Donald Trump is a conservative. That should be an uncontroversial statement with universal agreement, but it’s not. In 2016 most voters described Trump as a moderate candidate and Hillary Clinton as either “liberal” or “too liberal”. Seriously. Of course some of that is gendered, women are seen as more liberal than men but some of it was intentional political strategy. In July around the conventions, 40% of voters described Trump as “a mix of liberal and conservative” and 11% of voters said “liberal on all or most issues”. Only 16% of voters saw Trump as conservative on “almost all issues” compared to 32% of voters viewing Clinton as liberal on the same metric. By October, Trump was still viewed as the most moderate GOP nominee in over a generation with only 47% calling him “conservative” while 58% called Clinton “liberal”. Then on election day, many undecided moderate voters cast their ballots for Trump. You’d be forgiven if this is a new narrative for you since the pundits on MSNBC and CNN love blaming Clinton’s election loss on holdout Sanders voters who deemed her insufficiently progressive. However, most objective analysis shows that this isn’t true and that only 12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump in 2016 compared to 24% of Clinton supporters voting for McCain in 2008. In the greatest irony of ironies, Donald Trump used the Bill Clinton strategy of triangulation to defeat Hillary Clinton. If Democrats aren’t prepared, he will do it again and it’ll be relatively easy for this President to appear both to the right and the left of Joe Biden. Here’s how he’ll do it:

Criminal Justice (To the Left)

Donald Trump signed the First Step Act into law with bipartisan support which addresses a number of concerns criminal justice advocates have had about the prison industrial complex. It of course doesn’t go nearly far enough, affecting mostly the federal system which is responsible for only a small share of our nation’s prison population, but it represents a sea change in terms of the politics of “tough on crime”. The President has also not been afraid to issue pardons and has released a number of African-American prisoners, notably Alice Marie Johnson who was featured prominently in a Super Bowl ad. Meanwhile Joe Biden authored several key provisions of what has become known simply as “The Crime Bill” which perhaps more than any other piece of legislation has been responsible for our current era of mass incarceration. The President and Biden also both oppose the legalization of marijuana, but the President is likely hopeful that voters will give him undeserved credit for the liberalization of drug laws on the state level. The President is going to attempt to depress black turnout with this issue and at least muddy the waters with college educated white voters and it may work if only because Biden seems to have a terminal case of foot in mouth syndrome. If you’re unsure what I mean, I refer you to his “you ain’t black” comments and the Trump campaigns rapid response.

China (To the Right)

How Americans perceive fault in the coronavirus pandemic will largely determine President Trump’s reelection prospects. If America blames the incompetence of the administration, President Trump will lose. If America blames China and becomes Sino-phobic in its disposition, President Trump will win. That’s why the President calls COVID-19 the “Chinese Virus” and it’s also why he’s recently been mentioning how he took decisive action to close America’s borders. If Biden had held a consistent position on immigration or China, he could perhaps make a moral argument against scapegoating immigrants or the racism obvious in the President’s response. Unfortunately for Biden, as recently as 2006 Biden was saying “I voted for a fence, I voted, unlike most Democrats—and some of you won’t like it—I voted for 700 miles of fence” and has vacillated between being pro-China by voting for normalized trade relations and more critical of China in the last decade. The President will call Biden a flip-flopper with no consistency on the issue of China or Immigration. The President will point to his tariff policy, rejection of the TPP, and “tough talk” that only he understands China.

