2016 and the Annoying Liberal Conscience

The 2016 buzz has begun and already we are seeing polling numbers and commentary on a potential run at the presidency by Hillary Clinton on the Left and Jeb Bush or other prominent conservatives on the Right. The comments underneath all of the liberal articles are teeming with posts begging for a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren ticket. This troubles me as a liberal because, although I know liberals tend to vote with a conscience, that conscience is a double edged sword that will come back to bite us like it has in the past.

Let me explain.

First, I should frame my viewpoint in terms of the analogous conservative equivalent. Hey, liberals. What do we tell Republicans about voting in hard core representatives from their conservative base? Yeah. You know what we say. Don't act like you don't. We tell them that Tea Party candidates are dangerous and not in line with main stream America. We tell them that extremist ideas are not good.

Well, isn't that the same thing Bernie Sanders ends up being? He's an extreme Lefty. He's our Ted Cruz. What chance does Ted Cruz have in a general election? What good does a Ted Cruz do for our country? Conservatives suck on his teat like no other just as liberals love a good Bernie Sanders appearance on TV, but the broader picture can't survive a Ted Cruz, so by the same token, Bernie Sanders is better left to fight our battles in Congress, not in the White House.

But your liberal conscience wants to argue with me over that just like Tea Party nuts want to argue with me over wanting Rand Paul to rise up and run. End the Fed. All that jazz. The same conservative conscience that turns its nose up at us wants a Rand Paul candidacy just like we want a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren candidacy. That's why primaries are so messy. Every candidate has to play to the base in primaries and the broader picture in the general election. Jeb Bush knows this. Hillary knows this. Sanders doesn't care. Paul doesn't care. Cruz doesn't care. Warren might care. I'm not sure.

What I do know is this. Clamoring for a Warren or Sanders ticket is primary talk, not general election talk.

But your liberal conscience can't take a Hillary for President ticket, can it? That's the next part of our conscience that screws us over. You would sooner stay home and not vote than vote for Hillary Clinton. You would rather sound all smarty smart with George Carlin quotes than use History to make the case that not voting is a bad idea. Look at the 2014 mid-terms. Look where not voting got us. Turn out always favors Republicans and the liberal conscience prevents us from gaining any ground during those elections because we have principles or something that sounds warm and fuzzy like that.

And your liberal conscience also splits the vote like with Nader and Gore. What happened there? Thanks, liberal conscience.

Listen up. We need a moderate liberal voice in the White House and a liberal conscience in the House and Senate. Why? Legislation is written in Congress. The power of the pen rides on the back of Congressional legislation. If we send Bernie and Elizabeth to Congress, they'll push bills that Hillary will sign. If we push our conscience into the presidential election, we'll get a Republican who won't go along with anything Bernie or Elizabeth sign off on.

I've seen liberal media lately talk up this idea of riling up the liberal base by standing up for liberal ideas and whatnot. That's all fine and good, but if we don't get exactly what you want, does that mean the fire has to be doused with your apathy? When you back out, you give the Republicans Congress and the White House. I don't mind Hillary. She's not a Landrieu who won't represent a liberal like me in Louisiana. Hillary is going to follow our lead if we send her the message we want in Congress. She answers to us through bills we get our representatives to push. We have seen this with Obama, haven't we? If we want something, we have to fight for it, even if the president in office isn't our ideal liberal. If we send Obama a clean liberal bill without Republican obstructionism in the way, we'll get what we want.

If you'd rather Nader us again or put us through another shellacking, go ahead and convince yourself the liberal conscience is a hard line we must toe. You're no different than a Teabagger if you believe that. The pendulum cannot afford to swing back that far Left after the troubles Obama has faced. If we didn't have such strong conservative negative advertising against us like talk of tax hikes, scary fake Socialism claims, or threats of driving up the debt, I'd say go ahead and stick to your guns. That's not the way American voters work under normal circumstances because they're dumb. Don't stay home. Don't turn your nose up. Solidarity is our ticket. The rest can be adjusted via Congress.

David M. Draiman politicizes Rolling Stone cover

One of the problems with this country is that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING becomes politicized. Whether it is the Zimmerman trial, Climate Change, or Boston bombing suspects, someone somewhere has to get their political jabs in. I specifically hate it when someone miscategorizes something as liberal when it is not.

The Zimmerman verdict was split down political lines. The fucking weather is disputed at the level of political affiliation, not science. In the case of today's situation, Rolling Stone putting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on their cover, Disturbed band member David Draiman tied politics to an apolitical situation.

Quote from Draiman's rant with the questionable content in bold:

YOU…DARE…TO…PUT…THE…IMAGE…OF…THE…BOSTON…BOMBER…ON…THE…FUCKING…COVER…OF…YOUR…MAGAZINE!!!!????
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ULTRA-LIBERAL, SYMPATHETIC TO A FAULT, FUCKING MINDS???

Since when is it specifically ultra-liberal to glorify a terrorist?

It isn't. It hasn't.

