AMERICAN POLITICS - Extreme Political Polarization

"Examining the crisis in America’s democracy and the polarization of its politics" PBS NewsHour 5/12/2022

aka Republican anything goes to win politics.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Nearly 250 years ago, America's founders declared that everyone has "unalienable rights."  What those rights are has been debated ever since.  As the Supreme Court weighs the future of abortion rights the nation's divide has come into sharper focus, as growing political polarization plays out in the midterms.  University of Virginia politics professor Sidney Milkis joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 11/15/2013

"Shields and Brooks on waning ACA confidence and its impact on liberal government" PBS Newshour 11/15/2013

Excerpts

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to analyze the week's top political news, including how the challenges of enacting the Affordable Care Act may wreak political havoc for the Obama administration and future liberal agendas.

MARK SHIELDS:  It wasn't (President Obama's mea culpa) -- it wasn't, this is mine and I'm going to make sure that it never happens again.  I mean, this has got to work.

Judy, this is beyond the Obama administration.  If this goes down, if the Obama -- if health care, the Affordable Care Act is deemed a failure, this is the end -- I really mean it -- of liberal government, in the sense of any sense that government as an instrument of social justice, an engine of economic progress, which is what divides Democrats from Republicans -- that's what Democrats believe.

And that's what Democrats believe.  Time and again, social programs have made the difference in this country.  The public confidence in that will be so depleted, so diminished, that I really think the change -- the equation of American politics changes.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Is your view that dire?

DAVID BROOKS:  I agree with that.

I think it's -- I don't know if it's permanent, but it will be a severe blow to the idea of expanded liberal governments.  My big thought is, are we no longer the kind of country in which you can pass this sort of thing?  And by that, I mean, when you were passing the New Deal or the Great Society, there were winners and losers.

But the losers felt part of a larger collective and they said, OK, I'm going to take a hit for the team.  We may no longer have that sense of being part of a larger collective, so when you're a loser, you just say, I'm a loser.  And, as a result, you're just not willing to be part of the group.

And the penalty for being part of the loser just makes you want to hit whoever made you the loser.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  And you're saying that that just doesn't...

DAVID BROOKS:  Well, we have lower social trust, lower faith in the institutions, lower sense of collectivity.

And those are deep social trends that have been building for decades, but it just makes it much harder to sustain this kind of big legislation.

MARK SHIELDS:  The we-ness of our society, the we, that we're all in it together, has really been diminished.

Now, the one thing that could save the Democrats, having given that apocalyptic assessment, is the Republicans.  I mean, nobody in his right mind or her right mind looks at a hearing, a statement, an investigation, a press release given by any Republican and comes to the conclusion that they're really interested in covering people who aren't covered.

They are rooting for failure.  I mean, it's so transparent, and so obvious, whether it's Darrell Issa, whether it's Reince Priebus, the chairman.  They're just cheering for failure.  There's not a sense of what we can do to make this work, or this isn't going to work, but we're going to come up with something better.  There just isn't.

OPINION - Election 2012 Liberal View

The Rachel Maddow Show
MSNBC 9/25/2012

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

ECONOMY - In Our Age of Austerity = Nastier Politics

"In an 'Age of Austerity,' How Scarce Resources Could Shape U.S. Politics" PBS Newshour 1/26/2012

Excerpts

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): The economy and battles over government spending in a time of belt-tightening are not only helping shape the 2012 presidential campaign. They're also redefining American politics, and potentially the United States' place in the world.

That's the argument in a new book by former Washington Post political reporter Thomas Edsall. He's now a professor of journalism at Columbia University. And he writes a column for The New York Times. The book is "The Age of Austerity: How Scarcity Will Remake American Politics."

And author Tom Edsall joins us now.
----
JUDY WOODRUFF: Because you are clearly worried where this country headed, where American politics is headed. What has you so concerned?

THOMAS EDSALL, "The Age of Austerity: Well, what's happened, I think, in the past -- really since the collapse, economic collapse, is that the country now is -- has become dominated by the issue of debt and deficits.

And there is a serious problem in the long run over the rising cost of Medicare and perhaps some other entitlements. And this stuff has to be addressed over time. The result, though, has been to change the basic nature of American politics, from one in which you could have compromise with a growing economy, some people are going to get tax cuts, other people could get social programs, to one now it where it's a zero sum or negative sum competition.

