The New Meaning of the “Liberal” - “Conservative” Dichotomy

[Time for change]

“Given the documented problems associated with DREs and their susceptibility to fraud, it is inexplicable that the Bush administration and Congress have not insisted that the electronic voting industry be tightly regulated” – Steven Freeman and Joel Bleifuss in “Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen”


It used to be, I believe, that arguments between those who considered themselves liberal and those who considered themselves conservative contained ideas over which honest and reasonable people could legitimately disagree.

No longer is that the case – at least, not with respect to those “conservatives” who align themselves with today’s Republican Party. At the risk of sounding partisan, I contend that the primary difference today between liberals and conservative Republicans is that liberals stand for openness, transparency and truth seeking, whereas Republicans stand for secrecy, distortion, and cover-up.

There is a good reason behind this current dichotomy. Liberals seek to represent and serve the majority of their constituents, whereas Republicans represent only their most wealthy and powerful constituents. How can a candidate run on a record like that without distorting the truth, and yet hope to be elected? Anyhow, this article is not about whose interests are served by liberals vs. Republicans, since I recently posted an article on that subject. This article is about the simpler matter of openness, transparency and truth seeking vs. secrecy, distortion, and cover-up.

I recognize that this sounds blatantly partisan. One could give hundreds of examples to back up my claim, but for now I’ll settle for eight examples of how liberals and Republicans view some of the most important of today’s issues. These examples involve:

1) The free speech provision of the First Amendment to our Constitution
2) The question of whether people should know why our President took us to war in Iraq
3) The question of whether people should know the truth about our prisoners of war
4) The question of whether people should be aware of the scientific consensus on global warming
5) The question of whether people should know about the consequences of the Iraq War
6) The question of whether people should get the truth about the products that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates
7) The question of whether we need a thorough understanding of how the 9-11 attacks occurred
8) The question of whether we should have a voting system that ensures an accurate count of the vote


The free speech provision of the First Amendment to our Constitution

Our First Amendment is a good choice for the first example, since the main purpose of its free speech provision is to prevent our government from hiding its activities from us. Yet our current presidential administration, with the full support of its Republican enablers in Congress, makes every effort to subvert our free speech Constitutional rights.

George W. Bush never goes anywhere without the creation of “first amendment zones”, which is another way of saying that our First Amendment DOES NOT APPLY to the vicinity is which our pResident appears. In other words, people are free to protest his actions, as long as arrangements can be made so that those protests are not heard by a national audience.

Then we have Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose job is to provide legal justification for anything that the Bush administration wants to do, claiming that reporters who do their job by reporting on what our pResident is up to can be jailed if the pResident determines that the information in question is “classified”. As an example, a reporter could be jailed for reporting on our pResident’s illegal warantless spying program.


The question of whether people should know why our pResident took us to war in Iraq

Few issues are as important as the circumstances under which our nation decides to go to war. The reasons given by the Bush administration for the need to invade Iraq in 2003 were that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which posed a mortal threat to our country, and that he had ties to our enemy, thus suggesting the likelihood that he would provide those weapons to them. The fact that there was no credible evidence for either of those assertions did not stop the great majority of Republicans in Congress from supporting the Bush administration every step of the way.

Then came news of the Downing Street memo in 2005, which revealed the assertion of the British government following their secret meeting with the Bush administration in July 2002, that eight months prior to the start of the war the Bush administration had already decided to go to war, and that in order to provide political cover for that decision, intelligence was being “fixed” to provide justification for the war, rather than used to determine the accuracy of the claims that that might provide a reason for war. In other words, this memo thoroughly discredited George Bush’s claims about his reasons for going to war, including his repeated claims that he continued up until the end to look for a peaceful solution to the conflict. For example, Bush said on December 31, 2002, in response to a question from a reporter:

You said we’re headed to war in Iraq – I don’t know why you say that. I hope we’re not headed to war in Iraq. I’m the person who gets to decide, not you. I hope this can be done peacefully.

One would think that this would be big and important news worthy of thorough investigation. Yet, when Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman made the claim about the Downing Street memo on Meet the Press that its findings “have been totally discredited by everyone who's looked at it, including the 9-11 Commission and the Senate”, corporate media shill Tim Russert failed to correct that false statement. In fact, the Republican led Senate Intelligence Committee charged with investigating the build-up to the Iraq war made the decision (against the wishes of many Democrats) NOT to investigate the Bush administration’s use of the intelligence data it received, but rather only to investigate the intelligence data itself (which I might add was provided to the Bush administration by the CIA under intense pressure from the administration to twist the intelligence data to make a case for war, as meticulously detailed by Seymour Hersh).

