious mind, making it easier to believe in the myths than the facts.
But America as a nation was built on liberal and progressive values, rather than conservative ones. If by ‘conservative’ you mean the status quo – keeping things the way they are, rather than changing, then conservatives would be the Royalists and liberals would be the Revolutionaries. The United States of America was not founded by people who did as they were told by the authority in power – in this case George III, who considered his power directly God-given. In fact, every significant advance in this country for the betterment of its people – freedom for slaves, women’s rights, child-labor laws, civil rights, the American 20th-century middle class itself – came about as a result of liberal ideals and policies.
For much of the 20th century after World War II, American values were liberal values. The New Deal gave us the American Dream – a thriving middle class. But the paradigm began shifting in the sixties, when the plan to rebuild conservatism intersected with the disappointment of Vietnam, which put a damper on what it meant to be liberal. Powerful changes were beginning, but they were under the radar of American consciousness.
We began feeling the rumbles of this seismic shift in the late seventies, when Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority injected politics into religion, ushering in the so-called “Reagan Revolution”. The admixture of moral righteousness with conservative economic tenets begat a Republican mindset that allowed for little or no consideration of other points of view. With this new majority, conservatives could afford to ignore the bipartisanship which would normally force it to mitigate or dilute its objectives. The liberal view became, not just incorrect, but morally flawed as well in the eyes of this new political meld, the Christian conservatives. Each group had its own reasons for criticizing liberalism before, but, fused together as a political unit, the two groups reinforced each other’s beliefs synergistically. Traditional liberal values such as tolerance, diversity, empathy and compassion became evils to be rooted out instead of solutions to the ills of society.
This set of 'values' insists that "Government is the enemy and Big Business is your friend." They believe, incredibly, that tax cuts plus borrowing and spending equal prosperity! The sad truth is that our government (and the rest of the world) is run, not by Democrats, or even Republicans, but by multinational corporations. These corporations want Republicans in power because they fit the most easily into the authoritarian nature of conservatism, and are thus much easier to bend to their will.
I don't believe that most conservatives (our family and friends, many of whom are affected as adversely as the rest of us by unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism) understand what their policies really mean in terms of the economy, the so-called "War on Terror", jobs, education, health care, the deficit, civil liberties, and our relationships with the rest of the world. But, as most people know by now, the Republicans have been positioning themselves for this complete takeover of government for forty years. It has been carefully planned and massively funded. And the way they have captured the hearts and minds of the American fiscal and religious conservatives was not an accident. It has been done by playing into the deepest wants, needs, and fears of people who are the most comfortable with authoritarian structure. It has been done systematically through the use of language and framing, and using the same subliminal techniques that advertisers use when they want you to choose their product over a competitor's; not because of inherent differences between the products, but by applying motivational 'triggers' which have nothing to do with the product itself. That's where the media comes in, The average American, who works harder and longer for less and less, sits down for an hour, exhausted, in front of the television set and takes it on faith that what he or she is seeing on the news is true. And when the narrative is skewed to promote the ideas that those in power wish to have the public believe, most people are not in a position to judge how much is true and how much is spin. The line between 'news' and 'commentary' has been completely blurred to boost advertising revenue, and the American people - you and I - are paying the price.
George W. Bush certainly is the worst president in American history, but he could not have achieved that distinction without the conservative philosophy that says "What's good for business is good for America." It is conservatism that has created the monster that is George W. Bush, not the other way around.
I believe it is time for liberals to call themselves liberals, and be proud of being liberal. It is time to stop ceding conservatives the moral high ground and start pointing out where conservatism has had a direct and destructive effect on the United States and the rest of the world.
Conservatism is inherently anti-democratic. Conservatives do not believe that all men (and women) are created equal. Conservatives believe that some people are more equal, more deserving, more entitled than others, and it's the fault of the 'others' if they are shut out.
Folks, the principles that our nation was founded on are the exact principles that conservatives oppose! We as liberals need to begin pointing that out. Nothing would make me happier than to see a Democratic candidate boast about what a liberal he or she was. That would give me hope for our country.
Remember - Bush is only the symptom - conservatism is the disease. Let's work togther for a cure.
posted by Alicia Morgan @ 11:09 AM
11 Comments:
At February 11, 2008 7:40 PM, The Cunning Runt said...
Very well said, Ms. Morgan. It boggles the mind to see huge numbers of Americans buying the Corporacratic Lie. And any "Champions of the Left" who rise to the level of visibility get discredited and destroyed by the Corporate Media.