Somebody's going to take a hit. It's no longer a nice friendly game. It's who's going to get hurt. That makes for -- we already had a polarized politics. When you add this notion that politics now is one not just of what can I get out of it, but what do I have to do to the other people to get what I want, that makes it a much nastier and much more hostile circumstance.

And I think the 2011 Congress basically affirmed much of this kind of character of politics. And the fight now is a much more serious and brutal fight over, basically, economics and how do you cut up a smaller and smaller pie.

Another excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF: You describe two very different sets of adversaries here in Republicans and Democrats. You see them as qualitatively different people. Is that what you're saying?

THOMAS EDSALL: There's a lot of evidence and there's been a lot of study of the psychology, the values, the world outlook of conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans.

A lot of this has become more intense since the culture wars and the civil rights movement and the women's rights movement. There's been a real divide. And there is a different world view held by liberals and Democrats from that held by conservatives and Republicans. They're not totally antithetical. They share many -- they're both human beings, but they put priorities on very different things.

Liberals are very concerned with compassion and fairness. Conservatives have what one person describes as a broader spectrum, but not as much focus on compassion and fairness, but also on issues of sanctity, of a different kind of fairness. Their opposition to affirmative action, for example, is a different kind of fairness.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, in fact, you go so far as to say conservatives are willing to inflict harm. You're pretty tough on conservatives.

From that standpoint, Tom Edsall, is this a partisan book?

THOMAS EDSALL: No, I don't think so, although it's going to be accused of that.

But, actually, the idea that conservatives are willing to inflict harm is not necessarily a criticism. If you are in a fight, and you're fighting to protect what you have, being loyal to your own people is not necessarily a bad thing. If you and your family had to protect what your child is getting and what your husband and so forth -- if they face serious threats of lost goods, in effect, you're fighting for them, and, in fact, if that meant someone else had to get hurt, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

So to hear that as a fault is not really right, I don't think. It's a different value structure. Conservatives have a much stronger in-group sense and out-group sense. And they see the in-group as one to be protected. You can see this in Congress, where they are protecting their tax cuts, they're protecting what they want.

And they see the out-group as an adversary, which they are much more willing to cut benefits, for example, for poor people and for those who are not those within the conservative Republican constellation.

COMMENT: Note that in the context (the economy) of Mr. Edsall's comments, the nastiness of politics ALSO applies in the context of resources, like food. As the world's population grows and more food is needed but unavailable, the same political nastiness will result.

I also fine Mr. Edsall's comment about in-group vs out-group VERY insightful and pertinent.

POLITICS - Conversation With Congressman Barney Frank (D-Ma)

"Barney Frank on Dysfunction in Congress: 'Blame James Madison'" PBS Newshour 12/1/2011

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): Now to our interview with 16-term Congressman Barney Frank.

The Massachusetts Democrat announced this week he wouldn't seek re-election next year, after more than four decades in politics. Frank began his career in the Massachusetts state legislature, and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1980. He served as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee from 2007 to early this year, where he helped push through the $700 billion bailout of U.S. financial institutions. He also co-wrote last year's law to impose new regulations on Wall Street, along with former Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd.

POLITICS - Fair Well to a Fine Liberal

"Barney Frank: A passionate liberal who mattered" by John Nichols , CBS News 11/29/2011

(The Nation) Barney Frank came to Congress as a liberal and will leave as such--not a perfect progressive on every issue but a steady liberal who served a term as president of the Americans for Democratic Action and whose latest rating from the defenders of New Deal/Fair Deal/Great Society programs was a pure 100 percent.

That does not mean that there were not instances where Frank, a former Massachusetts legislator who arrived (to fill former the Rev. Robert Drinan's seat) in 1980 and who will leave the House at the close of his current term, was always on the right (make that the left) side of the fight. But even where he was forced to accept compromises, he did so as a man of government who argued with passion and certainty that legislators should stand up to bankers, bigots and bloated Pentagon budgets.

Barney Frank to retire from Congress

The Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation of 2010, which the Massachusetts congressman played such a pivotal role in crafting and passing, pulled some punches that should have been thrown at the big banks and the Wall Street speculators. But Frank would argue--with some credibility--that as the ranking Democrat on the powerful House Financial Services Committee, he had to bend at times in order to enact realistic reforms. Just as he may have to bend in order to maintain the complex coalitions that will be required to implement the legislation.

It is the challenge of defending the financial reform legislation that Frank said Monday he hopes to focus on in his last year on Capitol Hill.

"In 2010, after the bill was signed into law, I had tentatively decided to make this my last term. The end of next year will mark 40 years during which time I have held elected office and a period of 45 years since I first went to work in government full time as an aide to Mayor Kevin White in late 1967," explained Frank, who is 71 and admitted that he was not looking forward to seeking re-election in a reconfigured through still Democratic district. "But with the election of a conservative majority in the House, I decided that my commitment to the public policies for which I have fought for 45 years required me to run for one more term. I was--and am--concerned about right-wing assaults on the financial reform bill, especially since we are now in a very critical period when the bill is in the process of implementation. In addition, recognizing that there is a need for us to do long-term deficit reduction, I was--and am--determined to do everything possible to make sure that substantial reduction in our excessive overseas military commitments forms a significant part of the savings over the next 10 years. But, my concern for these two issues today cuts very much in the opposite direction--namely, in favor of forgoing a year-long full-time election campaign and instead focusing the next year on those two issues in Congress."

So Frank will wrestle with House Republicans and disappointing Democrats over the next year. And Americans will be lucky to have him in the fight, even if they may get frustrated with some of the compromises that are required.

Where Frank will not refuse to compromise, however--indeed, where he has consistently refused to compromise--is in his advocacy for civil rights, especially, though never exclusively, the advancement of gay and lesbian rights. Long before 1987, when he came out and instantly became the most prominent openly gay member of the Congress, Frank was outspoken in his advocacy for equal protection under the law. And he was perhaps most effective because, though his reputation was that of a fighter, Frank went out of his way to put the case for LGBT rights in context--and to make that case to middle America.

Several years ago, when conservative Congressman John Hostettler, R-Indiana, accused Frank of promoting "a radical homosexual agenda," the congressman from Massachusetts countered: "I do have things I would like to see adopted on behalf of LGBT people: they include the right to marry the individual of our choice; the right to serve in the military to defend our country; and the right to a job based solely on our own qualifications."

It was Frank's long record of forthright advocacy that led National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director Rea Carey to respond to the congressman's decision to retire after sixteen terms in the House with a reflection that: "Barney Frank is one of kind. He has brought his own brand of brashness, boldness, unmatched wit, discipline and skill to Capitol Hill, at times ingratiating and infuriating friend and foe alike. We thank him for his years of service. As an openly gay member of Congress for nearly a quarter century, Barney Frank has made his mark on history. Yet his legacy is much more than that--for thirty years, he has dedicated himself to bettering the lives of the people he serves, and the country he serves. His voice--often loud and uncompromising--will be missed by many, including me."

Frank was such a steady and notable national presence for so many years that it is fair to say different liberals and progressives will miss different elements of the man.

But for those of us who believe that the United States cannot afford to continue to steer its largesse into wars of whim, failed weapons systems and the employment of mercenaries and free-spending "contractors" to police the world, there will be much regret at the loss of Frank's steady advocacy for deep cuts in Pentagon budgets.

Frank has long argued that an important place to begin balancing budgets is with a serious re-examination of defense spending.

And last year, he teamed with libertarian Republican Ron Paul to make the case for cuts.

This unlikely pairing (which also aligned to support legalization of marijuana) led the fight to get the federal deficit reduction commission to, in Frank's words, focus on the fact that "unless there is a substantial reduction in American military expenditures over a ten-year period close to if not slightly over a trillion dollars over what's proposed--that is at $100 billion a year--you simply cannot deal with deficit reduction in a way that is economically and socially responsible."

Frank--working with Paul, North Carolina Republican Congressman Walter Jones and Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden--put together a remarkable left-right coalition of budget and defense-policy analysts in a "Sustainable Defense Task Force" that included everyone from the Center for American Progress's Larry Korb, Peace Action's Paul Martin and the Institute for Policy Studies's Miriam Pemberton to Laura Peterson of Taxpayers for Common Sense and Christopher Preble, the director of foreign policy studies for the libertarian Cato Institute.

Based on the task force's recommendations, Frank and Paul made the rounds of the blogosphere, cable television and talk radio to propose Pentagon cutbacks. As such, they have become the most recognizable, and politically potent, proponents of a serious approach to deficit reduction.

Here is the argument that Frank and Paul made on behalf of fiscal common sense:

As members of opposing political parties, we disagree on a number of important issues. But we must not allow honest disagreement over some issues to interfere with our ability to work together when we do agree.

By far the single most important of these is our current initiative to include substantial reductions in the projected level of American military spending as part of future deficit reduction efforts. For decades, the subject of military expenditures has been glaringly absent from public debate. Yet the Pentagon budget for 2010 is $693 billion--more than all other discretionary spending programs combined. Even subtracting the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, military spending still amounts to over 42% of total spending.

It is irrefutably clear to us that if we do not make substantial cuts in the projected levels of Pentagon spending, we will do substantial damage to our economy and dramatically reduce our quality of life. We are not talking about cutting the money needed to supply American troops in the field. Once we send our men and women into battle, even in cases where we may have opposed going to war, we have an obligation to make sure that our service-members have everything they need. And we are not talking about cutting essential funds for combating terrorism; we must do everything possible to prevent any recurrence of the mass murder of Americans that took place on September 11, 2001.

Immediately after World War II, with much of the world devastated and the Soviet Union becoming increasingly aggressive, America took on the responsibility of protecting virtually every country that asked for it. Sixty-five years later, we continue to play that role long after there is any justification for it, and currently American military spending makes up approximately 44% of all such expenditures worldwide. The nations of Western Europe now collectively have greater resources at their command than we do, yet they continue to depend overwhelmingly on American taxpayers to provide for their defense. According to a recent article in the New York Times, "Europeans have boasted about their social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements, its national health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the comparative harshness of American capitalism. Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella."

When our democratic allies are menaced by larger, hostile powers, there is a strong argument to be made for supporting them. But the notion that American taxpayers get some benefit from extending our military might worldwide is deeply flawed. And the idea that as a superpower it is our duty to maintain stability by intervening in civil disorders virtually anywhere in the world often generates anger directed at us and may in the end do more harm than good.

We believe that the time has come for a much quicker withdrawal from Iraq than the President has proposed. We both voted against that war, but even for those who voted for it, there can be no justification for spending over $700 billion dollars of American taxpayers' money on direct military spending in Iraq since the war began, not including the massive, estimated long-term costs of the war. We have essentially taken on a referee role in a civil war, even mediating electoral disputes. In order to create a systematic approach to reducing military spending, we have convened a Sustainable Defense Task Force consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum. The task force has produced a detailed report with specific recommendations for cutting Pentagon spending by approximately $1 trillion over a ten year period. It calls for eliminating certain Cold War weapons and scaling back our commitments overseas. Even with these changes, the United States would still be immeasurably stronger than any nation with which we might be engaged, and the plan will in fact enhance our security rather than diminish it.

We are currently working to enlist the support of other members of Congress for our initiative. Along with our colleagues Senator Ron Wyden and Congressman Walter Jones, we have addressed a letter to the President's National Committee on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which he has convened to develop concrete recommendations for reducing the budget deficit. We will make it clear to leaders of both parties that substantial reductions in military spending must be included in any future deficit reduction package. We pledge to oppose any proposal that fails to do so.

In the short term, rebuilding our economy and creating jobs will remain our nation's top priority. But it is essential that we begin to address the issue of excessive military spending in order to ensure prosperity in the future. We may not agree on what to do with the estimated $1 trillion in savings, but we do agree that nothing either of us cares deeply about will be possible if we do not begin to face this issue now.

That was hardly a radical statement.

Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates has referred to Pentagon spending as "the gusher" and dismissed the notion that it is difficult to find waste, fraud and abuse in a budget that "adds up to about what the entire rest of the world combined spends on defense."

"Only in the parallel universe that is Washington, DC, would that be considered 'gutting' defense," says Gates, who has done a great service by opening the space for honest debate about defense spending.