Trade (To the Left)

The president’s approval rating in the industrial Midwest is much higher than his approval rating nationwide, that is the reason why he remains competitive in this election despite the very likely possibility that he will lose the popular vote. This popularity can be traced to a number of factors, but trade stands head and shoulders above any other policy. Some experts put the number of jobs lost because of NAFTA at over 950,000. The economic despair seen in deindustrialized communities from Kansas City to Pittsburgh is palpable with empty factories scattered across the landscape, rising suicides, rising opioid abuse, and falling populations. Joe Biden voted for NAFTA, Fast-Track trade authority, Normal Trade Relations with China, and says he’d renegotiate TPP. Meanwhile President Trump fought for an inadequate but nonetheless popular repeal of NAFTA which was replaced with the USMCA. Although the AFL-CIO endorsed Biden, their President Richard Trumka lauded the USMCA as a “huge win for working people”. Obama won all union members by 34 points in 2012, while Clinton only won them by 16 points just 4 years later. President Trump will question the efficacy of Biden’s free trade history and it’s likely that his criticism will stick.

Foreign Policy (To the Left)

Is the Iraq War so distant in America’s memory that it won’t matter who believed what in 2002? 18 years is an eternity in politics, there are many voters alive today who do not remember Saddam Hussein or even an America before Iraq. However, there are still scars from that war, thousands of disabled veterans, a continued military presence in the Middle East, and sustained islamophobia in our politics. Joe Biden supported that War, he also supported interventions in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Serbia, Kuwait, etc. Biden is a hawk and doesn’t have many critiques of the Obama-Bush foreign policy doctrine which said drone now and ask questions later. Of course, neither does Donald Trump, he’s on pace with the number of atrocities committed in the last decade and will likely exceed them if given a second term. However, the difference between Trump and Biden is that Trump does not pretend to be a moral authority who cares about human rights. This unfortunately makes him immune to arguments of hypocrisy because he has no standards for himself and voters know this. It also draws greater attention to his few acts of non-interventionism like his negotiations with the Taliban and Kim Jong-un. It does not matter that Trump did not really oppose the Iraq war, that seems to be baked in. What matters is Trump gives the false appearance of non-intervention and Biden has been honest about his bad record. Trump will exploit this and will ask voters to consider why he was able to “make peace” with North Korea.

Gun Control (To the Right)

Beto O’Rourke left no lasting legacy in Congress or in his race for President except for his language about the Second Amendment which will be hung like an albatross around Joe Biden’s neck. During a debate, an ABC moderator asked O’Rourke “Are you proposing taking away their guns? And how would this work?” to which O’Rourke replied “Hell Yes…” there was more after, but it won’t matter because that’s enough to make an ad. Combined with an image of O’Rourke onstage endorsing Biden, it’s the kind of moment the NRA and GOP dream of. A Democrat, confirming the worst fears of millions of voters who have been told for years that Democrats are coming for their guns. The case against Biden will be made easier by the public record of his attacks on Bernie Sanders for his D minus rating from the NRA as somehow insufficiently pro-gun control. Despite their good intentions, the political power of the Bloomberg backed “Everytown For Gun Safety” is extraordinarily limited and their messaging won’t save Biden. One of Biden’s selling points is his “common sense solutions, “ that will be hard to justify when the president claims Biden is for gun confiscation. Again, it won’t matter what the actual truth is.

The president is not above lying, we know this. The president is still an effective communicator to many Americans even when they know he is lying. What is more dangerous is when the president is given the chance to tell the truth which is when he is at his strongest. Consider the 2016 Republican primaries when he attacked the party for supporting the Iraq war and cuts to Social Security. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and others were unable to satisfactorily reply to those attacks because they were true. During the general election campaign, Trump was able to speak to the truth of Americans anxieties about Hillary Clinton and her character. His critiques of her policy were ineffective, what she believed was broadly popular (which is true for the most part with Biden). However, his questions about her paid speeches, foreign donations to the Clinton foundation, the role of the DNC, and of course her private email server were very effective. Joe Biden represents a double edged sword, while he does not inspire the same antipathy as Hillary Clinton for reasons ranging from personality to inherent sexism, he is not nearly as talented a politician in terms of communicating or media manipulation. Joe Biden has a record, it’s inconsistent with his image as a politician, and those inconsistencies can’t really be reconciled in a positive way. The president will take advantage of that and his digital communications team is working overtime to define Joe Biden. If it were not for the coronavirus pandemic, we would likely be seeing the president make this case himself. The president, a master of projection, will attempt to define Biden not only as insufficiently liberal but insufficiently conservative, not only racist but also a cultural Marxist, not only a warmonger but also too willing to make peace with the enemy, and himself as the common sense candidate.

