In Defense of Liberals
By Andy Wilson
I just really hate this myth that keeps being perpetrated upon us by, yes, I will say it, the Right Wing Media. Of course by Right Wing Media I mean conservatives in the media who drive their agenda: the Limbaughs, the Hannitys, etc. But to hear it from Utah Policy. . . .I was just sad. I'm not a member of Democracy for Utah, but I have many friends who are. For those of you unfamiliar with them, go visit their blog yourself and see what they want. Sure, they're having a Bush Bash-- but they're also holding candlielight vigils for Iraq veterans, soldiers, and families of those killed in action.
It's not like they're spitting on soldiers coming home: they're honoring the ultimate sacrifice made by our soldiers in a cause they disagree with vehemently. I'm sorry, but that just seems super-patriotic to me and, generally, what the dream of America is all about. Also, along the left-hand sie of their page, easy links to their ideas on issues like Equal Rights, Universal Healthcare, Verified Voting, Bridging the Religious Divide. Hmmm, seems almost like an agenda.
The truth is that the Bush bashers don't per se have "an agenda" in the mold of, say, "The Contract with America" or Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points or the Progressive movement, but that isn't to say that they don't have an agenda or a competing vision for America. This is one of those "Big Lies" that, having been repeated oft enough in the last five years, has become truth. You shouldn't say that just because someone disagrees with Bush's energy policy or Prescription Drug Plan or national security strategy that they have no agenda. If someone proposes not going to war with Iraq and allowing UN weapons inspectors to do their job instead of going to war, that's an agenda. If someone favors NOT giving billions in coroporate welfare and tax cuts to oil companies with record high profits and using the money to create energy independence, that's an agenda. If someone favors a President (for whom they pay his salary) who doesn't take 5 weeks of vacation a year, that's an agenda. Maybe they want body armor for the troops instead of them not having enough body armor. Or want gasoline to not cost $3 a gallon. It's not their fault their vision and agenda for America is completely opposite to that of President Bush or Republicans in Congress. After all, they're a website-- a collection of individuals who all probably have different ideas and visions, so having a cohesive agenda may be hard to create anyway.
Here's where the confusion lies: modern Democrats represent such a vast array of interests (labor, greens, Dixiecrats, doves, liberals, neo-liberals, European-style socialists and Marxists, and an incredibly large group of moderates) that they don't have a clearly defined agenda because most of them can't agree on what exactly they want. But they all agree on what they don't want and that is the agenda that is being enacted. But they all want a strong and safe America and a strong economy, just as, I beleive, Republicans do, as do Libertarians, Constitutionalists, etc, etc, etc. Republicans represent the same type of broad coalition: true conservatives, neocons, the religious right, big business, warhawks, 2nd amendemnters, and Giuliani and Schwarzennegger-esque moderates who are pro-gay, pro-choice, and anti-gun. Are Republicans really that monolithic?
If you want to talk about not having a clear agenda, the Bush White House has had 5 years to pass an energy bill, with a Republican majority in all houses of Congress with the exception of a year and a half where Republicans were down by one vote in the Senate. Who, then, doesn't have the agenda if it takes them that long to get anything meaningful passed? FDR had 100 days and nearly 100 programs in that time-- that was an agenda.
Right wingers have been sniping for too long at the Democrats' back-seat driving, but they are in the back seat. They're not expected to have an agenda, because they're the MINORITY. But they have a solemn duty to represent the people who sent them to Congress, who just happen to be in a slight minority, but are in a majority in places that may seem like foreign countries to some of the readers of Utah Policy Daily. Representing their constituents may often mean opposition to programs that their constituents may not like. The great thing about America is that a person in Provo (like me) is exactly as represented in the federal government as someone in Detroit, Boston, or Berkeley. And I guarantee that if John Kerry were president and we had House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid people in my town would be mad as hell if Representative Cannon and Sens. Hatch and Bennett just rolled over in the face of a liberal agenda. We would want this opposition. Would they be enacting any major policy initiatives? No. But would we expect the same divisions among Republicans over same-sex marriage and stem cells that we have today? Yes. Would we expect them first and foremost to oppose this hypothetical liberal agenda? Absolutely. If it weren't Democracy for America opposing a conservative agenda, wouldn't it be the Free Republic website and their "freepers" opposing a liberal one? And would you be complaining about it then? Probably not, because you would agree with them. This IS both a Free Republic and a Democracy for America, meaning we have freedom of conscience to oppose anything we please without having to necessarily propose a competing program or idea, and I beleive that is an inalienable right endowed to us by our Creator.
And where, pray tell, can I find an exact codification of the Republicans' agenda? And if you tell me to visit the party's website, I tell you to do the same for the Democrats. . . or the Libertarians, Greens, Constitution Party, etc. . . . Are Republicans that automatan-esque and monlithic that they all agree on what to do about every issue important to the nation? If so, that's lame that we elect these people-- the least we can expect from our public servants hopefully is some free thought. Do they all agree on Social Security Reform? Republicans are equally divided on this as anyone. Some want to raise taxes, others want private accounts, etc, etc. Does every Republican support the stem cell research ban? No. And Iraq? Some Republicans want to bring the troops home immediately, some want to stick it out, some want to start bringing them home. . . before the midterm elections next year. *wink wink* It seems like the only thing our representatives in Washington can agree on is pork-- like the recent energy bill and the highway bill and the farm bill of 2003. That's bi-partisanship we can all get excited about.
How quickly we seem to forget-- just 6 years ago we had Bill Clinton in the White House. Did conservatives EVER give up their relentless attacks on him? No. Did any of you, conservatives reading this, ever do anything but oppose his plans? No. Why don't we have universal health coverage for every US citizen? Because all of you conservatives opposed "Clinton Care" and defeated it. Did YOU do anything else to fix the health care system and cover the uninsured? No. And that's what our democratic republic is all about.
I'm not placing value judgments here, this is the way things are and how history has played out. But to complain that Democracy for America has no agenda is a spurious and irrelevant argument. Rather than say "they have no agenda" why not actually debate their ideas? Are ideas like universal health care and equal rights so hard to argue against that they must be dismissed outright as "not an agenda"? Sure they harp on things that are anathema to them, as is their right. Don't you have an issue that you incredibly oppose? Gay marriage? Abortion? Terrorism? A Worldwide Socialist or Fundamentalist Islaamic State? Opposition is an OK agenda if the other side is trying to do something you are opposed to. Did our Founding Fathers have an agenda other than being opposed to King George and taxation without representation? Some of them did, but did they all agree on this agenda other than this? How long between 1776 and the ratification of the Constitution? And then there were still factions amongst those who had an agenda of creating our United States. For more on this, go check out Joseph Ellis's Pulitzer-winning Founding Brothers. The point is, "not having an agenda" is nether an appropriate way to categorize Democracy for Utah nor is it necessarily a good argument to make against any group.