Let's make something very clear here. Americans, liberals included, condemned the actions of the Boston bombing suspects. Let's also be clear that liberals are not happy that Rolling Stone has chosen to put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover.

Why is it, then, that David Draiman attributed liberalism to Rolling Stone's poor decision?

Time and time again, I have to put up with having my views as a liberal insulted here in Louisiana. I am despised for no other reason than being a liberal. I am ridiculed on a regular basis by flagrant assholes of the conservative ilk in the city in which I live. I am also attacked by random conservatives on the internet.

In a back and forth Twitter dispute with Scott Wherle, Wherle correctly identified the misplaced attribution of blame on liberals and Draiman, in a state of ignorance, supplied a retort that included justification of his comments because he himself holds liberal views on social issues.

While the back and forth was going on, confrontational conservatives were latching onto the comments made by Draiman to disparage liberals. When confronted with that evidence via Wherle's tweets, Draiman acted as though Wherle's involvement brought on the anti-liberal tweets. Draiman clearly doesn't understand the English language, nor does he understand cause and effect.

Remove "ultra-liberal" from his rant. Now what do you have? Can conservatives use it to tarnish liberals outright? Nope. Draiman is to blame for this mess, through and through.

Here are some examples of conservative hate latching onto Draiman's comments. There are certainly numerous other examples. What I found is just the tip of the iceberg. None of these tweets are valid, nor would they have existed had Draiman left out the "ultra-liberal" jab.

If Michelle Malkin can cling to his comments, something is wrong with having said them in the first place. Opportunistic conservatives came right out of the woodwork to validate their overt hatred of liberals through Draiman's words. Had he refrained from politicizing the issue, we would be united together in condemnation, not getting angry over his tainted misrepresentation of liberalism. Instead of evoking disgust over the cover on the magazine, Dave Draiman has inspired a fresh cut of unsubstantiated anti-liberal hate.

You see, everything for conservatives revolves around politics. Liberals are to blame for everything. They spend every waking hour bitching about liberals. They would blame liberals for the shit stain skidmarks in their tighty whities if they had the inclination.

In response, I have deleted all of Disturbed's songs from my iTunes library. If you think that's an overreaction to these events, ask yourself if you would listen to a band who openly insulted your political views and miscategorized your politics as defending a monster like Tsarnaev.

This has nothing to do with being liberal and to suggest so tells us how apt you are to incorrectly politicize the world around you. Wherle is dead on with his criticism of Draiman. Dave Draiman can go to Hell.

http://twitchy.com/2013/07/17/go-to-hell-disturbed-vocalist-david-draiman-destroys-ultra-liberal-rolling-stone-in-epic-rant/

Thoughts on the "threat" of tyranny

In the gun control debate, opponents of gun control often justify ownership of assault weapons in the name of self preservation in the rare chance that the government becomes tyrannical and oppressive. They believe that in order to stand up in the face of tyranny, they must have firepower strong enough to fire back against the military forces that would impose tyrannical rule. However, that hypothetical scenario has some serious flaws, flaws where the reality of the military and our government are in direct conflict with the idea of liberal tyranny.

There are two key features of this scenario which simply do not add up, but seldom will you hear anyone discuss either one because the gun control debate never has a chance to evolve beyond simple sparring. The first is that I firmly believe an American conservative government is more likely to impose tyrannical rule by force than a liberal government. The second point to make is that, should the government use its arm of the military to impose its rule, one has to remember that those who belong to the US military are often conservative.

The first point is the more important one to understand. I concede that a liberal government is equally prone to tyranny by way of legislation as a conservative government might be. In that instance, I would urge you to proceed to the second point I've made. Still, in terms of what we are faced with right now, the Republican party has been hijacked by gun-toting religious fanatics. The militaristic nature of the Republican party alone validates my claim that they are more likely to impose tyrannical rule than Democratic leaders. The funding for the military is more likely to increase under a Republican administration. If anything, a liberal administration would weaken the US military force (if you listen to any conservative talk radio pundit). As a liberal, I should be more afraid of tyranny via Republican rule than Democratic rule. Religion is a powerful player in government all around the world. From Iran to Saudi Arabia, oppressive regimes rely upon religious doctrine to control the population within their boundaries. If a religious movement comes about, it will be of the conservative ilk, not liberal.

The second point, then, is to realize the members of our military are heavily invested in conservative politics. Go to any veteran or currently enlisted member of our military. Ask them if, when ordered to fire upon their fellow American citizens, would they follow those orders or resist?

Then, as a liberal, I have to ask whether I should be more worried about a conservative member of the military shooting me or if a conservative should be more worried about a conservative member of the military firing up on them. Given the rhetoric present in our current political environment, I strongly feel that the threatening language present on the Right would motivate a conservative marine to off me without a second thought, whereas a conservative marine would be sympathetic to a fellow conservative and refuse the order to shoot. Do you see now how a conservative administration is more likely to impose tyrannical physical force upon the populace?

Almost instantly, arguments related to that last question would soon devolve into tangents about how the government has used the military and the FBI to attack certain groups at home. One such example would be the Waco siege in Waco, Texas. What that argument fails to recognize is, the group in question was led by a crazy person. If you are identified as a threat to our security, yes, you very well could face a military force at your doorstep. If you think that the military is going to attack your Constitutional right to organize, then perhaps the organizing you are planning is a tad on the crazy side. You might just be a threat to our way of life at this very moment if your level of paranoia makes that much sense to you.

But if you follow the current conversation over secession, or worse yet, revolution, you will find that rednecks will put down their uniforms and loyalties to the President of the United States and cross the battle lines to fight on behalf of their brothers.

So what I'm saying is, even if tyrannical rule were to be imposed, the safeguard is built in by your own political brethren who serve in the military. You should be more worried that your own elected officials are plotting to impose rigid tyranny. If you want to continue arguing that the Obama administration is tyrannical in its proposed legislation, again, I will refer you to point #2. Your arsenal will be of little necessity since conservatives in the military aren't going to shoot fellow conservatives. You don't need an assault rifle to defend against a military force because you hold much of the military force already.

But paranoia like yours prevents us from having a serious discussion about gun control. We have to entertain arguments like what I just described just to nudge the door of conversation open. We have to entertain ludicrous hypotheticals to simply move on to propose limitations like background checks, mental health restrictions on firearms, and access to firearms that were designed for military use, not civilian protection or recreation. No serious debate can be had until you move beyond these two paranoid delusions I have just discussed above.

The Problem With Leaders: OWS

The Occupy Wall Street movement has acquired a significant amount of attention over the past few weeks, but the most common criticism, perhaps improperly applied, has been that the movement lacks a cohesiveness. There are no prominent leaders or big names which come to mind when you think of OWS. The question then, is, should OWS have a leader or leaders?

At first glance, the obvious answer would be Yes. Creating a figurehead to lead the movement would silence the critics who have demanded clarity in the OWS movement. It would be an easy fix.

Or would it?

You see, just like any other movement which originates on the Left, no amount of positioning, messaging, or symbolism will appease the critics, especially those on the Right. Asking for leaders to rise up out of OWS is simply one more straw man argument in a long line of straw men. No matter what OWS does, the media critics and the Right Wing Machine will stop at nothing to delegitimize OWS. At least those of us on the Left gave credence to the Tea Party, even if we did criticize them. We accepted their complaint that the federal government was broken. We accepted that government spending was out of control. We just didn't agree on the solutions.

OWS has not been provided the same courtesy, nor will it.

Established leaders in the OWS movement will become nothing more than lightning rods, people faced with an onslaught of insults and dismissal, the likes of which have been illustrated in Right Wing responses to Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Maddow, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and yes, Barack Obama. Mention unions to a right winger and watch how fast they choose to ramble on and on about how evil they are. OWS will evoke the same response. The lazy/welfare/hippie stigma is applied to anything on the Left as a way to invigorate the Right Wing base. It's almost as common as their idea that tax cuts will fix everything. Conservatives only know how to think in those two terms. They won't deviate from the flock. It is better to keep OWS decentralized and broad based than to put someone in charge. As long as OWS remains broad, it will be symbolic of the American people, not "liberal" as used in the derogatory sense.

After all, the Right Wing pundits have to feed their dogs frothing at the mouth somehow, right?

Maddow misses the mark

There is one thing that bothers me more than anything else about the more Liberal media outlets, namely MSNBC. While I admit the coverage and explanations are usually spot on and come from valid sources, the overall point has no relevance to the modern day Liberal. The often cynical news segment highlights the opposition and does not address our own goals or ambitions as Liberals.

In a recent episode of the RMS, Maddow correctly highlighted how Democratic officials have caught on to the hypocrisy of big government rhetoric among Conservative politicians.

I should probably explain this first.

Government involvement in our lives is something Conservative politicians use to rile up their base against their competition and although "big government" is a boogie man that only exists as a device for advancing one's own career, the socially conservative side of their base wants nothing more than government to interfere in our lives. This occurs in matters with religious undertones, namely gay marriage and abortion, but the fact remains. If the government tells us what we can and cannot do in our own homes, it certainly does not look like small government.

That was a valid point to make. Nothing wrong with it.

But you're not talking to those hypocrites. You're talking to us. I'm glad Maddow reported on it the way she did, but as a Liberal who wants to see more ballsy attitudes from elected Democrats, such dialogue does nothing to tell me where we are headed as a party. Sure, our elected officials are catching on to the hypocrisy, but as a campaign ad against an opponent, it has very little bang for the buck. Voters on that side of the fence are still going to swing to the Right, citing the lesser of two evils defense.

In other words, this is not a credible attack plan. It only feeds the desire to run negative campaign ads. What voters *should* want are politicians who will tell us what they will do for us. They *should* want to hear a plan.

So while Maddow pegged conservatives for hypocrisy, in my eyes, it has no substantive merit.

We should focus on taking patriotism back. We should focus on our economic principles and fight the resistance set on crippling our legislation to the point where it becomes an ineffectual stack of paper. We should tout our accomplishments up to this point because our opponents continually tell their base we are doing nothing at all.