Monday - March 07, 2005

Label Confusion, Part I

o you have as much trouble as I seem to be having with keeping all the labels straight? Leftists, Right-wingers, Neocons, Liberals, Conservatives, Radicals, Moderates, Progressives, Independents, Morons? Oops, scratch that last one as people in that category are pretty easy to identify. What’s the difference between an “insurgent” and a “terrorist”? When does a suicide bomber become a revolutionary? How the hell am I supposed to keep all this straight when labels change meaning almost overnight? Why can’t we all be happy and gay .... oops, there I go again, more label confusion. I have been labelled conservative, neocon, moderate, progressive, independent and even occasionally a moron. I manage to take it all in stride because I know what I am and am perfectly happy with myself .... and if I wake up in a good mood and decide to be gay, then I will be gay .... but I will not be a homosexual, thank you very much. For this essay, I am going to try to straighten out the concept of “Liberal”.

This is all Hillary Clinton’s fault, you know. Trust me. Way back in the 1990’s when the Clinton Administration came under attack for being libidinous and untruthful, the Hildabeast blamed her and her husband’s woes on a “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy”. At the time, I felt that Billy Bob Clinton was a big mistake and a joke (I never voted for him - or for her). I also didn’t consider myself part of any “conspiracy”, either right-wing or left-wing. In fact, the only wings I trafficked in were hot wings from KFC. All of a sudden though, I found my oddly shaped peg pounded into a square hole. It seemed to fit better than the round hole (make your own analogies here) that the Left-wingers were stored in so I stuck with it.

By definition, when Shrillary pounded me and my friends into that square NeoCon hole, she and her friends in Hollywood and in the Democratic Party, whom I disagreed with fervently, became the polar opposite, i.e. Leftists or Liberals. In the intervening years, her coterie of sycophants and Clinton apologists have gladly adopted the label assigned to them by the Queen Bee. John Kerry and Howard Dean are the most recent examples of drone bees buzzing around the hive with their so-called “Liberal Agenda”. Buzz, buzz ....

Unfortunately, it’s all a smoke screen and the Hildabeast has put one over on the citizens of America again. She and her fan club are no more “liberal” than I am King Tut. The definitions of liberal and conservative have somehow shifted in the political landscape to the point where nowadays that landscape includes a green sky and blue ground. Let’s examine this closely in order to determine where the confusion started ....

Webster defines “Liberal” thusly ....

1. [n] a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
2. [n] a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
3. [adj] tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

Let’s take the first definition and see if it applies to today’s modern “Liberals”. Hmmmmmmm .... “favors a political philosophy of progress and reform”. It doesn’t seem to fit too well, does it? Remember when President Bush started to send troops into Afghanistan to remove the authoritarian Taliban regime and later into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and introduce (horrors!) democratic reform into the Middle East? Where were the “liberals”? They were rushing in droves to Iraq to serve as human shields to protect the corrupt, dictatorial regime of Hussein. They were poo-pooing the efforts of the US to establish a democratic government in Afghanistan, where democracy had never existed before. In short, they were fighting reform and progress every step of the way, not to mention showing a complete disregard for any “civil rights” that the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq might aspire to. No, the “liberals” showed they were firmly entrenched against any action to reform the countries where hideous slaughtering of whole populations, enslavement of women and autocratic rule was the order of the day. I’m sorry but, according to the first definition in the dictionary, Liberals just aren’t .... liberal, that is. In fact, they are acting like downright ultra-right-wing nut cases. Strike one.

OK, let’s try the second definition on for size. “Economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets”. Dang! There you go again, if you’ll pardon my quoting President Reagan, who practically invented supply-side economics and the trickle-down theory that brought about the boom of the 1980’s. George W. Bush, with his first-term tax cuts and the economic stimulous package has brought the economy rebounding back from the miserable recession of 2000-2001. Once again, supply-side economics at work .... and it works quite well. And once again, liberals are fighting the tax cuts and insisting on more government regulation of corporations by raising corporate taxes and punishing business who move off-shore or outsource jobs overseas. Who is it that is trying to micromanage the markets and businesses? Liberals, as they call themselves and that just doesn’t qualify as “favoring self-regulating markets”. Strike two.

Finally, let’s see if the third shoe fits the liberal foot. “Tolerant of change, not bound by authoritarianism”. Change in Iraq? Sorry, liberals would have none of it. Change in welfare and racial preferences? Again, they like things just the way they are. Change in social security or medicare for the aged? Again, they are fighting tooth and toenail against any change even though the handwriting is on the wall for both of these programs. As for “not bound by authoritarianism”, that’s a foul ball. Liberals seem to love dictators like Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, etc. Everywhere you turn there is a liberal protesting something being changed or a new program being tried. It seems the only “change” the so-called liberals really want is to change their current position of complete political impotence into a position of power in government by kicking out the “evil conservative right-wingers” who are currently very busy implementing reform, progress, democracy, economic stimulous and what would, in any other context, be called “liberal” concepts. Strike three.

Casey, the mighty Liberal has struck out, gang. There is no joy in Mudville. All that is left for the left is to continue slinging mud at the real liberals. That would be us “neocons” .... I think.

Posted by The Skipper     on 03/07/2005 at 02:15 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (12) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner