Why America Hates Liberals

[smoogatz]

The 2004 election shouldn't have been close. We were in an un-winnable war, based on untenable evidence. Unemployment was rising, deficits were in record territory, the stock market was drifting, and the President's approval rating was barely fifty-percent. Yet, in our typical go-get-'em style, the Democrats were unable to field a candidate with whom the American people could genuinely connect. We liked John Kerry, though we cringed at times when he over-explained his positions, or when no amount of explanation could untangle them. But we never LOVED John Kerry--he DID seem aloof, sufficiently privileged and patrician that he had no credibility as a populist, economic or otherwise. Worst of all, he was easily labeled with the "L" word--which might as well be "loser." Even those of us in the lefty blogosphere find ourselves rejecting that particular scarlet letter: we prefer to call ourselves progressive, or left, or anything but liberal. Liberal, after all, is for the DLC types--the all-too-cozy with corporate power feel-good limousine liberals that Limbaugh and the rest have such a good time tweaking on their hard-right rant shows. Fact is, lots of Americans DO hate liberals--but it's not about moral values or supporting the troops. I think it's about the vocal, single-issue fringe that end up "representing" the rest of us, just because they make the most noise. Why does middle-America hate liberals? Here are my own pet peeves:

1.Political correctness. The idea that certain subjects or ideas are taboo--especially on college campuses, of all places--strikes a lot of working-class Americans as worthy of hearty ridicule. Liberals have--through their own actions, mostly--allowed themselves to be caricatured as frumpy, humorless kill-joys who want to tell everybody else what they can and can't say and think about subjects like gender, race and class. If you don't use the proper code-words, you get a "C".

2.Animal rights. If you think the "loony left" is just a canard invented by the far-right, you've never found yourself in an argument with a PETA member. Working-class Americans tend to glaze over and edge slowly away when you start telling them they shouldn't eat meat, wear leather or go deer hunting. The notion that all that's wrong with the world would be righted if we'd just see reason and devote ourselves to living on salad and wearing shoes made out of hemp and treating cows and chickens like people strikes most Americans as ludicrous.

3.The hyper-politicization of EVERYTHING. From language to food to the kind of car you drive and where you shop and what long-distance company you use, liberals are all too happy to tell you what to do and how to do it. We're unbearable little busybodies, full of patronizing opinions and insufferable advice. Conservatives have managed to cultivate the image of the free-wheeling, high-living cowboy-type--while liberals have allowed themselves to be typecast as fussy schoolmarms, quick to remind America to eat its peas. This is NOT the path to a political resurgence.

4.Our leadership are a pack of mealy-mouthed pantywaists who are afraid to commit to even the most obvious positions. The war in Iraq is based on a pack of lies. The people who sent our soldiers there are lying sons of bitches. Tax cuts for the rich have not paid for themselves in increased tax revenues. The world is not safer because Saddam is no longer in power. Private Social Security accounts will do nothing to address America's unfunded liabilities going forward. Except for Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Russ Feingold and maybe Wes Clark, there's a remarkable dearth of passionate, straight talking, consistent-in-their-beliefs Democrats at the top of the Democratic party. We have to do better than "I voted for it, before I voted against it."

The solution

Liberals should return to the glory days, when our message was simple:

A) Government works for everyone, not just the rich and powerful.
B) Fiscal policy MUST favor the middle-class and working Americans over big corporations and the very wealthy; Republican trickle-down economics has been proven time and again to be a failure and a fraud.
C)The government has no business interfering in your private medical decisions. Decisions about reproductive choice and end-of-life issues are best made by individuals and their doctors--not by government.
D)America is NOT the world's policeman, or God's appointed bestower of Democracy upon the world's oppressed. We can and will engage actively in promoting human rights around the world. We will not invade and overthrow sovereign governments that do not threaten us or our allies.
E)America will defend herself. On 9/11/2001, we were brutally attacked by the terrorist organization known as al Qaeda. We will declare war on al Qaeda, its agents and affiliates around the world. With the help of our allies, we will hunt them down and capture or kill them, one by one if necessary, until they no longer pose a threat to the U.S. and our allies.

[DavidDvorkin]

1. We still don't know that we were attacked by al-Qaeda on 9/11

Will any Democratic leader have the courage to say that in public? I have my doubts.

[smoogatz]

3. I think the evidence is overwhelming that we were.

Though I lean a bit toward LIHOP myself, I don't think it would resonate all that well in the heartland without stone-cold proof of Bushco collusion.

[kenny blankenship]

7. .

self deleted

[applegrove]

8. You pretty much have to ignore all the evidence to say that. What

of the highjackers DNA? What of the video footage of the hijackers at air-ports boarding planes.

I am sorry for you that you mistrust the Bush Admin so much that you will not even trust the FBI or the police or the firefighters families.

[DavidDvorkin]

17. I said nothing about it being the Bush administration

I said that we don't know that it was al-Qaeda.

[applegrove]

19. So you think OSAMA was faked when he took ownership of that?

The Cole & African embassies too?

[DavidDvorkin]

25. Bin Laden never took ownership of 9/11

He praised those who had done it but didn't claim that they worked for him.

[applegrove]

29. I don't remember the tape per se...but every single Islamic group

in the world denounced the attack. Yasser Arafat - Talibani offered to turn bin Laden over... are you saying there is some other group that unlike al Qaeda - had never bombed any American target before and did 9/11 using people who trained in camps in Afghanistan?

That's very interesting.

Al Qaeda did it. They were #1 of the CIA hit list for 5 years. Bush WH took them off that list and ignored them in favor of building up the excuses for going after Saddam Hussein.

[DavidDvorkin]

35. Assertion isn't evidence

"Of course they did it" isn't proof of anything.

Al Qaeda is certainly an obvious suspect, and it may well be that they did the deed. But we don't know that, and I'm tired of people asserting it as if it were proved.

It could have been a previously unknown group, most of whose members died in the attack. It could have been a group affiliated with bin Laden but operating without his knowledge. It could have been part of his organization and directly under his control and financed by him. Or various other possibilities. We simply don't know.

[applegrove]

36. What a wast of time. You are not a witness and yet you claim to know.

What does that say?

[DavidDvorkin]

41. No, I'm claiming that I don't know

And that neither does anyone else.

Witness to what? To the 9/11 attacks? You're not making sense.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[applegrove]

23. Sorry I responded. PNAC just used the trauma to turn Americans

into pliable wimps. I'm not going to get into this with you. I'm not sure if you are a freeper stirring the pot or really someone who just thinks they can ignore witnesses and experience.

It is also the radical Islamists who believe what you do. The ones who are wingnuts and are not terrorists..just don't want to believe that any of them could be 'bad people'.

There are bad people in the world. That is all you need to learn to accept. In every society. There are freaks & people who are so spineless that they follow them.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[applegrove]

37. You ignore witnesses, intelligence & all the other evidence.

that much is obvious. Then you claim people who do follow the evidence, intel, witnesses are all just wrong & making assertions.

Was there a bombing in London this month?

[applegrove]

38. Have you actually been to New York? Maybe the twin towers are

still standing. Perhaps the towers never existed in the first place.

[Montauk6]

75. The problem is the lack of any conclusive investigations/prosecutions.

At least with WTC I and Murrah, there were arrests, no one flim-flammed suspects with denial of legal protections (in an honest prosecution, you don't need to pull that song-n-dance), there were convictions, there was closure (fwiw).

With WTC II, mass confusion, major stall on investigations, suspects in custody who aren't allowed the most basic rights of defense, a President & Vice President who REFUSE to testify under oath before a politically sympathetic committee, alleged key operatives still walking the streets, war by deception, wholesale deaths.

As Howard Dean put it last year, is it any wonder that we have conspiracy theories all around?

[madeline_con]

54. "....police or the firefighters families. "

When exactly did they become experts on who carried out the attacks?
My dad was an electrician. Should I be wiring houses?

"... FBI ..."

They work for the same bunch.

[MadisonProgressive]

67. They actually found and match the DNA? Link??

[SteppingRazor]

2. Agree with everything 2000%

Nuff said.

[AmandaRuth]

21. not really

because I agree 3000% ;-) ;-)

[Der Blaue Engel]

4. Generalizations are always frought with problems

Personally, I did and do LOVE John Kerry. I don't hate liberals, not even the "loony" ones you take exception to. This sort of talk always baffles me. Perhaps you'd be happier with the monniker "moderate"? There's certainly no shame in that, but I don't think there's anything to hate or justify hate by "America" (since when did conservatives become America?) in anything that you cited.

Just my personal opinion.

[smoogatz]

10. I am in no way a "moderate"

I'm an economic populist, social progressive with libertarian tendencies.

[Speck Tater]

14. The problem is not whether you or I loved Kerry...

The problem is that Kerry failed to capture the "hearts and minds" of the average American.

