Liberals -- The Real Problem with Today's Society

I am an unrepentant liberal. We are a large part of the current problem with today's society. Why? Because too many of us have decided to put small, trivial, single issues and differences over the greater good. We need to unite and mobilize against the clear common enemy -- the Right Wing. In fact, we need to take a lesson from the Right Wing. They have put aside many small (and not so small) differences in order to achieve common goals and obtain power. Once they have "won" the war, they will then work out those less important issues.

A few examples of how we have failed(both now and in the recent past):

1. A number of well meaning liberal activists have foolishly called for a boycott of the Washington Post because the Washington Post has decided to allow for a diversity of opinion on its editorial and opinion pages. They want the post to turn into a liberal "paper" version of Fox News in which every piece and every item is slanted to reflect their view of the world. The problem is that, at this time, the Post is a fair dealer. It is a paper which reports accurate, unbiased and detailed news and provides for a diversity of opinion. If one believes, as I do, that the liberal approach is the right one, then reports by a fair dealer will enable our side to prevail. When the "fair dealer" finds a problem and reports it, it is far more likely to be viewed as credible because the "fair dealer" is not tied to a single agenda. If, in contrast, the "fair dealer" is turned into a "captive" organ, even one captive by the side that one supports, then the news and opinions that it offers are greatly weakened because they will be dismissed as being "biased". (And as it happens, the Post is a fair dealer that tends to fall on the liberal side of fair... So my fellow liberals are going after someone who is actually an ally).

Thus this boycott is a double failure. If successful and the Post gives in to the pressure, the Washington Post, as an important fair dealer and opinion leader will be emasculated, and if unsuccessful, and the Post resists, then the Post, an important fair dealer and opinion leader will be injured and less effective -- both because of the financial harm and also because the slanted part of the press will suggest that the Post DID give in, thereby partially emasculating the Post. Thanks my fellow Liberals. You have done great work for the other side.

2. Ralph Nader and the Presidency in 2000. Ralph Nadar has done the greatest disservice possible to the progressive movement by his egotistic run for President in 2000. He refused to pull back when it was clear that he could not win, thereby ensuring (in conjunction with the Foolish Five and the Florida Finagler) Bush's election and all of the resultant long term harm. He also "hurt" the progressive movement by creating the false impression that it was less than 5% of the electorate and thus worth ignoring... Which the Democrats did in 2004. In contrast, if right before election day Nadar had said: "There is a meaningful difference between the two parties. The Democrats are not perfect, but they are clearly the lesser of two evils. I therefore call upon my progressive brethren in (specific states) to vote for Al Gore. We will provide him with his margin of victory and as a part of the coalition, we will have a place at the table." Gore wins, Nadar can say that the Progressive movement made the difference, and things would be vastly different today. But Nadar could not sublimate his ego for the greater good, Bush got elected, and the Federal Judiciary is threatened with a sea change. And this kind of "egotistic" action is repeated over and over again at all levels by the liberal movement.

3. Fighting the Wrong Fights. The Liberals, most particularly those in Congress, fight the wrong fights. John Bolton, for all of the evil that he will bring, is an "at-will" appointee. He is finished as soon as Bush determines that he is a sufficient liability to the administration or he finishes his dismemberment of the UN. Article III judges, in contrast, are the gifts that give forever. And yet many of the liberals decided to draw the line with Bolton and not with the Judges. The liberals, due to the current Republican majorities, only have a few fights that they can make before the liberals are portrayed as obstructionists. They should have fought the fight with the Judges. They should have made the Republicans invoke the Nuclear Option to kill filibusters. It would have resulted in those Judges realizing that they were not "truly" confirmed, had them question their legitimacy, might have resulted in them "moderating their decisions", would have shown the abuse of the Republican Party of the Historic Rules of Congress, and would have destroyed the very tool that the Republican Party used to block numerous Clinton appointees. In contrast, Bolton's harm, while significant, was short term AND the fight was futile as Bush had a simple and uncontestable move to install Bolton(the recess appointment). And the "simple" tactic will not be understood by the voter and will ultimately have no repercussions. Wrong Fight, wrong place, wrong time.

Should Liberals fight the turn of the Democratic Party to the Right? You bet. But at the same time, they must also pick and chose the fights and ultimately remember the identity of the real enemy.