Sunday, July 11, 2004
ON LIBERTY AND LIBERALS
I don't mean this to sound as if I was once an addict and am now in recovery, but it can't help but come across that way: Yes, I was a liberal. I was for years.
Generally, liberals made, to me, the most sense. Liberals seemed determined to forge the correct path. They were the defenders of freedom, of enlightenment, of the future -- or so I had thought.
I began to realize I was wrong, along with (I know now) many others, as the WTC crashed down and thousands died on September 11, 2001. When it should have been "self-evident" to any liberal that liberalism, freedom and liberty faced a new, dramatic threat in Islamofascism, liberals suddenly went dumb. Or worse, they became outright hostile to the notion of confronting that threat.
Issues like "legal abortion" or "prescription drugs for seniors" were something that could be debated with conservatives, within the American polity. We may have viewed things a bit differently, but we were at least in the same arena. But Islamofascists wanted all of us defeated and dead. That Islamofascism is the ENEMY of both conservatism and liberalism, liberals seemed unable or unwilling to grasp. That was -- and is -- appalling.
For the insane reason that conservatives were (appropriately) so forthright in opposing Islamofascism and because most liberals would not get caught dead being on the same side as conservatives on anything, as the shock wore off (by about September 12, I guess) liberals began to assume "the position". Suddenly, it was partisan, as if it were just another policy difference, within routine U.S. political discourse. If conservatives are on one side, we (liberals) must stake out the other.
More harshly, it also became painfully obvious that there is a nut wing of "liberalism". Recent events -- especially the Michael Moore crockumentary and the desperate search for ANY reason to try to oppose the Bush administration's fight against Islamofascism -- have sadly demonstrated such a mentality clearly. There are a loud minority of "liberals" who if being held prisoner in a concentration camp that is about to liberated by conservative U.S. soldiers from Texas, would, if they have their druthers, probably prefer to stay imprisoned.
I had no singular "epiphany." Scouring the net, post-September 11, I discovered numerous other people like myself. What a relief. I increasingly found myself reading the WSJ (especially Opinionjournal), and finding myself agreeing heartily with what I read. Yet prior to September 11, 2001, I don't think that I EVER read the Wall Street Journal. Not once. (If I did, I have no recollection of having done so.) Yet that paper and other similar "conservative" sources did not change me; I had been changed by the Islamofascists, and those sources reflected what I thought. "Liberal" writings and spokespeople decidedly did not.
The likes of the WSJ were merely, to me, noting what liberals (real liberals!) SHOULD have been screaming about Islamofascism, but weren't. How -- good grief! -- can ANY LIBERAL defend Islamofascism, on ANY level? Freedom of speech? Of religion? Freedom from fear? What had happened to the party of F.D.R.? Harry Truman? Instead, we were saddled with Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi. Where had the "guts" gone? With each additional asinine Democratic comment, my heart sank still further.
In contrast, the more I read, emailed and interacted with conservatives, the more I realized that they were actually nice people -- in fact, often nicer than most liberals; conservatives did not walk around with a perpetual chip on their shoulder. They were willing to admit to human failings, and to allow for imperfection. In fact, THEY were actually optimists! Yet for as long as I could remember, I had thought liberals had had the corner on optimism. But it was liberals who, post-September 11, were devoid of vision, and who were by far the more sour-faced. Most remarkably, it was conservatives who seemed more bent on defending "liberalism" than did liberals themselves.
What the heck had happened?! I wanted answers, and found liberals offering me none but "Bush is evil", or "Bush stole the election". Incredible.
Living in Britain, prior to September 11 I was willing to engage in the presence of foreigners in rational criticism of the U.S. government. I was never over the top, though. The bottom line was while I wasn't thrilled Bush won in 2000, I knew there would be another election in four years.
After September 11, like some (but by no means most, sadly) other Americans abroad, I increasingly heard in many media here a strident and what I considered grossly unfair criticism directed not just at the Bush administration . . . but at Americans as people. I couldn't swallow either.