Was the Downing Street Memo big news? Not according to our conservative corporate news media. As described by Eric Boehlert in “Lapdogs” (See pages 251-253), they first tried to ignore the news, but when liberal bloggers forced them to at least address the issue, they claimed that it was “old news”, based on the irrelevant claim that war plans had been covered extensively during the summer of 2002. But war plans weren’t the issue. The importance of the Downing Street Memo was not that war plans were discussed, but that the decision had been made to go to war at least eight months prior to the war (at a time when Bush repeatedly claimed that he was seeking a peaceful solution), and that intelligence was “fixed” to support that decision – in stark contradiction to the claims of the Bush administration.


The question of whether people should know the truth about our prisoners of war

Liberals generally believe that when their country does something wrong, that information should be made public so as to enhance the likelihood of corrective action being taken. Republicans believe the opposite (unless, of course, there is an opportunity to embarrass a Democratic President). Don’t ask me to explain why they believe that. But they believe it so fervently that when liberals try to publicize these things, the Republicans accuse them of “blaming America first” or “hating America”.

The thoroughly documented illegal and immoral treatment of our prisoners of war is a case in point. Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), upon learning of our treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, was appalled. Consequently, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, he read the following report from an FBI agent who had witnessed what was going on there:

On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for eighteen to twenty-four hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold… On another occasion, the air conditioner had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion…. with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

Durbin then comments:

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in the gulags, or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings….

It is not too late. I hope we will learn from history. I hope we will change course. The president could declare the United States will apply the Geneva Conventions to the war on terrorism. He could declare, as he should, that the United States will not, under any circumstances, subject any detainee to torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The administration could give all detainees a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention before a neutral decision maker…

For that statement Durbin was repeatedly and ruthlessly castigated by Republicans. Here is what Karl Rove had to say in a speech about Durbin’s courageous statement:

Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot – three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century.

Durbin did not say or imply that the magnitude of our crimes at Guantanamo Bay were comparable to the magnitude of Hitler’s crimes. He merely made a legitimate comparison, based on an FBI report, among other evidence. But those crimes are not important to Republican operatives like Rove or his audience. What is important is that a Democrat has the gall to expose those crimes. Rove’s point is that it is the messenger, not the perpetrators, who should be blamed.

The Bush administration has repeatedly hyped up the danger that our detainees pose to us and attempted to dehumanize them by telling us how terrible they are. Yet, as described here, as of November 7th, 2005, 29% of the 505 prisoners being held there hadn’t even had a judicial review of their case, after four years of imprisonment. And after several years of imprisonment only four had even been charged with a crime. If these people are so dangerous and terrible, why doesn’t our administration charge them with a crime and give them a fair trial?


The question of whether people should be aware of the scientific consensus on global warming

There is consensus among scientific experts on the subject that global warming poses a great threat to the security of the world, as thoroughly discussed in Al Gore’s new book, “An Inconvenient Truth”. But this fact is inconvenient to Bush’s benefactors in the oil and transportation industries. Consequently, Bush pulled the U.S. out of the Kyoto Protocol (signed in February 2005 by 141 nations, including every developed industrial nation in the world, with the exception of Australia and the U.S.) as one of the first acts of his Presidency, and he has repeatedly questioned the science behind global warming in order to avoid having to do anything about it.
Bush has even tried to silence Dr. James Hansen, the top climate scientist at NASA on this issue, following Dr. Hansen’s December 2005 lecture calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in order to reduce global warming. Dr. Hansen also said that the leadership and participation of the United States in the effort to reduce global warming is needed in order to prevent permanent damage to our planet.

My point here is that the truth about the evidence on the global warming issue is not – or at least should not be – a “liberal” vs. “conservative” argument. It is a question that requires scientific input, and it is a question that involves the potential for world catastrophes of great magnitude. Yet here again, we see the liberals lining up on the side of truth seeking, and the Republicans seeking to hide and distort the scientific evidence.


The question of whether people should know about the consequences of the Iraq War

The consequences of our war in Iraq include approximately 40,000 dead Iraqis, and more than 2,500 dead and 20,000 wounded American soldiers. Liberals believe that Americans should know about these consequences because that knowledge should be of value in making decisions about our continuing involvement in the war.

But the Bush administration and his Congressional allies feel that it is important to keep these consequences as well hidden as possible – which is why the Bush administration has banned news coverage and photography of dead soldiers' homecomings on all military bases.

