Skip navigation.

"Liberal" no longer

San Francisco Chronical
Nightfall, Jan. 30. Eight-million Iraqi voters have finished risking their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism. Three things happen in rapid succession. The right cheers. The left demurs. I walk away from a long-term intimate relationship. I'm separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.

I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.

I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode.

My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.

His essay is wonderful. It's worth reading the whole thing.

(Via Daypop.)

That guy must have hung with

That guy must have hung with some really dumb liberals.
What makes the essay wonderful?

The guy's on the money

While each side has their moron wing, you guys don't know many liberals if you don't get what this guy is talking about. Why do you think super lib but sane Ron Silver endorsed Bush? Just look at Harry Reid, an embarrassment to libs and LDS. What an utter moron.

Who cares?

Who cares what Ried said about anything. The guy's an utter moron who sure makes the Republicans, even tongue tied Bush, look good. I'm embarrassed the guy's a Mormon. There are other Denominations out there Harry.

Talking about morons...

Forget Reid. Libs have Dean and Moore. Conservatives have Hannity et el., so I guess they're pretty even now.

Three Stooges

Yeah, I heard Dean on the tube before work today saying the Republicans are the white christian party, hardly the how to win friends and influence people approach to getting out of minority status. And when interviewed about it the dork didn’t back down at all. Talk about a kamikaze lib. I’d like to see some real debate in this country, but with those moronic three stooges, Reid, Pelosi and Dean, all the Republicans have to do is show up. Well, one party gov isn’t the norm in the USA, so something will happen to break things up, but the Libs really need a new bench. And yes Harry, there are other denominations out there.

Amen, Tyler.

I couln't have said it better myself.

Sorry, but he's a moron

OK, obviously you true blue libs can't criticize one of your own and/or are just deaf when it comes to Reid sounding like a moron. So here's an example of substance:

There are many others, and they're easy to find.

It's difficult to see the day when there will be real debate in this country until you libs get a new bench. It’s sad.

unrelated, but...

So, if you're getting all sorts of financial assistance, and more or less living on the income of others, and you were all for this way of living, would that not make you more of a liberal than a conservative?

Perception of Liberalism

I agree that this guy seems to have some pretty dumb liberal friends. Personally I don't know any liberals who thought the Iraqi elections were not a good thing, or who did not believe that promoting democracy and human rights was one of the (few) good things about invading Iraq.

I suspect the position of the majority of liberals today is roughly the same as mine: We should not have invaded Iraq, and I will continue to point out the reasons why that is so. But now that we are there, I am definitely rooting for our side to win, and for democracy in Iraq to succeed.

Harry Reid

When exactly did Senator Reid state that the Iraqi election was not a good thing? What precisely did Senator Reid say that leads you to believe that he is somehow opposed to Democracy in Iraq and the Middle East? Links would be appreciated. Thank you.


Oops, my mistake. I thought we were having an intelligent conversation.

how exactly is harry reid an

how exactly is harry reid an embarrasment to libs and lds?

"I’d like to see some real

"I’d like to see some real debate in this country"

yeah, when people like you make silly attacks on somebody and then refuse to back it up, it makes for some really unintelligent dialogue.

Good Grief.

"OK, obviously you true blue libs..."

I am not a liberal.

"...can't criticize one of your own..."

Reid was clearly wrong in the case you just (finally) cited.

"...and/or are just tone deaf when it comes to Reid sounding like a moron..."

Yes, it was especially hard hearing Reid sound like a moron when you didn't even bother to offer a case where he might sound moronic.

"...So here's an example of substance:..."

Well Hallellujah! Thank you Steve!

"...There are many others and they're easy to find..."

That may be true. Perhaps you should link to them - or at least refer to them - rather than just calling Reid a "moron". Some of us would find that more convincing.

"It's difficult to see the day when there will be a real debate in this country until you libs get a new Bench. It's sad."

I have no idea what you mean by this. Frankly, I don't even think I want to know. But your concern for the liberals is touching.

It's look in the mirror time

I will be the first in admitting error by liberal politicians. I believe in equal opportunity criticism. How about conservatives admitting that attacking the nonexistent WMD stockpiles of Iraq while allowing N.Korea to obtain nuclear weapons in the same time was a mistake.

I don't *personally* know

I don't *personally* know any liberals who thought the elections in Iraq were not a good thing either, but all you had to do was turn on the news if you wanted to hear them poo-poo it.

The fact that we have liberal Provojoe trying to distance himself from these kind of people demonstrates how far off-kilter they have gone.

Democrats are a parody of themselves

The Democratic party, as it stands today, with Dingy Harry running the show in the Senate is essentially playing the role of obstructionist. Instead of wanting to debate and introduce measures to improve the lives of the citizens of the United States, they are in full on attack mode. If the Republicans want to do it, it must be bad, so therefore we will fight against it.

Harry Reid is an embarassment to liberals and to Latter Day Saints because instead of promoting changes and ideas, he's focusing his efforts on shouting down what the other side has to offer without any substance. Other than threatening to block the work of the Senate, what has Harry Reid done... or for that matter, proposed to get done? Ever since Tom Daschle left, Harry Reid has been following the same exact methods that Daschle lost his office for... obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

Show me one idea that the Democrats have championed in the last 4 years. Instead of trying to build support for their "high" ideals, they attack the people on the other side of the aisle in hope that they will somehow scare the Republicans into doing nothing.

Slightly different...

We may have been wrong that WMD's in Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US, but it was not just conservatives saying so. Many prominent liberal Democrats (including the Clintons) and leaders of other countries agreed as well (you'll recall that going to war in Iraq was put to a vote in Congress, passing overwhelmingly).

