Leaning Left

Kurt Andersen wrote one of the most prescient pieces I have seen on the challenges of leaning left. It ran in NY Magazine several weeks ago. 

In the piece, Kurt argues that liberals have a terrible option; to root for Bush to succeed in Iraq or to root against the possibility that he might succeed. I have personally struggled with this terrible choice for the past three years. And with the end of the election, I am not struggling with it anymore. Bush won a second term and I hope he succeeds in Iraq.  Success to me means a quick establishment of a democratically elected government that can keep the peace and allow the US to get out.  That would be a huge political win for Bush, but it would also be a great outcome for the US and our troops who are in harms way right now.

I've been meaning to post on that piece for several weeks but have not gotten around to it.

Then today, I saw Jeff Jarvis' post railing against the liberal bloggers who have it out for him.

Jeff and I had some fun arguing about issues in the weeks leading up to the election last fall.  We agreed about most everything other than Iraq.  And he voted, very reluctantly, for Kerry.  Here are Jeff's politcal views:

: I voted for Bill Clinton, eagerly.
: I am dying to vote for Hillary Clinton.
: I vote Democratic in local races in my corner of New Jersey, when they have the guts to run.
: I am pro-choice.
: I opposed the Bush tax cuts.
: I am against school vouchers.
: I am for gay marriage and quit the Presbyterian Church over its bigotry against gays.
: I am for universal health care.
: I fight for free speech in America and elsewhere.
: I wrote a cover story for The Nation.

Guess what?  I'd vote for Jeff if he ran for office.  He's a left leaning guy. 

The war in Iraq needs to be buried in the past. It's over as a politcal issue. The left lost that one. There are bigger battles to fight like fiscal responsibility, a sound social security system, a woman's right to choose, etc.  That's where my left leaning politics are strongest and its where the majority of the country agrees with the Democrats.

I wrote several weeks ago that the left needs to focus on Social Pragmatism and Fiscal Conservatism. That's a winning proposition.  Opposition to the war in Iraq is not.

Comments

[Todd Klein]

I know it's just semantics, but based on Jeff's views as you present them, and compared to the rest of the country, he is not left leaning: he sits comfortably and completely on the left side of the politcal spectrum.

[Dave]

You forgot one more trait about Jeff. His views represent a minority viewpoint in the country. Of couse, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's worth pointing out.

Jeff's list is, IMHO, the current definition of "The Left Liberalism" and is also, IMHO, the reason democrats can't win elections.

On the Iraq issue, I find the positioning quite confusing. Just because you don't like the President, you actually have to think about if you want the United States to succeed in it's endeavors??! This illustrates what I think is a fundemental flaw with the folks generally referred to as "Liberals" (ie. folks LEFT of most Democrats), and that flaw is that Liberals but their PARTY before COUNTRY.

And that, IMHO, is a scary proposition.

[Dave]

You forgot one more trait about Jeff. His views represent a minority viewpoint in the country. Of couse, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's worth pointing out.

Jeff's list is, IMHO, the current definition of "The Left Liberalism" and is also, IMHO, the reason democrats can't win elections.

On the Iraq issue, I find the positioning quite confusing. Just because you don't like the President, you actually have to think about if you want the United States to succeed in it's endeavors??! This illustrates what I think is a fundemental flaw with the folks generally referred to as "Liberals" (ie. folks LEFT of most Democrats), and that flaw is that Liberals put their PARTY before COUNTRY.

And that, IMHO, is a scary proposition.

[David Locke]

In what way does the right put the country before party. They are the party of "the homeland." They are the party of "the Patriot Act," which by the way isn't being used against terrorists. They are the party of "recount, redistrict, and recall." They are the party of the neocon. They are essentially antidemocratic, and anti-Americanism.

They want to destroy all this social mistaking them for socialism. And, we are more openly socialist, because of the right than we ever were with the left. We used to hide goverment subsidization of business. We are now doing it openly.

The America you grew up in was liberal. Everything you experienced is liberal. Even putting up with righ-wing propaganda is liberal.

You have not read what the Heritage Foundation has in store for you. You won't like it. So when you don't, you won't be able to say, hey the liberals didn't scream loud enough about this.

I used to be a Repub. I'm sure the current Repubs are happy that I left their party. I was never particularly liberal. I was American. I'm not going to feel sorry for the poor put upon wealthy as Rush suggested once that we should be. What crock. And, all I can say is that I am greatly disappointed. That disappointment has nothing to do with the war.

[Dave]

I didn't claim the Right did, or did not put Country before Party. I was making a statement that it looks to me that I see all these "party before country" types of conversations/blogs, etc. out there from Liberals and that it seems very counter productive.

What the government did after 911 (notice how I'm not saying The Right) was typical government crap that I think would have happened regardless of who was president. (case and point, the majority of the elected officials voted for things like the Patriot act, etc.) the reality is that government is government is government. It's not always right, and in the same case, it's not always wrong. It's NEVER really effective, which is what we need it to be.

I'm all in favor is massive government cuts, reduction in programs, spending, etc. (since spending never solves problems, people do).

Lets get government BACK to where it's supposed to be. Lets make being a politician a PART TIME JOB the way it was supposed to be. Lets limit legislation, lets limit spending.

God forbid we, the taxpayers, hold our government accountable for spending like we as business owners are responsible and accountable for our spending and business management.

I'm sick of the attitude that when taxpayers overpay on their taxes that they think the government is actually GIVING them something when they get a refund check. PEOPLE!! WAKE UP!! IT'S YOUR MONEY!! Also funny how the government can use your money while it has it in terms of investment, etc. and they owe us nothing for holding our money during that time.

If I give someone some money so they can use it, and then give it back to me, I typically expect something in return for giving them the money in the first place.

However, if you UNDERPAY the governemnt, they slap you with fines and interest charges.

And the worst thing about it? WE JUST TAKE IT LIKE A BUNCH OF MIND NUMBED ROBOTS.

Shame on us.

[steve]

all you hand-wringing folks should immediately check out the avowedly left-leaning German national news mag Der Spiegel's current cover story: "Could George Bush Be rRight?"

http://service.spiegel.de/
cache/international/0,1518,343378,00.html

Basic idea is, hey leftie Europe, when Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachav, tear down this wall," he was ridiculed and despised in Europe -- no one with a brian could possibly believe Reagan was a visionary! -- where his administration had been the subject of derision and angry violent protest for years. But then, hmmmm. Within two years the Wall was down and Germany was unified amd Sovietism was done.

[Michael Weiksner]

There has always been an alternative to rooting against the US in the war in Iraq: loyal opposition. I think Senator Biden epitomizes this position. The stakes in Iraq are too great to leave to the Bush administration alone; like Biden, democrats should pound the administration with constructive criticism to contribute to success in Iraq.

[Diane Guyder]

I just have one simple statement to make. I stood up for Clinton through thick and thin during his eight year tenor as President. He was our leader and deserved respect for his position. Why did it not surprise me when we elected a Republican that we wouldnt tear him apart. But the surprise and disappointment now comes with Clinton bashing Bush on the platform that Bush gave him. So much for Bush trying to bring the two sides of government together.