I Used to be a Liberal Democrat

Long before Joseph Lieberman "betrayed" his political party by endorsing John McCain and speaking at the Republican convention, I admired his thoughtful approach to public discourse on political issues. During one debate early in the 2004 Democratic primary season, he stood out as the only candidate of seven or eight who actually attempted to answer the questions asked, instead of endlessly repeating his campaign's and his party's anti-Bush talking points. I didn't necessarily agree with his answers at the time, but I respected his efforts to seriously confront issues with an intellectual pragmatism not often found in politics. Later, when he and John McCain separately staked their political careers on victory in Iraq, I knew that Lieberman's earlier display of principled thinking had been no temporary tactic.

Personally, I used to be a liberal Democrat because I “knew” Republicans to be money-grubbing, prejudiced and heartless souls. I voted wholly with my heart, not my head (at least not the intellectually curious part).

I only began to peel away the caul covering my eyes and mind after observing the disparate ways in which Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas and President Bill Clinton were treated by the feminist left for their transgressions with subordinates. In Thomas’ case, it was a determined stretch, by pro-abortion activists, to even call his clumsy overtures to Anita Hill sexual harassment—though they were certainly inappropriate. In Bill’s case, Monica Lewinski was just another one of many employees susceptible to Clinton’s “charms”, and the sex with a vulnerable intern many years his junior was real, not imagined. Yet Bill was excused and Thomas excoriated and humiliated, by activists disinterested in the real or imagined crimes of either man. N.O.W. and N.A.R.A.L. were concerned only with the need to preserve the “right” for women to end the nascent life of a child in a safe (for the mother) and sterile environment.

N.O.W. knew that Thomas found no guarantee of this right in the Constitution (and as most rational pro-abortion champions will admit, there is none) and that Clinton, though certainly perceptive enough to realize the same thing, was far more interested in power than intellectual (or any other kind of) honesty, and wouldn’t appoint judges likely to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

This hypocrisy by N.O.W. and other feminist groups began to settle into my consciousness in a more uncomfortable way than it ever had, forcing me to re-examine long-held, though only superficially explored, political beliefs. Before Monica, I hadn’t bothered to ponder long the ugly euphemism “choice”, nor even questioned any other standard philosophies of the post-Sixties Democrats:

1) a mistrust of capitalism and free markets as the best instruments with which to advance the human condition,
2) the belief that elite government stewardship trumps personal responsibility and individual decision-making, and
3) the preference for words over actions as the best weapons against our enemies.

This is where I am today-—a lot closer to JFK’s political philosophy than most Democrats, and nowhere near the Tom Tancredo/Pat Buchanan wing of the Republican party. I deplore their narrow vision of what it means to be American, but I am equally appalled by the hatred the left wing of the Democratic party expresses toward our current President and anyone who shares his view that we really are the best hope for freedom in the world---including soldiers who don’t see themselves as “victims” of recruiters or the Bush administration, but as defenders of a country worth fighting for.

While standing in line at the Post Office a couple of months ago, I heard someone on CNN read the results of a poll taken of citizens of Muslim countries. The report focused on the sinking popularity of Osama Bin Laden & Al Qaeda, but what I found most interesting was the same answer given to two different questions. The first question was, “Which country in the world is your greatest enemy?”, and the second was, “Which country in the world is your greatest friend?” The most popular answer (eliciting about the same percentage of respondents each time) to both questions was the United States. As with most polls, interpretations of the results are hampered by the rigidity of the format, but one possible conclusion to be taken from it is that other countries may talk about resolutions, sanctions, and aid programs (and the long term satisfactory results of all three of these types of solutions to crises are certainly debatable), but the US is the only one that can be counted on to take action. Sometimes, in the case of Afghanistan & Iraq, that means war. Sometimes, in the case of the HIV/AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa, it means “the largest effort ever, by any nation, for an international health initiative dedicated to a single disease.” (WSJ, July 8, 2008). If someone holds that the first view about the U.S. (as a belligerent initiator of conflict) is the defining one, they’re much less likely, I’ve found, to even be aware of the second fact, much less keep it mind when arguing for punishing the Bush administration.