The Bush administration was, I felt, doing its best in an unprecedented situation. A Gore administration (and I voted for Gore in 2000, and was furious he lost so narrowly), I was convinced, would have done NO better, and probably worse. But as the criticisms got increasingly off the beam, all I could think of was the likes of, "He ain't perfect, but he ain't the anti-Christ, geez!"
Beating up on Bush was one thing. But the shots at Americans I could especially NOT abide. Suddenly, we were the last people on the planet one could insult with impunity. And I kept finding myself tossing up my hands and muttering to myself, "But it isn't like that?!" and/or "You don't know half as much about Americans as you think you do."
Living here and taking such stances, any raised eyebrows and surprised countenances I received were however not out of dislike for me personally, but mostly owing to an assumption that is apparently widely held: If one is a U.S. citizen who lived most of one's life in the U.S. but now resides abroad for a non-military reason, one should somehow be an "international American". By that what is meant is that one must be, by definition, "liberal", appropriately disdainful and put off by "provincial Americans" who supposedly "don't understand the world outside the U.S."
That is nonsense. But that view, among foreigners, I suddenly discovered was more widely held than I had previously realized it was. It was made worse by the willing, stupid complicity of many liberal Americans abroad. And liberal Americans are whom foreigners are more likely to encounter, since non-military Americans resident abroad DO tend to skew more liberal than conservative. So in practical terms that means that if one encounters an American resident in London, chances are he/she was a Gore voter, not a Bush voter. So as a Gore voter who suddenly backed Bush, for foreigners used to "liberal" Americans, I bordered on incomprehensible.
I had become MORE conservative abroad, not less. Yet to me it was perfectly reasonable. Any "stereotypical liberal" who fails to see the evil, backwardness and threat inherent in Islamofascism, is not a liberal in any terms that can be readily understood.
So, what am I now? Probably more an "independent" than I had ever been. Oh, I still ask, "Where have you gone, F.D.R.?" But I also do know that my personal criteria for discerning what makes for a good president, and good government, was dramatically changed -- as it was for many other Americans -- on September 11, 2001. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, July 11, 2004
I don't mean this to sound as if I was once an addict and am now in recovery, but it can't help but come across that way: Yes, I was a liberal. I was for years.
Generally, liberals made, to me, the most sense. Liberals seemed determined to forge the correct path. They were the defenders of freedom, of enlightenment, of the future -- or so I had thought.
I began to realize I was wrong, along with (I know now) many others, as the WTC crashed down and thousands died on September 11, 2001. When it should have been "self-evident" to any liberal that liberalism, freedom and liberty faced a new, dramatic threat in Islamofascism, liberals suddenly went dumb. Or worse, they became outright hostile to the notion of confronting that threat.
Issues like "legal abortion" or "prescription drugs for seniors" were something that could be debated with conservatives, within the American polity. We may have viewed things a bit differently, but we were at least in the same arena. But Islamofascists wanted all of us defeated and dead. That Islamofascism is the ENEMY of both conservatism and liberalism, liberals seemed unable or unwilling to grasp. That was -- and is -- appalling.
For the insane reason that conservatives were (appropriately) so forthright in opposing Islamofascism and because most liberals would not get caught dead being on the same side as conservatives on anything, as the shock wore off (by about September 12, I guess) liberals began to assume "the position". Suddenly, it was partisan, as if it were just another policy difference, within routine U.S. political discourse. If conservatives are on one side, we (liberals) must stake out the other.
More harshly, it also became painfully obvious that there is a nut wing of "liberalism". Recent events -- especially the Michael Moore crockumentary and the desperate search for ANY reason to try to oppose the Bush administration's fight against Islamofascism -- have sadly demonstrated such a mentality clearly. There are a loud minority of "liberals" who if being held prisoner in a concentration camp that is about to liberated by conservative U.S. soldiers from Texas, would, if they have their druthers, probably prefer to stay imprisoned.