The problem is not whether you or I think the "loony" ones are ludicrous, the problem is does the average American think the extremists are loony, and by association, think all Liberals are loony?

In the greater non-DU world we live in the image of the Liberal is dismal, and the original poster has hit the nail on the head as to why. It takes more than the DU vote to win an election.

What's even worse, is that Kerry couldn't even capture the hearts and minds of DU, let alone the population at large.

[Der Blaue Engel]

42. Hearts and minds

I just don't think that's true. Kerry won the election, not by a large enough margin to make the fraud obvious, but at least 52% of Americans were won over. I truly don't think the other 48% can be won over by a Democrat, not in our current climate of fear and hatred.

What's funny is that it seems that is the more left-wing people on DU that weren't won over, so the idea that we need to reject certain elements of our party or ideology so that we can win hearts and minds of average Americans doesn't quite make sense.

One of the Democratic party's strengths is that it has a large umbrella. I don't think making the umbrella smaller will win us anything.

NOTHING will be won until election fraud is dealt with.

[splat@14]

5. Agree. Knew why we lost when I realized I voted "against Bush"

Instead of "for Kerry". As long as that is the thinking from this side of the equation, we'll never win. We need someone to vote "for"!

[RobertSeattle]

6. Pretty good analysis

Is this posted somewhere or did you just scribe this into a DU post?

Not only do you critique, but you provide solutions.

DEMs need to get anyway from the "Nannystate" mentality.

[smoogatz]

12. I take full responsibility

I wrote it just now, in fact, while stepping into my asbestos underdrawers.

[Hardrada]

9. You have listed the reasons why

I've been an anarchist for decades (in my heart anyway).

[DBoon]

11. too funny!

I almost choked on my latte reading it.

[mongo]

13. Hope this makes the greatest page

Because there a plenty of DU'ers that need to hear your message.

[kevsand]

15. I think we just put it there. Glad to help... /nt

[DURHAM D]

16. Too complicated - we just need to re-own the word liberal.

It is not a dirty word and not a complicated process.

Liberal simply means to promote democracy.

Democracy means government for the people (not special interests).

End of story.

I glaze over when progressive vs. left vs. liberal discussions go on - it is divisive and the discussion is formed around the language of the right wing noise machine whose control of verbage and language in the main stream culture has penetrated to the point that it goes un-recognized on DU.

[RandomKoolzip]

18. Wow, traffic in stereotypes much?

[smoogatz]

22. My point is that we walk into the stereotype trap.

Seems to me it's worth discussing that.

[LibertyorDeath]

24. You better re-work this one

E) "On 9/11/2001, we were brutally attacked by the terrorist organization known as al Qaeda. We will declare war on al Qaeda, its agents and affiliates around the world. With the help of our allies, we will hunt them down and capture or kill them, one by one if necessary, until they no longer pose a threat to the U.S. and our allies."

First of all terrorism has its origins in poverty, oppression & suffering. So using the CIA to prop up brutal tyrants & dictators & assasinate democratically elected leaders may not be such a shit hot idea after all.
Constantly interfering in the internal affairs of other countries has apparently PISSED SOME PEOPLE OFF.

GO FIGURE!

"we were brutally attacked by the terrorist organization known as al Qaeda"

Says who, oh yeah the same people who have been doing this for the past 60 years.

using the CIA to prop up brutal tyrants & dictators & assassinate democratically elected leaders, constantly interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.

History.... it's hard to escape it.....

1953: Iran
CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.

1954: Guatemala
CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.

1959: Haiti
The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes," who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal human rights record.

Dominican Republic
The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington has supported since 1930. Trujillo's business interests have grown so large (about 60 percent of the economy) that they have begun competing with American business interests.

History of US Interventions

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_time.htm

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=us_interventions_project

http://www.google.ca/search?q=cia+overthrow+governments+history+&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N



The real shit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=142316
Democratic Underground - Part 2 of Indira Singh Interview of Pacifica (Ptech, 9-11, etc)

[smoogatz]

26. LIHOP/MIHOP are interesting theories

And I think there's a case to be made for a limited version of LIHOP, but the best evidence so far suggests to me that in fact we were attacked by Islamist terrorists--just as we were when the WTC was first attacked in '93, the USS Cole was attacked, and our two embassies in Africa were destroyed.

[girl gone mad]

27. You have some good points.

I'm a vegetarian, and even I get irritated by PETA extremism.

On the other hand, much of the liberal image has been fabricated whole cloth by the talking hotheads of the right. I have never met a 'feminazi' in my life, but to listen to the right, the 'feminazis' have control of our party and are single-handedly destroying our country.

Liberal extremism is much less mainstream within our party than conservative extremism is within the Republican party. I would argue that the image of liberals which you describe comes more from conservative media's overhyping of our extremists than from any tangible grievances. Somewhere along the line, we lost control of our image and let the Right define who we were. In part, we were to blame. We got complacent, and I think there was a time when only the fringes were making very much noise. It's going to be difficult to counteract that image at this point, but I think leaders like Obama, Hackett and Dean present a good starting point.

[smoogatz]

28. Absolutely.

You put it much more succinctly than I.

[starroute]

30. This is very tired old blame-the-victim thinking

When you have real power, you use it. You go out in the world and make things happen. That's what the right does.

When you have no real power, you sit around and whine. Or you obsess about the few tiny things you can change personally -- like what fabric your clothing is made from -- and try to get your friends to obsess about them as well.

When your leaders have real power backing them up, they confidently take positions and launch initiatives. When your leaders have nothing behind them, them crawl around the feet of the your opponents' leaders, hoping to pick up crumbs.

Behind the ever-smiling facade of the two-party system, the political war of the late 20th century is over -- and we lost. We are aliens in our own country, Native Americans shunted off to reservations, the colonized allowed to toil on the plantations of the colonizers.

If people "hate" liberals it's because they realize that liberals are weak, defeated, and can't help them. They know they're better off sucking up to the people with real power -- even if those people are screwing them on a daily basis -- then associating with the despised and excluded.

Telling liberals they have only themselves to blame for being so gosh-darned liberal is like telling the poor it's their own fault they're under-educated and unemployed. Or like telling an abused wife her husband would stop beating her if she could only remind him of how nice things were when they were merely dating.

Liberals need a source of power. That's the first problem, and it's a biggie. It's not going to come out of the ballot-box, it's not going to come out of the unions, and it's certainly not going to come out of armed rebellion. One of the few sources of power that we-the-people have remaining to us is as "consumers" -- since that's what we've been reduced to, from our former status as citizens -- and even that doesn't seem to be good for much besides the sort of product boycotts you find so annoying.

I'll grant you there are no easy answers to this one, but it can't be ducked either. Find the power-source first, and the rest will follow. Without a power-source, you can only get new forms of cravenness.

[Talismom]

31. This is very well said starroute! n/t

[smoogatz]

43. If you want to see yourself as a victim, you go right ahead.

My own view is that straight talking about populist progressivism will beat shiftiness and prevarication about theocratic soft-fascism every time. My faith is ultimately in the American people--if we can just find leaders in the Democratic party who can speak to them. Gore and Kerry both ran atrocious campaigns and left the '00 and '04 elections close enough to steal. Neither was able to make solid contact with the electorate on the issues, or the nature of the opposition.

[loudsue]

71. Well, that was dumb. What Starroute said was true.

Where is this "straight talking about populist progressivism will beat shiftiness and prevarication about theocratic soft-fascism every time" stuff going to be aired? On the right wing owned media?

John Kerry and John Edwards WERE "leaders in the Democratic party who can speak to them".

But every time they opened their mouths, the media would either show a film clip of their mouths moving, and speak over what they were saying to tell all the good sheeple WHAT THEY SAID (which wasn't WHAT they said, much less HOW they said it). Did the media show the 10's of thousands of supporters at the rallies?

answer: NOPE.

Instead, they'd merely show the speaker(s).

The whole "they aren't connecting with the PEOPLE" thing was OVER-orchestrated by the media.

Let me let you in on something:

Kerry AND Edwards CONNECTED LIKE CRAZY with the PEOPLE. The "people", who were disenfranchised, who stood in line for 9 hours to vote, and whose VOTES were instantly SWITCHED to the opponent with the flick of a keyboard, CONNECTED LIKE CRAZY with the Kerry campaign.

WHAT HASN'T "CONNECTED"

...is the fact that this is ONE LINE OF BULLSHIT THAT ISN'T TRUE!!! And ANYFUCKINGBODY who hasn't noticed it, is PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!!

The American people LOVED the Kerry/Edwards ticket, in massive numbers.

I have this friend, Andy, ya see. And he gave his life to show that the election was made into a LIE...

A LIE that Kerry "didn't connect" with the people
A LIE that Kerry ran a "terrible" campaign
A LIE that "we, the people" didn't elect Kerry.

WE LOVED HIM!! AND HE LOVED US!! AND HE WON THE ELECTION BY A GIGAZILLION VOTES.

The problem is...we have the MAFIA running our government (voting systems, media, and all). It is obvious in the way the world is appearing in your own life, and YOU DAMN WELL KNOW IT!! The problem is, you're too afraid to admit it, because the ramifications of that admission are too horrific to digest.

It's one helluva lot easier to blame Kerry.

That is just plain cowardice.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Pystoff]

32. Very well said there

I've gotten jumped on for not towing the PC line here a few times now. Or not being "liberal" enough in my personal views. Liberal to me means populism with a good splash of staythafuckoutofmybusinessitist-libertarianism. No world policing and wasting american lives for the military industrial complex. Shit feed off the hatred from Vietnam era knowledge of big business using the public for it's profits by making them cannon fodder. Care about us the little guy again that ain't so friggen hard and don't back our jobs being sold off to the country with the lowest wages(15 traitors to the working class). Don't tell us how to feel and how to think get outta my head and my friggen bed! This would win and win BIG TIME if the party had the nuts to turn down the corporate cash. But thats the rub the career politicans love that corporate cash like it's crack.

[WildEyedLiberal]

34. Your critique doesn't make any sense

You characterize John Kerry as the personification of the "liberal" you criticize in points 1-4, when in fact, if you listened to his campaign, he emphasized points A-E for over a year. John Kerry, if people had bothered to listen to him, was the perfect candidate for the sort of liberalism you are talking about. The fact that DU wasn't enchanted with him had a lot more to do with misconcenptions and primary sour grapes than it did with his lack of true liberal inclinations. And yeah, when you've got the mainstream media on one side and the "loony left" on the other both equally saying that Kerry sucks, it's gonna be hard to win people over. I agree with your points largely but disagree with the politicians you choose to represent these points. Howard Dean, for instance, is FAR from an economic populist. Harry Reid does not support a woman's right to abortion. You need to do some more research before deciding who does and doesn't fit your criteria of a "good Democrat." If, as I suspect, you're basing your criteria entirely upon the individual's propensity to call Republicans "liars" or "white Christians" or whatever other manner of trash talking, then say so. Personally, I look for substance, not rhetoric, in the politicians I prefer.

[smoogatz]

44. So, what was Kerry's position on the Iraq war again?

He was for it before he was against it, but if he had it to do over again he would've done exactly what Bush did, but differently? And you think I'm not making sense? C'mon--Kerry was an abysmal candidate--even worse than Gore, if that's possible. He was compromised from the get-go because he voted incorrectly on Gulf War I, the authorization bill, and the supplemental. And I think you misstate Dean's economic positions--he was vocally opposed to Bush's tax-cuts for the rich, and that counts as economic populism (more or less) in this day and age. As for Harry Reid, I admire the fact that he's a straight-shooting fighter--he doesn't have to be right on every single issue for me to support him.

[WildEyedLiberal]

52. I don't respond to Rove talking points re: Kerry

If you can't be bothered to learn more about him other than what Rove and the MSM spun, then you can't learn anything from me.

And study Dean's record as governor of Vermont. He prides himself on being a "fiscal conservative" - he was very pro-business and tended to side with business over labor and the environment, and he was enthusiastically in favor of Welfare Reform, Medicaid reform, and NAFTA. (He didn't speak out against the Bankruptcy Bill or CAFTA, more recently.) Not a populist in my book. Opposing Bush's tax cuts does not a populist make. Various Republicans oppose them because they are fiscally irresponsible and lead to a deficit, not because they could be used for populist programs for the poor and middle class.

Again, regarding Kerry, if all you can do is repeat the Rove bullshit "he voted for it before he voted against it", you have no credibility to me.

[smoogatz]

58. You have no response because I'm right.

Rove was only exploiting the obvious--and in fact repeating Dean's critique of Kerry's Iraq position almost verbatim. Kerry's big plan on Iraq was to run the occupation smarter and bring in more allied troops--pretty thin gruel, given the mounting evidence that Bushco lied the nation into an illegal war. But he also said that, knowing what he knew now, he would still have voted to authorize the use of force. It's an absurd position on its face, but it's pretty much all he could say after voting the wrong way twice. Kerry had zero credibility on Iraq, IMO.

[centristo]

39. the nail has been hit on the head

Great points smoogatz. The rebuttals on this thread only prove your point. If the Left can't even reach a consensus on who we are fighting then we have zero chance of ever regaining power in our lifetime.

D)America is NOT the world's policeman, or God's appointed bestower of Democracy upon the world's oppressed. We can and will engage actively in promoting human rights around the world. We will not invade and overthrow sovereign governments that do not threaten us or our allies.

Well put. The Right may back this credo now, but I think as the costs become more and more apparent (hopefully by 2008) they will reject this premise as we do now.

E)America will defend herself. On 9/11/2001, we were brutally attacked by the terrorist organization known as al Qaeda. We will declare war on al Qaeda, its agents and affiliates around the world. With the help of our allies, we will hunt them down and capture or kill them, one by one if necessary, until they no longer pose a threat to the U.S. and our allies.

Al Qaeda is a broad coalition of various terrorist organizations, large and small, embedded in America and overseas. These guys are the enemy. These are the guys who attacked us on 9/11. They are not poor, uneducated, victimized Muslims. These are alienated, educated, highly motivated killers. Yes, we need to eliminate the causes of terrorism, but we also need to eliminate the terrorists themselves. The Left HAS GOT TO TAKE A STRONG, UNIFIED STANCE ON THIS. Afghanistan - yes! Iraq - no!

Kerry was not an attractive candidate and even if he was the campaign was not run correctly. An anti-war activist should not have had his military experience highlighted. I think Paul Hackett may have won had his campaign not followed the same tactic. Don't criticize Bush and then splash him all over your ad campaign, as if he's endorsing you.

[rolleitreks]

40. Bingo. n/t

[colonel odis]

45. sorry. this all sounds like bullshit.

political correctness? my parents called it "manners." still not a thing wrong with it.

don't like peta members? i don't care much for freepers, either.

hyper politicization of everything? who started that? republicans during the clinton years, i'd offer.

your post assumes that the majority of liberals fit into the stereotypes you put up. i disagree.

[smoogatz]

46. You utterly missed the point.

"your post assumes that the majority of liberals fit into the stereotypes you put up."

It says exactly the opposite. Sheesh.

[MasonJar]

47. This entire thesis is predicated on the assumption that Kerry lost.

I was in Cincy election day and I can guarantee you that the election was stolen...again.

[smoogatz]

50. It never should have been close enough to steal.

But I'm interested in your Cincy experience--what did you see?

[really annoyed]

48. I agree with 2, 3, and 4

"Political correctness" is just a new-fangled world for politeness. There are some ideas that shouldn't be tolerable because they are downright immoral to me - racism would be one of those ideas. That is the beauty of freedom of speech though - I can speak out against it while they speak for it.

# 2 is dead on. I think PETA is a terrorist organization.

# 3 is dead on too. I'm sick of people making my weight a political issues. It's NONE of your darn business.

#4 is a very good point. We need to tell it like it is on economic issues.

[livinginphotographs]

60. PETA a terrorist organization?

How very right-wing of you (i.e. call anyone with whom you disagree a "terrorist")

[William Seger]

49. I think you missed an important one

Virtually every time I've tried to get a "conservative" to explain why he or she hates liberals so much, it's turned out to be some variation on the theme that liberals want to take money out of the pockets of hard-working "normal" folks and dole handouts to people who are just too lazy to work, and to take jobs away from qualified people and give them to incompetent people. These "conservatives" tend to think that anyone can walk into the welfare office and apply for free money; that a huge percentage of the budget goes to this welfare; and that the government enforces hiring quotas, which drives the price of everything up because businesses are forced to keep incompetents on the payroll. The primary focus of anti-liberal propaganda since the Civil Rights movement has been to promulgate these misconceptions and the notion that liberals are great champions of people who won't take "personal responsibility" for their low status in society. It appears to me that they have been very successful with this "wedge issue" -- that the primary purpose of "liberalism" is to subsidize inferior and undeserving people with your money.

[smoogatz]

51. Good point.

That old saw is, obviously, really about driving a wedge between the bottom end of the middle class and the working poor. The difference between them might be $10,000 a year in family income--but the lower-middle class pay 18% of their income in federal, state and local taxes, and the working poor may qualify to collect benefits. No surprise that there's some resentment there. The answer is to reduct the tax burden on the lower middle class--who really do get screwed coming and going. Economic populism at work, my friend.

[madeline_con]

53. "... unbearable little busybodies ..."

Telling other liberals what liberals should think and do?


"... we were brutally attacked by the terrorist organization known as al Qaeda."