It's a very sad and dangerous time we're living in.
I'm looking forward to reading your book.
At February 12, 2008 3:59 AM, Wyldth1ng said...
I do not believe everything you say.
Some of what you have said implies that all "republicans" are for big business and not for the people.
Also, I worry about the democrats who are currently running have repeatedly said their dismay in troops in the US and want to drop our numbers to a pre-WW1 level.
At February 12, 2008 6:25 AM, Alicia Morgan said...
wyldth1ng - I certainly hope that you don't 'believe everything I say'. This article deals in broad generalities, and of course there are plenty of exceptions.
I am writing this to express a point of view that is not being heard in the mainstream. It is to be hoped that these ideas are out there alongside the 'prevailing wisdom' so that people can decide for themselves. It's just as foolish to take 'everything I say' as gospel.
At February 12, 2008 6:43 AM, RedLetter Rev said...
I found your post from a cross-posting on the DNC's "Kicking Ass" blog. I had to come right away to read the full text.
Thank you for putting this in print. I have been posting exactly the same sentiments for the last four years. The decades-long soft-sell of nonsense as "truth" and the development of a textbook-variety cult around it has damaged our democracy to point where -- IF we can salvage it at all -- it will take decades of repair and re-education. There are days when I wonder whether the Progressives can pull off such a monumental feat. We have brought this country back before in history; but never has the task been so great or the damage so deep.
I am the many-greats grandchild of Revolutionary War patriots. My ancestor who immigrated to America the latest arrived in 1751. He and many of my g's-grandfolks and g's-uncles were soldiers who truly did fight for the freedoms we enjoy today. Two of those g's-grandpa's were present at the signing of the Mecklenburg Resolves. I also served my country and still regard my promise before G'd and with G'd's help to protect, uphold, and defend the Constitution. The deep regard for our rights and liberties runs deep within my genes and my soul.
To think that the right would destroy the very thing that makes America "America" angers me. To think that there are many followers of the right would throw away those rights and liberties so easily and so quickly, without regard to how hard they were won and at what great cost, amazes and saddens me.
With such a family history and a personal connection to the Constitution, I feel very protective of it; hence, our American way of life. That is the one and singular document that makes America "America", yet daily, those who claim to be "more American" than the rest of us attack, sully and deface the Founding Document. The Orwellian timbre our society has taken on is indeed soul-shaking.
I don't blame the Corporatists for putting the soft-sell out there so much as I blame those on the right who follow every syllable of it so utterly uncritically, even in the face of obvious fact, history and evidence to the contrary. The right have created not just the semblance of a cult -- it most certainly is a cult by even the loosest of definitions. Cults invent their own version of "truth" and having some sad experience with cult-members, invented and convenient "truths" are difficult indeed to replace with uncomfortable and often inconvenient reality. But this very deprogramming task must be taken on soon, seriously and with all due diligence if we are to bring America back to its founding principals.
I thank G'd you have found your voice and have set my feelings exactly to print. I cannot wait to read your book. Blessed Be.
At February 12, 2008 2:40 PM, Mauigirl said...
Great post, Alicia. My mother has been complaining for years that the Republicans turned "liberal" into a dirty word! There is a great little essay about all the accomplishments of liberals that I'll have to dig up and post. It shows that much of what we take for granted is the result of liberals working for fairness and justice and good working conditions, etc. You really hit the nail on the head.
At February 12, 2008 6:15 PM, Martha A said...
n the United States, the 70% Common Population's Political Class and Culture makes less than $121,000 dollars a year to subsist upon; and, should any of the 70% Common Population lose their subsistence job's working for the 20% Professional Class & Culture or the 10% Elite Capitalist Class & Culture, they will fall into the ranks of the poor until when and/or if they get back onto their feet with a sufficient new job; therefore, the poor are a neverending part of the 70% Common Population's Political Class and Culture that will be with us always and can not be separated from the Common Population.
The 20% Professional Political Class and Culture is the NEW middle class population that earns $121,000 to 1 Million Dollars a year working for the 10% Elite Capitalist Class & Culture and can also fall into the ranks of the poor should they lose their jobs; as the Professional Political Class and Culture is the cream from the 70% Common Population's Political Class and Culture that have chosen to be a separate political class and culture, separated from the Common Population.
The 10% Elite Capitalist Political Class and Culture make Millions to Billions of Dollars per year and work only by choice.