It will be ridiculous, you will be mystified, the media will be unprepared, the party will be unprepared, but I’m telling you now so that you will at least be able to see it coming. As for Joe Biden, if you’re reading this, don’t expect the pandemic or Trump’s idiocy to be enough, it will not be enough.

The post How Trump Will Run Against Biden appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The 2016 election cycle continues on its baffling way, but foreign policy issues have largely been neglected, with a few exceptions like ISIS. Each of the three remaining major candidates falls short in certain ways.

Allow me to summarize each candidate’s position, what I believe each lacks, and to describe the appearance and objectives of a new vision for American foreign policy.

I reviewed some key passages from each candidate’s website and came up with a short summary of their ideas:

Trump – “America first” realism:

This strategy might best be compared with what international relations scholars call “realism”, though that school has far from a monopoly on realistic proposals. Realism posits that since the world order is essentially anarchic, meaning that it has no central authority to enforce peace, states must engage in “self-help” by following national interest above all else. Because no supranational force will come and save us, we must maintain a strong military as a cornerstone of our foreign policy.  Trump demonstrates this thinking:

• In his 23-second video on the military, Trump says: “I’m gonna make our military so big, so powerful, so strong that nobody, absolutely nobody, is gonna mess with us.” There’s a couple issues here, primarily that the President’s foreign policy should take longer than half a minute to describe and should consist of something more substantial than something you’d overhear at a pub. Secondly: Since Trump has frequently invoked the specter of Islamic terror, it’s important to point out that even in pre-911 2001, the USA spent $287 billion on defense. This did not stop fundamentalists from committing the 9/11 attacks. This means that even though America was and continues to be the strongest country in the world, “nobody is gonna mes with us” is a utopian fantasy. Furthermore, for fiscal year 2015, America spent $596 billion on defense. This doesn’t strike me as “weakness” on the part of the military. Military preparedness is certainly a virtue, but Trump’s saber-rattling is not.
• The virtues of Trump’s economic foreign policy are frankly not worth discussing. Suffice it to say they represent economic nationalism, exclusion, and xenophobia.
• Note that Trump’s realism is distinct from Bush’s neoconservatism, which advocates intervention in many situations as a way of spreading “democracy”. Trump seems to forgo this ideology in favor of a more basic version of national self-interest. Regardless, Trump’s bullish attitudes about military buildup are antiquated in fights against non-state actors like ISIS in which fighting smart is as important as having the biggest guns, figuratively. Of course, all of the above rests on the assumption that Trump actually has beliefs and policies, and that this whole campaign isn’t a perverse version of self-actualization for him.

Clinton – “Mixed” liberalism:

Clinton’s platform more closely resembles international relations liberalism, which in this context means a foreign policy centered around international political and economic cooperation towards greater prosperity and freedom for all, theoretically. This is evident in her website’s national security section, which includes some interesting points:

• “Create partnerships for tomorrow. Hillary believes in free peoples and free markets. As president, she’ll invest in partnerships in Latin America, Africa, and Asia with people and nations who share our values and vision for the future.” Presumably, this means Clinton will support free trade deals and more privatization. We are looking at a more liberal version of the Washington Consensus, an economic plan for the world which values free trade and free markets. However, frequently this has resulted in inequality, oppression, and stagnation in the developing world. It does not fundamentally change United States policy, which has almost always been to guarantee the existence of friendly markets, by force if necessary.
• “Engage civil society. America has the opportunity to resolve familiar conflicts and nurture new democracies; to empower moderates and marginalize extremists; and to open markets and champion human rights. From engaging students and civil leaders to broadening our development partnerships to involve our businesses, entrepreneurs, and philanthropists, Hillary knows that America’s greatest assets are our diverse citizens and the vision of fairness and openness we offer the world.” This alludes to another key tenant of international relations liberalism: The importance of non-state actors and institutions in maintaining capitalist freedom and peace. The more ominous side of this is giving authority to fundamentally undemocratic organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. These financial institutions will frequently help save economies of the developing world on the condition that these economies privatize and frequently sell off state assets to wealthy corporations. Egypt and Greece recently went through this process; a Clinton presidency would probably see more of it.
• Democrats are frequently on the defensive when it comes to defense, constantly attempting to prove to the American people that they are as “tough” internationally as their Republican counterparts. This phenomenon explains the military positions on her website. These include “making sure our military is on the cutting edge”, “defeating ISIS”, and “standing up to Putin”. I have no doubt Secretary Clinton will attempt these things in office. Her term as Secretary of State was rather hawkish, especially in regards to airstrikes in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. One could make the argument that her hardline on the military is a result of sexism; that is to say, a woman gunning for the nation’s top elected office must appear especially tough when it comes to international relations. This may very well be true, but it does not fundamentally alter Clinton’s foreign policy, merely our understanding of it.
• Thus, the word “mixed” I used to describe Clinton’s liberalism refers to her belief in a combination of “soft” power economics and “hard” power military intervention and force projection.

Sanders – Liberal Cooperation and Caution:

Sanders’ policy is a little difficult to fit into the one of the schools of international relations, which are frequently descriptive rather than prescriptive. One might point to constructivism, which argues that international society is built by evolving norms of behavior, which Sanders’ caution probably seeks to build. Economic structuralism, a Marxist school of international thought, doesn’t accurate describe Sanders’ platform either: But Sanders’ “socialism” isn’t particularly Marxist or revolutionary: it stands for measured critiques of the corporate elite, the reform of capitalism, and opposition to international free trade deals and not the overthrow of the capitalist world-system. Liberalism may best serve to describe Sanders’ overall vision, which is that of peace, cooperation, and economic progress:

• Ending unliateral action: “We must move away from policies that favor unilateral military action and preemptive war, and that make the United States the de facto policeman of the world.” This is comforting to left-leaning Americans who are tired of Afghanistan, Iraq, and a variety of other conflicts which appear to have hurt us and not furthered the national interest. Critics may therefore refer to Sanders as Trump-like or isolationist.  However, Sanders lays down some examples of situations in which he would advocate the use of force:
• Cautious and limited use of force: “As a member of Congress, I have supported the use of force only when it was a last resort and America’s vital interests were at stake. I opposed the first Gulf War, as did many other Members of Congress, because I believed that there was a way to achieve our goals without bloodshed, through sanctions and concerted diplomatic action. I supported the use of force to stop the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. And, in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, I supported the use of force in Afghanistan to hunt down the terrorists who attacked us. I regret that President Bush did not use that authority properly, and that American combat troops remained there too long. I voted against the war in Iraq, and knew it was the right vote then, and most people recognize it was the right vote today. The only mission President Bush and his neo-conservative friends accomplished was to destabilize an entire region, and create the environment for al-Qaeda and ISIS to flourish.” This may be the kernel that composes a hypothetical “Sanders Doctrine”: The use of force as a last result, and only then to prevent mass murder and self-defense.

Why are these inadequate? What do we need? A shift beyond imperialism and isolationism to internationalism. 

It is my opinion that the United States should focus in the long run on the improvement of the international system itself. Each of the candidates has not fundamentally addressed the root causes of the problems identified, namely, the lack of a system of global governance to solve problems individual states are unable to. It should be relatively obvious that Trump does not care about the world-system. His idea of a good world is one in which America is strong. In an increasingly interdependent world in which the borders between nation-states are dissolving, this nationalist position is as impractical as it is immoral. As for Clinton and Sanders, they seem to be focused on individual solutions to individual problems, holding out the promise of “international cooperation” as an antidote to climate change, terrorism, and trade. Though I am more sympathetic to their arguments, Sanders in particular, without a fundamentally just international system, none of these problems are solvable. Below I explain a little about our current international system, and posit some ways in which it must be reformed.

After World War II, the United States set up multiple interwoven systems to guarantee its global dominance. They include Bretton Woods, the system that regulated monetary relations globally, the IMF, the World Bank, and the United Nations. When I say “global dominance”, I do not mean to indicate that U.S. hegemony was totally negative in nature. It did allow a degree of prosperity globally, especially in U.S.-aligned states in Western Europe and Asia. However, it was a system that guaranteed the supremacy of the United States and, to a lesser extent, the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council: Britain, France, Russia, and China.

Conventional wisdom says the United States is a hegemon in decline. Regardless of the accuracy of this statement, we are certainly seeing what Fareed Zakaria describes as the “rise of the rest”, specifically the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) as well as many states in Africa. We are facing a century in which the United States will not have overwhelming authority it possessed in the past. And despite the horrible human rights abuses of the United States and its allies since 1945, I am hesitant to declare that China, the probable next hegemon, would be somehow more peaceful or responsible. A responsible world wouldn’t be bound by American or Chinese dominance. What then must we do?

The international system is changing, and the United States foreign policy apparatus should use its clout to move towards a more inclusive, just, democratic, and peaceful world order. How do we do this? A strong commitment to human rights, for one. It is difficult to speak as a moral authority when the nation is engaged in unjust wars, and the intelligence apparatus supports kleptocrats in the developing world. In the long run, we should strengthen, reform, and reshape multilateral institutions like the UN. The international system should be just and more permanent than whoever is in power.

I can’t give you specifics as to what an ideal world-system would look like. But I do know that Trump’s nationalism, and to a lesser extent the immediacy of Clinton and Sanders’ ideas, are fundamentally incapable of moving toward such a system.

The post America needs a new vision of foreign policy appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Recently, Charlotte NC Mayor Dan Clodfelter proclaimed April 30, 2015 to be Honesty Day. In response, the editorial page editor of the Charlotte Observer–Taylor Batten—issued an invitation to readers to submit questions.

One reader asked: “Why do you support such a liberal agenda?”

Batten answered honestly. And those of us who call ourselves liberals/progressives would do well to make multiple copies of his response and keep it in our wallets, post it on our home screens, hang it on our refrigerators, and plaster it on t-shirts, mugs, and highway billboards. Well, it’s a little too long for some of those locations, but you get the idea. Here’s what Batten wrote:

We believe that everyone is created equal.

We believe that children should not bear responsibility for the sins of their parents.

We believe that prevention is a heck of a lot cheaper than a cure.

We believe people should not be treated as lesser citizens, with fewer rights, because of whom they love.

We believe a thriving city, state and nation rests to a great degree in the quality of its public schools, and that every child deserves a dedicated, dynamic teacher, regardless of what ZIP code that child lives in.

We believe discrimination is wrong in every instance.

We believe in consistency, so if you are going to drug-test recipients of public assistance, drug-test them all, including the corporate chieftains who are the biggest beneficiaries.

We believe that police officers should act professionally, under incredibly difficult circumstances, regardless of a suspect’s race.

We believe taxes should be kept as low as possible while still providing a sound safety net for the neediest, a robust education for all, decent health care for the elderly and the destitute, and other basics.

We believe politicians of any party should keep their promises, avoid the appearance of personal gain from the public trust, and look out for the general welfare, not that of any one special interest.

We believe there are people of worth beyond our tight circle and there are neighborhoods beyond our own, with different histories, perspectives and needs.

We believe offenders have paid their price when their sentence is up and should be helped to assimilate back into society. And that that’s better for the community than neglecting them and watching them commit another crime.

We believe there are peace-loving Muslims.

We do not believe President Obama was born in Kenya.

We believe in the separation of church and state.