After all the bullshit coming out of the WH, you choose to believe this? Why?

[smoogatz]

55. Because I think the best evidence supports that conclusion.

They attacked the WTC in 1993. They attacked the USS Cole, and two of our embassies in Africa. They attempted to hijack multiple 747s and blow them up over the Pacific. They declared war on the U.S. multiple times. I find Richard Clarke--a Clinton appointee--a credible person, and he's convinced we were attacked by al Qaeda. However, I think some elements of LIHOP theory aren't altogether insane. Why--what bullshit do you believe?

[emanymton]

56. America Does NOT Hates Liberals!

Your post assumes too much.

Step back, the people are liberal. The national agenda does not reflect anything more than hate being sprewed by a few. Many people are not following the trash in Washington D.C. and their media masters.

Bush Lied. People Died. Media Cheered.

[Joe Power]

57. Bravo!

Very well articulated, and I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one who feels that way. I come from a place where many Democrats would be on picket lines, fight cops, if needed, on those lines, and then sit down at the corner bar and happily drink with the same exact cops afterwards. Democrats are the tough guys, and Republicans tend to be looked at, rightfully so, as either wimpy or nuts.

How we let these freaks define us as pussies is beyond me.

[smoogatz]

59. You sound like a Chicago Democrat

We could use more like you.

[Joe Power]

76. Toledo, Ohio

Just south of Detroit. Although, now I am a Texas Democrat.

[livinginphotographs]

61. I agree with maybe 80%.

I think the biggest problem is the way we respond to right-wing attacks. Kerry pretty much let the Swift Boaters steamroll him until it was too late, and he could only go on the offensive.

Secondly, I think our emphasis on military service is a big overdone.

Thirdly, yes the Iraq War is important, but we can't make that our only issue.

Fourthly (is that a word), the left (or at least so many members on DU) seem to pride themselves on being "progressive," and then call PETA extremist without even taking the time to understand them. As a member of PETA, and someone that is committed to animal rights (true animal rights, not SPCA style "let's save the cute animals" crap) I'm resent your assertion that we're "extremist." Personally, I think someone who thinks that the proper response to al-qaeda is to "hunt them down and capture or kill them" is kind of extremist.

Other than that, especially the idea of returning to the more populist ideas that made the left so important throughout the century, I agree.

[Hissyspit]

62. Animal Rights are not loony or ludicrous.

"Working-class Americans eyes glaze over" when you talk about animal rights. So? They glazed over when I talked to them about the fact that Bush is a liar, a sociopath, unethical and immoral. They also glazed over when I talked to them about the fact that there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. They glazed over when I said there were not weapons of mass destruction.

Animal rights activists get things wrong, too. They are human and it's a complicated world. It doesn't mean they are not important issues.

Read Peter Singer.

I think this is a pretty weak post overall.

[smoogatz]

70. I think any ideology that elevates concern for animals

over concern for people is probably not going to play all that well out here in the heartland. I also think we need to embrace the great American working class, not hold them in contempt. We lost them to Reagan in 1980, then we sold them down the river with NAFTA. We have a golden opportunity now to win them back--but we're not going to do it if the farthest-left wing of the party isn't interested in addressing their concerns. My view is that those concerns are primarily economic, and all the moral values crap is just a rightwing smokescreen: watch me wave this Bible while my assistant steals your wallet.

[Kolesar]

63. #2 is ridiculous. Animal rights is hardly a notable issue in America

Nor does it define "liberals" or the Democratic Party. Too bad that your conversation with a PETA activist went badly, but PETA activists are pretty hard to find.

I have managed to speak to a number of people on the right, left, or indifferent about what I know about animal rights and held their rapt attention. I don't tell them they have to use hemp or "treat animals like people", either. You are stereotyping.

[Mynameissalvatore]

78. You're missing the point

What the original poster is saying is that we liberals have all been stereotyped by the right as tree-hugging liberals that care more about the spotted owl than farmers and such. The poster wasn't saying that is what we are and need to change. The point is we need to get the word out that those stereotypes dont define us.

[hiaasenrocks]

64. I think you're dead on with this.

Great points, both in the orginal message and all of your follow-ups.

That we couldn't explain (and exploit) the lies of the Bush Administration regarding the war, and make an issue of his failed economic policies, is the most troubling thing to me. Bush was as vulnerable as any incumbent President has ever been, in my opinion. And we lost.

(I know people hate to admit that we lost, but to me there is no use in carrying on the whining about the 2004 election being stolen. 2000 probably was, but folks we lost in 2004. And it should have never been close to begin with.)

[CTyankee]

65. Really, who's doing the lecturing?

And not just the lecturing, but the actual attempt to take over people's personal lives? The right wing, not the left. The wake up call for the middle came with Terri Schiavo. But absent something THAT extreme, lots more can just slide through under the radar. Look at the chipping away at Roe v. Wade over the last 30 years.

Also, the media was a big problem for us liberals in the last election. Once the media jumps in bed with the righties, it's hard to dispel the images that the right wing deliberately plants of liberals. Then it's off and running in the media cycle, constant drumbeat. Altho we had lots of positive accomplishments to point to in the Clinton Administration, the media just hopped to the commands of the right wing. Our good stuff got drowned out.

It's gotten so bad that the right wing just lies brazenly, without fear of getting caught because they know the lazy media for the most part won't call them on it (or bother to check). You'd think the media would shame people who tell outright lies, but they do zip.

I could go on and on but I don't think this is all our fault. Something is terribly wrong when our own side says John Kerry was a bad candidate. Anybody who watched the presidential debates could see and hear for themselves who was the better candidate. Hell, for that matter, who was capable of intelligible speech!

[smoogatz]

69. Poor us. Media victims.

Does the fact that the media is in bed with the rightwing mean we can't, or shouldn't, do a better job of defining ourselves, framing the issues, and attacking the opposition? Kerry did reasonably well in the debates, sure--who wouldn't look good in a debate with Bush? (Answer: Al Gore.) But debates alone don't win elections, obviously. And sure, the election was stolen in Ohio. But as I've said above, it never should have been close enough to steal. I am an ardent Roosevelt/Kennedy Democrat, and I gave money to both the Dean and Kerry campaigns in '04. I volunteered for Kerry in the days preceeding the election. I proselytized shamelessly to my students. But, much as I wanted to feel real enthusiasm for Kerry, I couldn't get past the feeling that he was forever talking out of both sides of his mouth. If I--ardent Democrat that I am--was disappointed by Kerry's apparent desire to be on both sides of every issue, imagine how Reagan Democrats and independents must have felt. It's great that we're united in our distaste for Bushco, but I think we need to demand much more of our leadership than we've gotten in the last two elections.

[Catfight]

66. I could sum that up in a short sentence, un-Americans hate liberals

because they don't think, they listen to the rhetoric that talk show radio host tell them to hate, not like, judge, etc., to gather more listeners. That's it, nothing new under the sun, only the weak of mind and the people smart enough to know that they can make money off the weak of mind, incite hate for any reason. We all could make a lot of money promoting hate, but we know right from wrong, despite fear of 'going to heaven or not,' we just DO what IS right.

[Zuni]

68. This is the damn truth

The only reason Dems have lost elections is that we let either whiners or indecisive shape shifters run the show.

We need to go back to the blue collar populists we once were

[bklyncowgirl]

72. Great post. One point needs to be added.

If the conservatives have used exaggeration and ridicule to pummel liberals--liberals have to turn it back on them and go after the right wing nutjobs with the same sort of satire and exageration.

For example, what's more "politically correct" than refusing to criticize some of more extreme examples of the so called "Christian" movement when so many of the "Christian" movement's leaders actions are in direct opposition to the words of the founder of Christianity Himself. If Democrats think that they're going to win converts by refusing to go after guys like Ralph Reed because "Christians" wouldn't like it, these guys will continue to ride roughshod over them.

We have to call a spade a spade, a liar a liar and a crook a crook.

[CTyankee]

73. You are right but

as I said in my earlier post, our response often gets NO reporting in the corporate media or if it does it gets ignored, twisted around or characterized as not quite accurate. I've seen this happen. Dean takes strong stands against the RW and he's portrayed with his scream footage! Look at the slightly condescending tone they take to leftward leaning bloggers.

However, I am encouraged by Hackett's campaign in Ohio. His bluntness increased his popularity, not the other way around. I hope the media take a lesson from him, but being the lazy SOBs that they are, they probably won't.

[agincourt]

74. Too many Americans influenced by what they hear,

and big brother tells them to hate liberals. Until we can find a way to break that media conditioning ,using any means necessary, we will have many weak-minded people hating us.

[Spiffarino]

77. Wish I'd seen this sooner

I'd have nominated it for greatest page. It is wonderful.

I like all four points, but most especially number 4. Too many of our "leaders" are spineless wimps. Thank G=d we got Dean into the DNC.