In order to increase awareness of the consequences of the Iraq war, DUer Ava Lowery has established a website called “Peace Takes Courage”, that graphically demonstrates some of the consequences of the war. Consequently, she has become a favorite target for the hate mail of numerous conservative Republicans, as vividly pictured in this video.

Why all the hatred? The hate mail that Ava receives don’t involve claims that the information that she depicts on her website are inaccurate. Rather, the hate is directed simply at the fact that she dares to publish the truth about what is happening. Again, the Republican/conservative plea is simply to hide or distort the truth – in this case, in the name of “patriotism”.


The question of whether people should get the truth about the products that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates

This is a subject that I have some personal experience with, since I have worked as an FDA scientist for the past nearly seven years. The purpose of the FDA, as initiated under President Teddy Roosevelt’s leadership in 1906, is to protect American consumers against dangerous drugs, foods, biological products, and medical devices manufactured by U.S. industries.

Over approximately a three year period I evaluated the performance of a medical device whose purpose it is to prevent ruptures of abdominal aortic aneurysms, by being placed over the aneurysm (from inside the aorta) so as to prevent blood getting into the aneurysm, thus causing it to enlarge and eventually rupture, which usually results in death from internal bleeding.

To make a long story short, my research into the performance of this device led to my writing a scientific article (with the permission of my superiors) which detailed my findings, and which was submitted and accepted for publication in a medical journal.

But then the manufacturer of the device found out about the article and they went directly to the highest levels of the FDA to complain about it. The FDA, on the advice (so I was told) of their very first Bush appointee, Dan Troy, complied with the request of the manufacturer by withdrawing the article.

The point that I hope to make by relating this story has nothing to do with whether my conclusions were valid or invalid. Rather, this is just one more example of the way that life and death decisions are now being made in our country under Republican rule – decisions which should be based on scientific considerations, but which in fact are often based instead on the need of politicians to keep embarrassing issues out of the public eye. (Fortunately, this story was leaked to a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, who published it, in case you want more details.)

It used to be that to call such a decision “conservative” would be a great insult to all conservatives. Today, this type of thing is standard practice for conservatives who are aligned with the Republican Party.

My experience in this matter is not at all unusual for today’s FDA. Note in the Wall Street Journal article that “Janet Woodcock, the agency's acting deputy commissioner, says that it is routine to consult with concerned parties about pending safety notices.” That is a very revealing statement, as it is indeed routine for the FDA to consult with “concerned parties” about pending safety notices, and we did indeed consult with “concerned parties” about the safety notice we issued on this particular device. Unfortunately, “concerned parties”, as far as Bush’s FDA is concerned, includes representatives from the industry that manufactures the product, but is almost always totally lacking in consumer representation – as it was in this case. That is a great way for conservative Republicans to ascertain balanced scientific truth. :sarcasm:


The question of whether we need a thorough understanding of how the 9-11 attacks occurred

One would think, given the Bush administration’s rhetoric about its “War on Terror”, that it would want a full investigation into the causes of the 9-11 attacks on our country which started that “war”. Yet, the Bush administration did everything in its power to stonewall a meaningful investigation.

In the first place, the Bush administration had to be badgered into creating an independent enquiry into the 9-11 attacks, after censuring much of the Congressional investigation into those attacks. After delaying its inception for several months, the Bush administration assigned members to the 9-11 Commission who were loaded with conflicts of interest, then it greatly under-funded the Commission, greatly limited its subpoena power, withheld numerous critical documents, and established an arbitrary time line which prevented sufficient time for a thorough investigation even if adequate resources had been available.

To top it all off, one member of the Commission, former Democratic Georgia Senator Max Cleland, was highly critical of the Bush administration’s stonewalling, especially of its preventing of access to critical documents. Unfortunately, for reasons that may forever remain unknown, Cleland resigned from the Commission a few weeks after making his criticisms public.


The question of whether we should have a voting system that ensures an accurate count of the vote

Why is it that so many Republicans insist on having our votes counted with machines for which there is no verifiable way to ensure that our votes go to the candidate who is intended by the voter? Why, with the abundant evidence that these machines malfunction, or worse yet, can be easily programmed to cheat, do Republicans continue to insist on their use?

George W. Bush was selected as President of the United States in 2000 because the aggressive efforts of Republican operatives in Florida to prevent a hand recount of the Florida vote were ultimately successful. These efforts were successful, among other reasons, because of the blatantly partisan efforts of Florida’s Secretary of State (who doubled as chairwoman of the Bush Florida election campaign), because of a violent but organized mob of Republican thugs who prevented a recount in Miami-Dade County, and ultimately because of the most corrupt Supreme Court decision in U.S. history.

Likewise, Bush was re-selected in 2004 with the assistance of massive fraud perpetrated in Ohio by Bush’s Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell (doubling as chairman of the Bush Ohio re-election campaign) – as detailed in John Conyers’ House Judiciary Committee report and elsewhere. The election was then allowed to stand as a result of a fraudulent recount (See page 36). Recognizing that Ohio’s elections in 2006 and 2008 would be crucial in the effort to sweep away Ohio’s corrupt power structure, the Republican Ohio legislature passed a draconian “election reform” law that substantially increased the difficulties of verifying election results through recounts.

What is it about unverifiable elections, laws and policies that facilitate fraud, and preventing hand recounts of the vote that Republicans love so much? Is all of this part of the “conservative” tradition?


The consequences of American failure to understand the new meaning of “conservative”

Returning to the quote at the beginning of this article, it is NOT inexplicable, as Steven Freeman diplomatically asserts, that the Bush administration and our Republican Congress approve of our current fraud susceptible voting system. Freeman knows very well what the explanation is, but it was probably a wise choice on his part not to come out and say it directly.

Secrecy, distortion and cover-up are the hallmarks of today’s Republican Party. They call themselves “conservative”, or worse yet “compassionate conservative”, but is “conservative” synonymous with secrecy, distortion and cover-up?

If it is, I don’t want any part of it – and neither should any other American citizen. The United States of America is closer now to becoming a dictatorship than it has been at any time since its inception. As our government tries to eradicate our constitutional right to free speech with claims of “national security”, don’t be fooled into thinking that that is a “conservative value”. As our government tries to eradicate our Fourth amendment rights against warantless searches, don’t be fooled into thinking that that is a “conservative value”. And as our government tries to eradicate our right to verifiable elections, don’t be fooled into thinking that that is a “conservative value” either.

Wake up America! If we don’t wake up soon, it will be too late before very long.

[oscar111]

1. Pls shorten to one screen and add an abstract at the top

you will get more readers.

i tried to ferret out the meaning, but no time to find it in all that

thanks

[Time for change]

3. Thanks for the advice - I'll try to clarify here, as it's too late to edit

My meaning, in a nutshell, is that today's Republican Party, led by the Bush administration and including his legions of Congressional enablers, stands for secrecy, distortion and cover-up. They call themselves "conservative", but their actions are characterized primarily by secrecy, distortion and cover-up.

The introductory section of the post, added together with the final section, can be considered an abstract -- and together they make up less than one screen.

Everything in between are examples that are meant to support my main point. There are 8 examples, and each of them is listed at the end of the introductory section, and then sub-titled in the main body of the OP. But the examples don't have to be read to get the main point.

I hope people find that helpful.

[mod mom]

2. "No longer the case" is absolutely correct!

Thanks for the post

:patriot:

[Time for change]

6. Yeah, wouldn't it be great if a handful of Republicans in Senate and House

had the courage to publicly recognize that (I have a hunch that a handful have already privately recognized it) and then switch over? That would certainly make the task of taking back Congress a lot easier.

[bleever]

4. K&R. Conservative now means authoritarian; liberal means democratic.

It used to be about two different approaches to democracy, not a battle to see if it can be wiped out.

[Time for change]

7. Thank you bleever -- yeah, authoritarian also

I've just started to read John Dean's book, "Conservatives without Conscience". Dean characterizes them, as I guess you know, as "authoriatarian", which seems less harsh than how I'm characterizing them here, even though Dean doesn't care much for authoritarians. But on the other hand, "without conscience" seems every bit as harsh as how I'm characterizing them.

I've never cared much for authoritarianism, but I don't think that I ever would have said that authoritarians are uniformly without consciences. I wonder if that's Dean's point. I have't gotten far enough into the book to tell yet, though it seems like an excellent book so far.

I was very impressed with Dean when I watched him testify in the Watergate hearings and bring down the Nixon administration. And it's great to see him weighing in here on this administration. I look forward to hearing more of what he has to say about it.

[Buns_of_Fire]

5. Excellent.

Obviously, a lot of time and effort went into this. K&R :thumbsup:

[Time for change]

8. Thank you -

Yes, this took some time.

I sometimes think that adding a lot of references can be helpful for situations where DUers might want to use material for their arguments with independents or Republicans.