http://blueherald.com/2008/05/some-reasons-why-im-a-liberal/ News You Can Abuse! Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:17:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 http://blueherald.com/2008/05/some-reasons-why-im-a-liberal/#comment-6702 22 Stories to Read at Florida Progressive Coalition Blog Tue, 06 May 2008 04:56:06 +0000 http://blueherald.com/2008/05/some-reasons-why-im-a-liberal/#comment-6702 [...] BlueHerald 2.0 (Batocchio) - Some Reasons Why I’m a Liberal: “‘Liberal,’ ‘progressive’ and ‘conservative’ can be contentious terms, but for the purposes of this post, I’d say that the current Democratic Party leadership is not particularly liberal, while FDR and MLK, for example, were genuinely so. The Democratic Party, while more liberal than the Republican Party, is likewise largely beholden to corporate interests and entrenched power, and isn’t much more liberal than the major conservative parties of other prominent nations (and on some issues, such as national health care, it’s more conservative). On the “conservative” side, I’d say that rule-of-law conservatives and conservatives who practice fiscal responsibility (not necessarily the same thing as fiscal conservatism) can play a valuable role in government. Country club and think tank conservatives, however, are dedicated to benefiting their already privileged minority at the expense of the majority, and their pundits have repeatedly shown no compunctions about lying to do so. Meanwhile, authoritarian conservatives, such as the current movement conservatism of Bush and the neocons, with their continued assaults on meritocracy, competency, honesty, transparency, accountability and empiricism, undermine the very notions of principle-based government, law and objective truth itself (more on these dynamics in this older post, although this post will recap plenty of blather from older posts). But let’s move on. “ [...] [...] BlueHerald 2.0 (Batocchio) - Some Reasons Why I’m a Liberal: “‘Liberal,’ ‘progressive’ and ‘conservative’ can be contentious terms, but for the purposes of this post, I’d say that the current Democratic Party leadership is not particularly liberal, while FDR and MLK, for example, were genuinely so. The Democratic Party, while more liberal than the Republican Party, is likewise largely beholden to corporate interests and entrenched power, and isn’t much more liberal than the major conservative parties of other prominent nations (and on some issues, such as national health care, it’s more conservative). On the “conservative” side, I’d say that rule-of-law conservatives and conservatives who practice fiscal responsibility (not necessarily the same thing as fiscal conservatism) can play a valuable role in government. Country club and think tank conservatives, however, are dedicated to benefiting their already privileged minority at the expense of the majority, and their pundits have repeatedly shown no compunctions about lying to do so. Meanwhile, authoritarian conservatives, such as the current movement conservatism of Bush and the neocons, with their continued assaults on meritocracy, competency, honesty, transparency, accountability and empiricism, undermine the very notions of principle-based government, law and objective truth itself (more on these dynamics in this older post, although this post will recap plenty of blather from older posts). But let’s move on. “ [...]

]]>