Speaking of Clintons, where did North Korea get the technology and resources to build nuclear weapons in the first place? I think you can hardly blame that one on conservatives.

CLINTON: Here, have a few billion dollars and a nuclear reactor, but you have to promise not to build nukes.
N. KOREA: Word.

Why am I always defending Liberals? Weird.

The fact that we have liberal Provojoe trying to distance himself from these kind of people demonstrates how far off-kilter they have gone.

This is an entertaining piece of logic, Mephi. So... When a liberal says he isn't what you say liberals are, that only proves that liberals really are. Whereas, if he concurred with you that he is what you say he is, I suppose that would prove that you are wrong. Right?

Hmmmm. My head hurts.

If by "pooh-pooh" the Iraqi elections, you mean "subject them to critical analysis" then you are right that many Liberals have done that - as well as Conservatives. However, if by "pooh-pooh" you mean "oppose", then I suggest that you provide a link to a prominent Liberal who has done that. That would certainly strengthen your case. If this person exists, I will roundly condemn him with you.

What have the Democrats done?

The Democrats do not hold the Executive and are the minority in both houses of Congress. As you know, they are hardly in any position to be proposing legislation. Although I'm sure they would be pleased as punch to offer their own competing nominations for judgeships or embassadorships, that simply is not an option for the party which is out of power. That being the case, the Democrats are (quite reasonably) choosing to oppose the legislation or the nominations about which they feel most strongly, while conserving political capital by not automatically mounting strenuous opposition to evey single item. This is as it has always been. I fail to see how this makes Harry Reid an embarrasment to the LDS church.

BTW, nice to hear from you dJake.

At the end of Clinton's term

At the end of Clinton's term of office there were weapons inspectors and video cameras in all of the n.korean nuclear energy facilities. And I do not defend all of Clinton's actions. Rwanda is a key example of the failures of his foreign policies. But my point is that you as a conservative fail to accept conservatives' errors and accept that while the election was a step towards a democratic Iraq- there are a lot of things wrong and the election failed in a few key areas. This is the same thing that you accuse liberals of. So why do you insist on assigning these characteristics only to liberals when you exhibit them yourself? And why must you constantly bring up Clinton's errors or JFK's errors. I don't constantly bring up Watergate, Iran-Contra or any other number of Republican controversies as examples of why modern day Republicans shouldn't be trusted. We are living today- the concept of each party that you formed ten years ago is no longer suitable. And stop pigeon holing all Democrats into the same idea that you have concieved for them. Party labels do little to define an individual candidate.


The fact that we have liberal Provojoe trying to distance himself from these kind of people demonstrates how far off-kilter they have gone.

It's ambiguous, I know, but I still think that you could have figured out on your own that by "these kind of people" and "they" I meant vocal, high-profile liberals whose opinions you read in the New York Times. By "liberal Provojoe" I meant the seemingly more mainstream liberals like him and this dude in the article.

In addition, by "pooh-pooh" I do NOT mean "subject them to critical analysis" nor do I mean "oppose." When I say pooh-pooh I mean pooh-pooh, and you can look it up if you're that unsure of the definition.

Now with these clarifications, I hope you can understand what my point was and respond if you think it merits such (I don't --I was just speaking my mind).

Interesting point

That's the first rational opinion that I've heard about this whole thing. I guess my complaint about Harry Reid specifically and the Democratic Party in general is that they don't make ideological points on why something shouldn't be done, instead they scream at the top of their lungs that the Republicans are evil and are trying to repress the minority into non-existence. Trent Lott makes a comment about how Strom Thurmond would have made the country a better place as President and then Democrats launch an all-out offensive to remove him from office. Robert Byrd goes on national television talking about "white n*****s" and the supposed defenders of the minority shut their collective traps. Janice Rogers Brown, a conservative minority woman gets nominated for an appelette court bench seat and the Democrats go crazy trying to stop her from getting on the bench. Call me crazy, but isn't she the kind of people that the Democrats are supposed to be promoting al over the place?

Maybe if the Democrats could start putting ideas on the table instead of baseless mitching and boanings about how the Republicans are out to oppress everybody, then I would have a higher level of tolerance for the guys who claim to be looking out for the litle guys. Right now, to me at least, it looks like they are throwing a temper tantrum because they weren't the party elected into power.

Nice to see you pop your head back in too LaurenceB.

You have yet to provide any

You have yet to provide any evidence of any 'pooh pooh'ing from the left side of the aisle. It isn't 'these kind of people' that ProvoJoe is distancing himself from. It's the false concept of liberals you are using. The same false concept that has been discussed at length on other Pulse strings.

Selective amnesia.

You can't be serious. Despite being only a couple of months ago, I can remember that there was much discussion about how the elections couldn't possibly be held on time due to security concerns. There was a day by day accounting of the number of soldiers and civilians being killed by terrorists over there to prove it.

Then on the day of the elections that among the articles about voter fraud and violence there were a few that may have called it an historic event (probably on Drudge).

But even after the elections were over, Maureen Dowd wrote an article in the New York Times, her thesis being that the Iraqi elections were a mistake because the fat slob Al-Sadr or whatever his name is and his followers won seats in the new Parliament, so what we thought was going to be the beginning of democracy turned out to be just more of the same ol' regime. I'd link to the article for you, as it is such a classic example of shameless liberal pooh-poohing, but since it's archived now you'd have to register and pay money to be able to read it, thus giving up your right to sue them for that five minutes of your life wasted.

But after about 10 seconds on Google I found this, which should provide some examples of what I'm talking about: