Comments: The Liberals Are Coming!

More to the point, for those people who use "liberal" as synonymous with "subversive terrorist fellow traveler": why aren't you in favor of these things? Why are these things a threat?

Posted by Jonathan Dresner at May 17, 2005 08:22 PM

Right on, Anne! You tell it!

Posted by Dr. Fallon at May 18, 2005 06:50 AM


Posted by natasha at May 18, 2005 05:32 PM

Thanks everyone.

My point, Jonathan, is (as I've said before) that the Left is largely at fault for allowing the Right to turn the word "Liberal" into a symbol of evil.

Posted by Anne at May 18, 2005 08:43 PM

A heartfelt second to that BRAVO!

Posted by Deborah White at May 19, 2005 12:20 AM

Liberals do not want the military to have to hold a bake sale to build a bomber.

Right. That's Republicans who want that.

Or, at least, they want local families to hold bake sales to buy body armor for deployed National Guard units. . .

Posted by Ian Osmond at May 19, 2005 10:06 AM

I don't know... Liberals are at fault for people cussing out liberals?

Maybe we were dressed too provocatively? You know, like we were begging for it?

No, it was lies, mockery and scorn, and a complete absence of honor, that turned "liberal" into a bad word.

At the same time, you do have a point that liberals have been entirely too timid, and have forgotten the surprisingly accurate bit about how it's better to burn out than fade away.

The Democrats often resemble a pack of whipped dogs, and if they hadn't been whipped so thoroughly, so many times, I couldn't forgive them. As it is, it still bugs the hell out of me.

Posted by John Palmer at May 19, 2005 09:44 PM

Well, who would object? I don't, but there are definitely those who would, most of them honest. Some people honestly doubt that government has any chance of accomplishing those good ends effectively, or that to do so it would have to get powerful enough to be a great threat to our freedom, or that it's flat-out immoral for it to do so, especially given its unequal power relationship relative to the individual citizen.

On the other hand, there are those who dislike those good ends precisely because they're afraid they _are_ achievable. There are those who believe that their interests lie in our being as ignorant, poor, afraid, and hate-filled as possible, as then we're more easily led and exploited. There are those for whom Heaven is no fun without the pleasure of contemplating the damned. And there are those who just see it as a zero-sum game, and believe they deserve everything they have and no-one else does, Social Darwinsism meets dumbe-down Calvinism.

I think a few of the latter sort are funding a lot of the former; to hack Pynchon a bit, the innocence of the servants can sometimes point to the guilt of the masters.

Posted by Michael Turyn at May 22, 2005 11:58 AM