I had no singular "epiphany." Scouring the net, post-September 11, I discovered numerous other people like myself. What a relief. I increasingly found myself reading the WSJ (especially Opinionjournal), and finding myself agreeing heartily with what I read. Yet prior to September 11, 2001, I don't think that I EVER read the Wall Street Journal. Not once. (If I did, I have no recollection of having done so.) Yet that paper and other similar "conservative" sources did not change me; I had been changed by the Islamofascists, and those sources reflected what I thought. "Liberal" writings and spokespeople decidedly did not.
The likes of the WSJ were merely, to me, noting what liberals (real liberals!) SHOULD have been screaming about Islamofascism, but weren't. How -- good grief! -- can ANY LIBERAL defend Islamofascism, on ANY level? Freedom of speech? Of religion? Freedom from fear? What had happened to the party of F.D.R.? Harry Truman? Instead, we were saddled with Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi. Where had the "guts" gone? With each additional asinine Democratic comment, my heart sank still further.
In contrast, the more I read, emailed and interacted with conservatives, the more I realized that they were actually nice people -- in fact, often nicer than most liberals; conservatives did not walk around with a perpetual chip on their shoulder. They were willing to admit to human failings, and to allow for imperfection. In fact, THEY were actually optimists! Yet for as long as I could remember, I had thought liberals had had the corner on optimism. But it was liberals who, post-September 11, were devoid of vision, and who were by far the more sour-faced. Most remarkably, it was conservatives who seemed more bent on defending "liberalism" than did liberals themselves.
What the heck had happened?! I wanted answers, and found liberals offering me none but "Bush is evil", or "Bush stole the election". Incredible.
Living in Britain, prior to September 11 I was willing to engage in the presence of foreigners in rational criticism of the U.S. government. I was never over the top, though. The bottom line was while I wasn't thrilled Bush won in 2000, I knew there would be another election in four years.
After September 11, like some (but by no means most, sadly) other Americans abroad, I increasingly heard in many media here a strident and what I considered grossly unfair criticism directed not just at the Bush administration . . . but at Americans as people. I couldn't swallow either.
The Bush administration was, I felt, doing its best in an unprecedented situation. A Gore administration (and I voted for Gore in 2000, and was furious he lost so narrowly), I was convinced, would have done NO better, and probably worse. But as the criticisms got increasingly off the beam, all I could think of was the likes of, "He ain't perfect, but he ain't the anti-Christ, geez!"
Beating up on Bush was one thing. But the shots at Americans I could especially NOT abide. Suddenly, we were the last people on the planet one could insult with impunity. And I kept finding myself tossing up my hands and muttering to myself, "But it isn't like that?!" and/or "You don't know half as much about Americans as you think you do."
Living here and taking such stances, any raised eyebrows and surprised countenances I received were however not out of dislike for me personally, but mostly owing to an assumption that is apparently widely held: If one is a U.S. citizen who lived most of one's life in the U.S. but now resides abroad for a non-military reason, one should somehow be an "international American". By that what is meant is that one must be, by definition, "liberal", appropriately disdainful and put off by "provincial Americans" who supposedly "don't understand the world outside the U.S."
That is nonsense. But that view, among foreigners, I suddenly discovered was more widely held than I had previously realized it was. It was made worse by the willing, stupid complicity of many liberal Americans abroad. And liberal Americans are whom foreigners are more likely to encounter, since non-military Americans resident abroad DO tend to skew more liberal than conservative. So in practical terms that means that if one encounters an American resident in London, chances are he/she was a Gore voter, not a Bush voter. So as a Gore voter who suddenly backed Bush, for foreigners used to "liberal" Americans, I bordered on incomprehensible.
I had become MORE conservative abroad, not less. Yet to me it was perfectly reasonable. Any "stereotypical liberal" who fails to see the evil, backwardness and threat inherent in Islamofascism, is not a liberal in any terms that can be readily understood.
So, what am I now? Probably more an "independent" than I had ever been. Oh, I still ask, "Where have you gone, F.D.R.?" But I also do know that my personal criteria for discerning what makes for a good president, and good government, was dramatically changed -- as it was for many other Americans -- on September 11, 2001. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, July 11, 2004