…We believe if you’re a fan of a politician solely because he has a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ after his name, then you’re not paying attention.

We believe we have only one planet, and we should protect it for our grandchildren.

If that earns us the label “liberal” in your eyes…so be it. We approach the issues of the day with an open mind and guided by those principles, not by blind devotion to any political party. And that’s the honest truth.

Wish I’d written that!

[Hat tip to Black Max at Daily Kos, for dredging this up and putting it where I could find it.]

The post “Why do you support such a liberal agenda?” An honest answer in a tough market appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Not too long ago I was having an out-patient medical procedure. The technician was extremely nice and I thanked her for it because it made the test much easier for me. She said that others in field are often harsh, even militaristic, and her preference was to make the procedure as easy as possible for her patients.

I thanked her again and then said that it had been my experience that most people who are nice have empathy and are more likely to be liberal than conservative. I asked her if she would mind telling me if her political leanings were more liberal than conservative.

She said, yes, her views are primarily more liberal than conservative. She added that she had not grown up in a household where politics was much discussed. When she was in college, she signed up for a political science class so that she could become a more informed citizen.

Unfortunately, she had a professor who seemed to have too much of a mean gene to be an effective teacher. He humiliated many of his students, including the soon-to-be medical technician. She found it extremely uncomfortable when he would call on her in class with a question that he knew was about material that the class had not yet covered.

As you might expect, she dropped the course – quickly so that she could withdraw without a tuition penalty. The net result was that a woman who preferred politeness rather than nastiness had to endure unnecessary insults. Equally important is that someone who wanted to become a more active citizen had a bad experience with politics and still regrets that she did not have an opportunity to learn more about politics and current events.

The problems that students around the world have with nasty teachers are renowned and are addressed elsewhere. The problem of interested citizens wanting to learn more about politics but not finding a comfortable path to politics creates a significant problem in a democracy. The problem of friendly individuals not connecting with progressive politics is a tremendous loss for both these individuals and the progressive movement.

In so many ways, progressive politics involve the same degree of nastiness as the conservative movement does. Does Chris Matthews treat you with any more dignity than Bill O’Reilly? Does a solicitation from a Democrat include any less invective than that of a Republican? Perhaps so, but if so, not by much.

Politics is the means by which we try to build a consensus within the country. This common ground should reflect an amalgam of the beliefs of all Americans who participate in the process. One thing that we can learn from the medical technician is that the world of politics is not a very welcoming place for many who are nice, empathetic and caring. Yes, there are many nice and caring people who participate in politics and by and large are progressives. But many of the can be “in your face,” at least when it comes to written communication. The progressive movement can benefit from focusing on what’s most valuable in politics – votes. The idea is for kind people to want to engage in politics – at least to the extent of voting. We don’t want to turn them off by asking for things that they have no interest in giving.

So here are some suggestions for doing a better job of connecting kindness to progressive politics. You’ll note that many of the ideas are of the do not variety:

1. Progressives could create thousands of meet-up type groups around the country which are primarily designed to make politics more welcoming. They need not be exclusive to progressives but they should be limited to people who prefer environments that are low-keyed and constructive.
2. If someone does not want to make a political contribution to a candidate or an interest group, don’t ask them. If the person first wants to learn more about politics, let him or her be able to state right off the bat that he or she doesn’t want to be solicited for money.
3. If an individual says that he or she does not have time to engage in the “grunt work” of politics, let that person be. You can be a terrific person and still be someone who does not like to knock on doors or stuff envelopes.
4. If an individual does not like being pounded with e-mails from numerous progressive candidates and organizations, honor that person’s request to “chill and stop sending unwanted e-mails.”
5. Do not foist upon voters negative campaigning. Comparing records in an objective manner is fair but lambasting an opponent does not work for an individual with a kind disposition.

My requests are quite selfish; I much prefer thoughtful politics focused on issues rather than being constantly asked to join a bandwagon. If we would turn off the harsh noise of our “solicitation on steroids,” we would go a long way in encouraging kind people to engage in politics, most particularly by voting progressive.

The post Making it easier for nice people to be progressives appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When I scanned an article listing the compensation of CEOs in 2012, I noted that Gregory Boyce of Peabody Coal received $9.5 million. Even though he earned 7% less than in 2011, my reaction was indignation; I grieve for the miners who are now threatened with losing their pensions and health care after Peabody intentionally passed off their financial responsibilities to Patriot, a company doomed from the start to bankruptcy. I muttered under my breath, “I guess I’m just a bleeding-heart liberal.”

That got me to wondering about the definition of bleeding-heart liberal. Dictionary.com characterizes a bleeding heart as “a person who makes an ostentatious or excessive display of pity or concern for others.”  Even worse was “an individual and idealist who at times espouses very reasonable, perhaps even thoughtful, political inclinations but whose lack of character and unsubstantiated smugness make any discourse they may embrace largely unpalatable to any self-respecting citizen.”  I found those descriptions unpalatable, so I searched further.

My hunt ended with a definition I can cheerfully accept.

From Urbandictionary.com – Bleeding-Heart Liberal:

A person whose political view lies generally along the lines of the founding fathers, in that they believe that what unites Americans is a love of freedom, and they tend to vote that way. They prefer to allow others to believe as they like, since this is what the country is founded on, and generally resist any effort to remove rights simply because of who someone is, such as gay, or black, or poor. They believe in the ideal of ‘treating your neighbor as you would like to be treated’, believe that we all have a certain responsibility to support each other, rather than corporations, and believe that the safety and dreams of people come before the earnings of CEO’s. They believe that everyone’s point of view has something to contribute to our political discourse.

Yes!  A love of freedom  I believe in our freedoms, including the rights of women to make their own decisions regarding contraception. I believe in the freedom of religion – the right guaranteed by the First Amendment to choose a religion, or no religion, without interference from the government.

Yes!   …Allow others to believe as they like and generally resist any effort to remove rights simply because of who someone is, such as gay, or black, or poor. I support marriage equality and celebrate each new community that passes a non-discrimination ordinance.

Yes!  ..Treating your neighbor as you would like to be treated.  I believe in fairness; what is right for me should be right for everyone. I believe that a just society is one where all our children can enjoy an education in safe, healthy communities.

Yes!  …Believe that the safety and dreams of people come before the earnings of CEO’s. To see the rubble of the collapsed factory and the faces of families in Bangladesh is to be convinced that corporations disregard the safety of workers in the rush for profit. The accident and explosion of the fertilizer plant in Texas, due to indifference to employee safety, that caused loss of life and the destruction of the town of West, was the direct result of corrupt, corporate greed. I speak up for equal pay for equal work and a stand with our low income workers who demand a livable wage.

But maybe, given the current politics of the country and Missouri, the new definition of bleeding-heart liberal should be more cynical.

Bleeding-Heart Liberal:  a dreamer, someone who envisions liberty and justice for all, a person who faces repeated defeat but doesn’t accept failure, doesn’t shut up, doesn’t bow down, doesn’t stop trying and never stops caring.

The post Call me a bleeding-heart liberal appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I was pretty content in my younger conservative days. I don’t know if that was a reflection of political apathy, ignorance, or naivete on my part; I had an abundance of all the above. I also had religion, a decent education, and a narrow view of the world. When I started adding kids to the mix, everything changed in unexpected ways.

Being from a conservative, politically mixed family in small town Missouri meant that “family values” were most often associated with religious Republican families. It was with some trepidation that I evolved into the liberal stay-at-home suburban St. Louis mom I am now. I was a pro-death penalty, pro-guns, anti-gay marriage, pro-life, church-going conservative Democrat. It sounds unbelievable, even to me.  I hold the complete opposite viewpoints 15 years later.

