|
March 18, 2006
Goldwater Liberals, unite!
In addition to the fear of being called right wing (discussed infra), there's also a form of intimidation which can only be called the fear of being called left wing or liberal. Or at least, of being insufficiently right wing. Yet it must be remembered that in logic, to refuse to succumb to the fear of being labeled (by acquiescing to the label) does not make the label correct! I get called right wing by leftists and left wing by rightists. Surely I cannot be both. (And surely I still have the right to think what I think.) The terms "conservative" and "liberal" are more in use now as insults than accurate descriptors. Ditto the catchall phrase -- RINO: RINO stands for Republican In Name Only, a disparaging term for a member of the United States Republican Party whose words and actions are thought to be too fiscally or socially moderate or liberal. It has replaced the older term Rockefeller Republican.(Here's another traditional definition of RINO -- notable for its failure to mention libertarians.) I hear the term "RINO" being hurled around a lot these days. But a lot of the time, it isn't being used to describe Rockefeller Republicans (or even Big Government Republicans like Kristol and Bush). More and more it's being used to characterize disagreement with the social conservative view on certain hot button issues -- particularly abortion and gay rights. In other words, libertarian (and I mean that with a small "l") Republicans are now finding themselves called RINOs. (With Big Government Republicans in the party ascendancy, I wonder whether we'll see the term being used to describe Republicans who dislike runaway government spending.) At the risk of being divisive of party unity (but can dividing an oxymoron be divisive?) I have a simple question: Is Barry Goldwater a RINO? If so, I think I should head them off at the pass and take this one step further. I hereby declare myself proud to be a "Goldwater liberal." While I've mentioned Goldwater fondly before, I never seriously thought of him as a liberal. There's a supreme irony in referring to the grand old man of American conservatism as a liberal. Here's his fellow liberal and protege, Sandra Day O'Connor And while Goldwater was a minority in his own party -- and in limbo for years after his unsuccessful 1964 presidential campaign -- O'Connor said, ''He managed to articulate conservative views in a way that changed the debate for the nation.''Well, she's considered a dangerous liberal by the folks who did things like pray for her to die. And when Ronald Reagan nominated her for the Supreme Court, Barry Goldwater fought to get her confirmed. He also committed what would be political treason today: [Goldwater]. . .led the 1981 Senate fight for confirmation of a fellow Arizonan, Sandra Day O'Connor, as the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court. When Jerry Falwell, head of the Moral Majority, was quoted (inaccurately) as saying that every good Christian should be concerned about her because of abortion, he responded "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."McCain was pilloried as a borderline Commie for saying something much milder than that. I like what Goldwater said about conservatism: The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process.That sounds pretty liberal to me. Traditional, classical liberalism. Just drop the "conservative" label, and it's fine. So what if it's ironic? Hell, even Goldwater himself commented on the irony in 1996: In 1996, Barry Goldwater sat in his Paradise Valley home with Bob Dole and joked about his strange new standing as a GOP outsider.Of course, whether Goldwater became liberal or was liberal all along is an unsettled question. But one thing is becoming clear to me. Goldwater has been dead for nearly a decade, but he keeps getting more and more liberal. And I find myself liking him -- and missing him -- more and more. Does that mean I am getting more liberal too? Or does liberalism automatically result from the passage of time? I'm wondering what questions this old picture might raise about the passage of time: I can remember when the above would have been considered by nearly everyone to be a picture of two famous American conservatives. No more. The guy on the left is now a liberal. Please, dear God, don't let that happen to the guy on the right!
posted by Eric on 03.18.06 at 07:20 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
revolutions always end up eating their own.
in many ways it is poetic justice.