The Common Population's Political Class and Culture are without subsistance rights and must realize the Common Population are liberals in need of holding a job for subsistance rights, instead of conservatives living off their own capital; but even more than that, the Common Population's DIVERSE Political Class and Culture needs to realize the Common Population are not only a political class, but are a political culture unto themselves POLITICALLY, and start defending their own political class and culture against the conservatism of the RIGHT, as well as the 20% Corporate DLC's Professional Political Conservative Class and Culture of the LEFT, represented in Congress by the corporate Democratic Leadership Council, the DLC. If not, there can be NO HOPE for the 70% Common Population to ever be able to regain subsistence rights in the nation.
Also, the candidates, the media and the blogs are always talking about the MIDDLE CLASS, can there be TWO Middle Classes?????? NO THERE CAN NOT!!!!!!! --- Because the 20% Corporate DLC's NEW Political Professional Class IS the Middle Class of the NATION earning $121,000 to $1,000,000. per year, while the SUPPOSED other middle class IS NOT A CLASS at all, BUT IS A CONSTITUENT PART OF THE COMMON POPULATION'S CLASS AND CULTURE, the MIDDLE of the Common Population EARNS $40,000. to $120,000. according to an NPR report, which is being promoted as the MIDDLE CLASS to divide the common population. The actual middle class is the Corporate DLC's MIDDLE CLASS & CULTURE of the Nation that earns $121,000 to 1 Million Dollars a year. Which middle are they talking about? Is it the Middle Class of the Nation, or the Middle of the Class & Culture of the Common Population? That is a BIG DIFFERENCE. Inquiring minds want to know, and this needs to be widely discusssed because their talking incorrect rhetoric about TWO MIDDLES, one middle earning $40,000. to $120,000., and another middle earning $121,000.- $1 Million Dollars just below the Elite Capitalists, the Corporate DLC's NEW CLASS & CULTURE, the Political Professional Class and Culture THAT CAN NOT BE IGNORED as they are the TRUE MIDDLE CLASS of the United States.
The middle class of the nation IS the 20% Professional Class and Culture, the DLC's new class, which is the one and only middle class of the Nation. THERE IS NO OTHER MIDDLE CLASS -- the middle they talk about is a median income for the Common Population Class & Culture, but a median income is not a middle class and culture, but is simply a median income of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION'S CLASS AND CULTURE.
Misconstruing the COMMON POPULATIONS CLASS & CULTURE as the middle class is common with totalitarian conservatism because it can be accepted by the unknowing, and divides the 70% COMMON POPULATIONS CLASS & CULTURE to the benefit of the other classes. It is necessary to understand that raising or lowering the median income of the 70% majority common populations class and culture does not make another middle class. There is only ONE Middle Class in the three political classes and cultures in the United States listed as follows:
FIRST CLASS & CULTURE -- 10% Elite Capitalist Class & Culture's Millions to Billions of dollars yearly,
SECOND CLASS & CULTURE -- 20% Corporate DLC's Political Professional Class & Culture's $121,000. to $1,000,000. yearly, THE REAL MIDDLE CLASS, and the
THIRD CLASS & CULTURE -- 70% Majority Common Population Class & Culture's $0 - $120,000. yearly.
There is no way the so called $40,000. -$120,000. yearly income wages rhetoric can be misconstrued as the middle class of the nation, but is ONLY an income figure derived from the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION'S CLASS & CULTURE.
Now, WE THE PEOPLE are in need of legislation for a new party, representative of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION'S CLASS & CULTURE, because our representation has been taken away by the Corporate DLC's NEW PROFESSIONAL CLASS & CULTURE, as neither one, nor two parties, can possibly represent THREE classes and cultures; and represent their own class & culture and the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION'S CLASS & CULTURE GOES UNREPRESENTED as swing voters with super delegates MARGINALIZING the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION'S CLASS & CULTURE continually.
WE THE PEOPLE of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION MUST CONTINUE TO WAKE UP so that WE THE PEOPLE CAN MAKE DEMOCRACY MANIFEST, because orthodox democracy is nothing but totalitarianism.
At February 12, 2008 10:49 PM, KELSO'S NUTS said...
Alician Morgan: I liked this post quite a bit. It was comprehensive, well-organized, well-written and persuasive. I'd go so far as to say that if one reads this post he or she needn't purchase a copy of WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS?
On balance, I agree with you. I will quibble over some fine points.
(1) If the whole thing is just a question of marketing or roto-marketing of the term "liberal," then what's the big deal? I think it was a wise thing to switch to "progressive" as an umbrella term,though I think the mundial terms FAR LEFT, LEFT, CENTER-LEFT, CENTER, CENTER-RIGHT, RIGHT and FAR-RIGHT have more valence, capture more of the shading and have more bite. For example, today's "liberals" would not be yesterday's "revolutionaries," today's "liberals" would have been yesterday's "liberals." Yesterday's "revolutionaries" wouldn't even have been "revolutionaries" per se because the American Revolution wsa a violent dispute over tax policy and the beneficiaries of the War of Independence were, ultimately, the upper echelons of the Colonial merchant class.
If you want to hang on to the name "liberal," that's fine. I don't mind calling myself that at all. You do need to get more aggressive and stick the other side with a label they don't want: "fascist" works for me; so, does "reactionary," so does "monarchist" and "feudalist."
I like that you draw the distinction between "Conservatism" as a movement and "conservative" meaning prudence and moderation. I do detect, however, an anti-capitalist undercurrent. We can go around and around on the issue but without capital and credit markets you don't have a blog to post on or your home or any of the elements you've come to expect from life. I don't say that markets are particularly moral. Quite the contrary. They are amoral. Often, they allocate resources efficiently. Sometimes, they don't. Never is fairness even part of the question. It's not edenic, but it's what you've got.
Furthermore, I don't believe from either a tactic or social justice standpoint should "left-wingers" be so opposed to rethinking US taxes. "Martha A" has written an excellent response above and I think she would agree with me that, for example, the Alternative Minimum Tax is basically a REGRESSIVE TAX whose effect is to not only split the lower 70% politically but also to drive some of the upper part of the lower 70% downward socially.
If the thought that some wealthy person is going to get wealthier if the tax code is revised is all that's preventing "liberals" from seeing things as they are, then that's very short-sighted. There are plenty of ways to create tax fairness without "soaking the rich." I'd say PEACE and AN ELIMINATION OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE would be a pretty good start in terms of freeing up budget room to make taxes fairer. If the rich end up paying a little less or don't suffer, who gives a crap? I'm probably to your "right" on this and to Wyldth1ng's "left."
MARTHA A:
That's an excellent piece of writing and I think I'm going to put it up on my blog, with full admission that I'm in the upper portion of the 20% and am using all legal means to get the fuck into the 10%! I do know where I come from, however, and believe me, Barack Obama can play at being ghetto-man in Chicago but he's an artistocrat and I assure you that unlike me he didn't grow up thinking a normal dinner was sardines or chicken hearts on toast. So, I'll never switch my vote. Well, actually I don't live in the US anymore, so I should say, I'll never switch my left-wing politics.
At February 12, 2008 11:39 PM, Alicia Morgan said...
Mauigirl - your mom is right!
Martha - You're exactly right about the 2 'middle classes'. Thanks for making that point - and for linking me over at KA! I appreciate the information you've set out in the comment.
Kelso - I admit the article is rather broadly drawn - on purpose; it's more of an overview. To get into the fine points, I'd have to...write a book! :-D One clarification, though - I'm not anti-capitalism; I'm just anti-unregulated-capitalism. Capitalism works with proper oversight. Actually, I believe the terms 'unregulated' or 'de-regulated' are misnomers - the corporations want regulations, all right, but ones that allow them to do as they wish regardless of the consequences to others.
At February 12, 2008 11:55 PM, Alicia Morgan said...
Rev - welcome to Hooterville! We are in a very dire place. We may not be able to change it. But I do not see that as a reason to give up, but to work harder to get back our Constitution and Bill of Rights - this marvelous, radical, unique experiment in human betterment and freedom.
But the first thing we as Americans need is real information, not advertising, propaganda and spin. Without an honest and adversarial press - one whose loyalty lies with the public, not the powers-that-be - the public has no way to make informed decisions, and that's why the press, alone of all professions, is singled out in the First Amendment. So the more of us that can raise our voices and challenge the spin and 'truthiness', the better chance we have of getting our country back.
At February 13, 2008 12:05 AM, Alicia Morgan said...
also, Mauigirl - give me a heads-up when you post that list, would you? Thanks!
At February 13, 2008 12:08 AM, Alicia Morgan said...
CR - thanks for your kind words! What you said about anyone who champions the left is true - they are 'disappeared' as fast as possible. Can't have that kind of talk riling up the nice people, now, can we?
Kelso's Nuts love you
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment