Liberalism- and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

Love me, love me, love me  I am a liberal, Phil Ochs,  great satire.

Liberals- 10 degrees to the left of center in good times and 10 degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally. You might hear that liberals, socialists and others left wingers have ruined this country.  Or that it is the  narrow minded right wing conservatives which have ruined this country.

We’re still doing pretty well, despite the rhetoric on both sides.

When  the head of the Democratic Party, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz  was asked how she would define Democratic Socialism as used by Bernie Sanders,  she hedged and fumbled. It was painful.

I hate socialism and liberalism.  Not the idea, the words.  Socialism, you know, like Lenin and Stalin.  Socialism to Republicans is a polite form of communism.    Liberalism- yeh, back to the 60’s, gay marriage and pot smoking.  Everything is ok.

But, I hate Rand Paul too.  The great libertarian, who personally owns a copy of the Bill of Rights.  Ok, I am joking.  His rants on how illegal everything Obama does, is, well, tiring.  In case, Paul didn’t notice, the Supreme Court twice upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare, with the conservative Chief Justice Roberts (Reagan appointed) writing the opinion.

But, Rand (if he were around at the time)  would have impeached President Lincoln for going to war with the South.   His predecessor, James Buchanan, thought fighting with the south over succession was beyond the powers of the president.  Paul definitely would have impeached Lincoln for the Emancipation Proclamation.  And like Buchanan, Paul would have vetoed the Morrill Act as a blatant act of government excesses.   Morrill act allowed the purchase of land by the Federal government for colleges.  Rand Paul like his father hates any role of the Federal government in education.  He’s 150 year too late!  Lincoln got a lot done because the Democrats (the conservative party then) had all left Congress.  Thank you Justin Morrill,  and thank god they included in the A+M schools the M for  “mechanical arts”  – hence engineering.

So, I digress like usual.  What should Debbie Wasserman-Schultz have said?  That her party is the  “smart progressive” party.   It is progressive because it pushes forward on good causes that help the middle class in the long term and smart because it is not going to fund every good cause that comes about.  It is the party of realism, knowing how to make deals with our enemies to avoid conflicts.   It is a party that understands global cooperation is the road to the future.

Being one country of many may not be Donald Trump’s idea of victory, but there is victory in negotiations which involves compromise.  Compromise is how our constitution got enacted.   The Constitution  is a negotiated deal among the states.   “Jaw-jaw is better than war-war”  to quote Churchill.  Or David Cameron more recently when he introduced the Iran deal to Parliament.  Unlike the US, both Conservative and Liberal parties support it.

If Bernie has wants to call it by another name, fine,  a rose is a rose.  Get rid of the labels and go for substance.

It is not a matter of  up or down, left or right, but now forward or back.  So, Debbie should have proclaimed herself as a  forwardist not backwardist.

Fair enough?

David Lord


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s