What some of my liberal peers don’t always understand is that being conservative doesn’t necessarily mean emotional detachment or uncaring. I cared as much then as I do now. Shortly before getting married, my then-boyfriend and I once took in a perfect stranger who lost her apartment when her roommates suddenly moved out. She stayed with us a few weeks until she was on her feet and was unwittingly an accomplice to losing my religion, but that is another story.

We gave rides to homeless hitchhikers, gave our meager spare dollars to charitable causes, volunteered time, and stopped to help stranded motorists. Not much has changed in that respect. Then, as now, we couldn’t look desperation in the face and keep walking.

The pivotal moment in personal politics

For a time after our first baby joined the family, we closed ranks. As a new parent, my priorities changed abruptly; most of them becoming centered on someone other than myself. I started to think more about the political and global issues that affected my daughter, the choices she would have, the legacy my generation would leave for our children’s children. Having children gave me a sense of responsibility for others, which is different than simply caring and in many ways a lot tougher.

When our second child was not yet two years old, terrorists attacked and towers were toppled. Terrified and heartbroken, we lived through the horror of the attacks and weeks following shell-shocked and out of sorts. It wasn’t until President Bush announced we were going to war that the fog began to lift.

I started thinking, “It could have been my husband or my children who were victims of the attacks.” Or it could be my children going off to war. It wasn’t. They were others’ husbands, wives, daughters, and sons. That too horrified me and filled me with apprehension about the wars.

The “war on terror” stopped making any sense to me around the time I became more fearful for the children of Iraq and Afghanistan than for my own. It occurred to me that we might seem like terrorists to them with our tanks and missiles, night raids, and mortar shells. Could it be possible that everything those children knew and trusted and took for granted was suddenly and irrevocably shattered? Were their parents distraught with helplessness and loss? I knew the feeling.

As my awareness grew and my perceptions of the world changed, so did the way I interacted with the world. One of my favorite sayings is “think globally, act locally”. That used to be a foreign concept to me. I was thinking locally, acting locally, and primarily helping those in my direct line of sight. That was fine for the smaller community we were part of, but what of the rest of the world? If I cared and felt responsible for everyone, I needed to think globally while acting locally.

What being a Liberal is to me

Enter the pigeon-holed liberal values of environmentalism, peace, human rights, and freedom. These are things I not only care about but issues that affect everyone. Certainly these are things I want my children to be aware of. Not that family values, tradition, and community service are bad, but they stopped being enough for me. Some of these values weren’t a good fit for a conservative like me. Not many of my former conservative peers were on board with women’s reproductive choices and LGBT equality, for example. Who else cared and wanted to do something about it?

I began to see that conservative ideology tends to be expressed in ways that are exclusive, not inclusive, and thus of the localized variety. Others’ idea of what family values meant no longer meshed with the things my family values, such as tolerance.

People who knew us pre-parenthood thought we were naïve and idealistic. Funny so many of the same people still think that way, though their reasoning has changed. They don’t seem to understand that being liberal doesn’t mean I gave up on family values and lost my sense of community. My family and community expanded to include several billion more people, so if anything those things became much more important.

We still care about tradition, which is why we’ve started so many new ones. We still help the local community through volunteering and donating. And a few times, buying that homeless guy lunch. Who said there’s no such thing as a free lunch? (Disclaimer: I plead ignorance of any past, present, or future ordinances against feeding the homeless in public)

The process of going from point A on the political spectrum to point Liberal was completely natural. Because evolution is a slow but steady process, my opinions and beliefs are always changing with new input. And new kids; we have four now. I’m always going to be grateful to them for rocking my political world.

An aside for the Todd Akin’s of the world: liberalism is first and foremost a compassionate ideology, not dogma. Like it or not, government is the means through which ideologies of all types are shared and spread. And whether I like it or not, that includes some ideologies with narrow and limited scope. We all have an opportunity and a duty to promote tolerance and unity. As a public servant, you can do that simply by hearing what all of your constituents have to say. What have you got to lose?

The post Having kids rocked my political world appeared first on Occasional Planet.