Barney Frank--with a crucial assist from Republicans such as Ron Paul--filled that space. As Wall Street Journal columnist Gerald Seib noted, "Reps. Paul and Frank are doing more than writing a blog post.... These two odd-fellow members of Congress are harbingers of things to come. Annual defense spending has more than doubled over the last decade, largely because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But now the deficit is high, the debt is growing, and those wars are winding down, one way or another. So the parallel move to wind down Pentagon spending is coming. The only questions are how big the urge to curb will be, and what form it will take."

It is unfortunate that not just Frank but also Paul plans to retire when the current Congress completes its work. They brought a realistic approach to deficit reduction that began with an understanding that the place to begin is with necessary cuts to a bloated-beyond-belief Pentagon budget.

And so, two from opposite sides who knew how to govern by compromise fade away.

The Tea Party Virus (causes No-Compromise Psychosis) spreads.

POLITICS - (correction) The Great Liberal Hope

"Scott Walker, great Republican hope"
By Laura Conaway, The Maddow Blog 2/25/2011

Visit MSNBC.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

MEDIA: Ah, the "Liberal" Media Shows Its Chauvinistic Colors

Of course, I'm being sarcastic in the use of "Liberal Media." Today's media is anything but liberal.

"Pelosi labeled 'Wicked Witch of the West' by Kondracke, 'shrew' by Orin-Eilbeck" from Media Matters for America

On the November 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke called House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA), the incoming speaker of the House, "the Wicked Witch of the West." In a November 17 column, New York Post Washington bureau chief Deborah Orin-Eilbeck twice called Pelosi a "shrew."

In a discussion about Pelosi's handling of the Democratic leadership contest between Reps. Steny Hoyer (MD) and John P. Murtha (PA) for House majority leader, in which Pelosi backed Murtha but Hoyer emerged victorious, Kondrake stated: "[W]e had the 'Hammer' -- [former House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay [R-TX] -- and now, we have the 'Wicked Witch of the West' ... Nancy Pelosi, who's twisting arms and ... having her aides making threats." As Media Matters for America has noted, the media have highlighted recent disagreements among Democrats while downplaying divisions among Republicans.

In her New York Post column -- "Call Her 'Nancy Shrew'?" -- also addressing Pelosi's handling of the Hoyer/Murtha contest, Orin-Eilbeck wrote: "Forget 'The Devil Wears Prada['] the hot show in Washington is 'The Shrew Adores Armani.' In just a few short days, House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has turned into a caricature of the shrill, petty woman boss." Orin-Eilbeck added:

• The stereotype of the woman boss as a self-centered witch on wheels who'll run over anyone in her path has plenty of roots in American culture -- "The Devil Wears Prada," zinging a fashion editor modeled on Vogue's [editor in chief] Anna Wintour, is just the latest incarnation.


• So if 'Nancy Shrew' becomes the image of the highest-ranking woman ever in American politics - Pelosi will be second in line of succession to the presidency - it'll be a problem for all women politicos, including 2008 prospect Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Media Matters has documented previous attacks on Pelosi. For example, on the November 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked political and social commentator Mike Barnicle if Pelosi was "going to castrate Steny Hoyer" if Hoyer was elected House majority leader. On the October 31 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Republican pollster Frank Luntz said of Pelosi, "I always use the line for Nancy Pelosi, 'You get one shot at a face-lift. If it doesn't work the first time, let it go.' " And on October 26, in his recurring weekly segment on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, "comedian" and Fox News contributor Dennis Miller called Pelosi "intellectually ... not up to the task" of assuming the House speaker position. Miller further assailed Pelosi as a "nimrod," "a C-minus, D-plus applicant ... who no doubt would have been drummed out of the Mary Kay corps after an initial four-week evaluation period."

From the November 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

• KRAUTHAMMER: If you're going to -- to be the boss and appoint a henchman against a Hoyer, who has been there, and who has a big constituency, you got to make sure you're going to win. You don't want to lose on day one. And when you lose 2 to 1, which she has done with Hoyer, it's not only created a number two who's -- who now has a grievance -- by his -- the -- by the amount of his win, 2 to 1, he becomes a rival. She's going to have to look over her shoulder. If she stumbles in this term, he's going to end up inheriting her spot in the next Congress.



• KONDRACKE: Yeah. Well, so, the history on House leadership is, we had the "Hammer" -- Tom DeLay -- and now, we have the "Wicked Witch of the West," you know, Nancy Pelosi, who's twisting arms and making, you know, having her aides making threats and stuff like that.



• BRIT HUME (host): Was that -- was that really happening?



• KONDRACKE: Supposedly. I mean, that's -- that's -- it got heavily reported, and I've heard no contradictions of that. And, you know, the fact is that, when Tom -- Tom DeLay in his day got his way and, in this case, her first outing, she -- as Charles said -- she lost by 2 to 1.

Nah, they're not chauvinistic, strong women are OK. They watched Roller Derby back when.

POLITICS - The Core of Liberalism

"WHY DAVID BRODER AND MARSHALL WITTMAN THREATEN DEMOCRACY" by Publius, Legal Fiction

The core of liberalism is the idea that individuals (by virtue of being humans and having dignity) have a sphere of freedom that should be free from government intrusion. Logically following from this bedrock foundation are the other fundamental rights we know and love such as freedom of religion, democratic voting, rule-by-consent, rule of law, right to property, civil liberties, sexual freedom, and so on. All are rooted in the idea of individual freedom or individual consent.

Thus, one of the unifying characteristics of anti-liberalism (e.g., Marxism, religious fundamentalism, fascism) is skepticism and ultimately elimination of this sphere of freedom. To Marxists, the sphere of freedom (and the laws based upon it) facilitates inequality and gives the rich an “ideology” that allows them to protect their property. To religious fundamentalists, individual freedom runs counter to God’s will and must be subordinated to it. Fascism, by contrast, is a religious-like fundamentalism rooted not in God but the state, which essentially takes the place of God. Fascism thus subordinates individual and civil rights to the state, which is a glorified collective and deified entity superior to all other Gods before me nations, rather than a mechanism for protecting individual rights.

To be clear, I’m not accusing the entire American Right of being fundamentalist or fascist or any of the other labels that serve only to distract people from the merits of the debate. But what I am saying is that the American Right — including the Congress, the President, and its sympathetic media — is showing increasingly disturbing anti-liberal characteristics. In fact, anti-liberalism is poisoning the American Right, just as the dark side poisoned Anakin Skywalker.

So well put. Of course, as a Progressive (aka liberal) it states my own stance and ethical belief much better than I have.

Thanks Publius

POLITICS - Cut-and-Run Liberals

"Cut-and-Run Liberal, and Proud of It" by Stephen Pizzo, News for Real

I want to be perfectly clear about this. We liberals really do want to cut and run.

I admit it. We are cut-and-run liberals, just as Karl Rove alleges. More than that, I am proud of it and encourage more Americans to join us.

We want to cut and run from the borrow and spend, borrow and spend economics of the GOP that have piled an additional $4 trillion in debt onto our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

We want to cut and run from the unholy alliance between the GOP and energy companies that has left us at the mercy of a bunch of medieval Islamic tribal leaders who run their own countries like feudal states and treat their own people -- especially their women -- worse than Americans treat farm animals.

We want to cut and run from a national health care system designed by and for giant health care and pharmaceutical interests, that enriches a few while leaving 45 million Americans without affordable health insurance.

We want to cut and run from a government that, over the past six years, has become not only increasingly closed to public scrutiny and accountability, but overtly hostile and suspicious of citizens who insist on either.

We want to cut and run from a style of governance that not only plays on fear and petty prejudices, but cultivates and exploits them for cheap political gain.

There is more, check it out. We want an America that we can, once again, be proud of. An America where caring for individual people is more important than caring for corporations. An America where "protecting America" includes protecting individual human and Constitutional rights.

POLITICS - The Nature of the Beast, Conservatives vs. Liberals

This is a long post because this appeared on a UseNet group from"Freedom Fighter" and has no link, therefore this is his entire post which I agree with.

It all began a hundred thousand years ago on a ledge in front of a cave. A female homo sapiens walked by, attracting the attention of a male. The male stepped forward and smacked her over the head with his club. WHACK! He then dragged the unconscious female into his cave for sex.

One day there were two males standing in front of a cave when a female walked by. The first raised his arm to club the female, but the second male communicated to him that clubbing females over the head to have sex was not nice. WHACK! WHACK! The first male stepped over the unconscious second male and proceeded to rape the female.

On that day the first liberal paid the price for expressing a new idea.

Things didn't change much for thousands of years until the advent of projectile weapons. This was first symbolized by the David and Goliath story in the Bible, where the big strong brute was laid flat by the small but smarter boy. Once brute strength was no longer the controlling factor in social interaction, liberal ideas slowly gained a foothold in human culture, and civilization began.

Throughout human history, the price for advocating tolerance and progressive change has been paid in threats, beatings, excommunication, incarceration, torture, murder, assassination, and execution. Countless liberals have paid the ultimate price for their humanity. Though Jesus Christ is the most famous, names in recent history that come to mind are Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon, and Robert Kennedy.

Today there are many conservatives - individuals, groups, and nations - who use threats and violence to silence the voices of reason, tolerance, and progress. Here in America it is seen in racists and homophobes beating blacks and gays, sometimes to death, not for money or out of anger generated by interactive cause, but because of religious or racial intolerance and secular bigotry.

Alan Berg on talk radio was a strong voice against a conservative organization called the Aryan Nation. For thus exercising his freedom of speech, he was shot dead while walking his dog in front of his house.

David Rice is a man on death row in Washington State who has no remorse whatsoever for entering the home of a family of four and carving out their living hearts only because he heard they were "liberals." He got their names from a Democratic Party membership list.

Right-wingers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 men, women, and children as an act of protest. What liberals have ever committed such an abominable atrocity?

The most abominable atrocity in several decades is the 9/11 terrorist attacks in which thousands of innocent civilians were murdered. The alleged perpetrators, Osama Bin Laden and the al Qaeda-Taliban terrorists, epitomize the right-wing religious fundamentalist mentality.

Some believe that the 9/11 attacks were deliberately allowed to happen, or even perpetrated by radical right-wing elements within our own government to further their fascistic agenda.

Arguing that such horrendous crimes are not political in nature or that they are not done primarily by conservatives is utter nonsense. Look back:

• Who nailed who to a cross?


• Who were the Loyalists to the totalitarian monarchy of King George?


• Who started our Civil War to defend slavery?


• Who fought to keep women as property, and now fights their sovereignty over their own bodies in the freedom to choose abortion?


• Who fought against child labor statutes?


• Who fought against the concept of free public education?


• Who fought against the right of women to vote?


• Who fought against anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation?


• Who fought against workers organizing?


• Who fought against government controls on manufacturers of cars "unsafe at any speed?"


• Who killed several thousand innocent civilians in the 9/11 terrorist attacks?


• Who started WW2, murdered 13 million and caused the death of 40 million more?


• Who defended Jim Crow for a hundred years?


• Who fought against voting rights, civil rights, social security, health care for the elderly, and minimum wages?


• Who fights against environmental protection statutes?


• Who opposes equal rights for gays and other free-lifestyle minorities?


• Who cruelly opposes physician-assisted dying for suffering, terminally ill patients soon to die anyway?


• Who is sabotaging the separation of Church and State, and all our other Constitutional rights, freedoms, and protections?


• Who are the moralizing hypocrites forcing their puritanical inhibitions and prohibitions on ALL Americans via legislation and draconian, police-state enforcement practices?


• Who always puts personal gain and corporate wealth and power above the common good?

CONSERVATIVES or LIBERALS?

The historic, undeniable truth is that these evils are THE NATURE OF THE CONSERVATIVE BEAST!

Conservatives have distorted and demonized the word "liberal," whose true political meaning is favoring progressive change, humanistic values, and opposition to authoritarianism. They identify it with governmental waste and tolerance of criminality, when in fact they themselves are guilty of abuses such as corporate welfare bail-outs and tax evasion, fraud against investors, and other white-collar crime. Conservatives fear and oppose all change and progress beyond "what's in it for me?"

At the core of conservatism is the Machiavellian bully - the despotic practitioner of "might makes right," craving wealth and power, and willing to use any and all means to get them.

Conservatism is the philosophy of the caveman wearing a business suit.

AND THE CAVEMEN'S CLUBS CAN NOW DESTROY OUR EARTH!