Mellowing back to sanity

Cal Thomas and I disagree on some fairly important stuff (Thomas believes that the Bible is reason enough to uphold laws banning gay sex; I believe gay couples should have the same civil rights as straight couples), but it turns out there's some pretty important stuff on which we agree entirely:

As with religion, some people on the right have used patriotism, which should be a unifying theme, to divide Americans. My liberal friends love America as much as I do. They might disagree on some, or all, of my political and religious beliefs, but that does not make them less in love with America, much less un-American.

I don't want to put too much weight on this column (which I appreciated on several levels) or on some kind of conversion by Thomas, who has actually cautioned the right against some of its whacko excesses, like that overblown "War on Christmas" Fox gave us back in 2005. But I do think that it's a good sign that we're hearing this now. Not so much the words, even, but the tone of those words.

What makes me feel optimistic is the hope that modern conservative politics, which crossed the line from zeal into zealotry after 9/11, may be moderating its way back into relevancy. Perhaps we are turning the corner on a dangerous time in our nation's history, an era that reached its nadir in the period between November 2004-06.

The lesson for me isn't so much a lesson about conservatism per se, but about what tends to happen to people when they lose accountability to unpleasant feedback. From the fall of the World Trade Center to the mid-term elections of 2006, Republicans controlled all three branches of government. They commanded the rhetorical high-ground on security and deployed new media-management techniques to effectively set the public agenda and squelch dissent.  That combination of factors seduced conservative leaders into believing that loyalty, unity and image were more important than "truth," which somehow became an almost post-modern concept in their hands.

That left rank-and-file Republicans -- not to mention centrists  -- with a series of awful choices. When your leaders can't be trusted at a time when you've invested great trust and commitment in their decisions, what do you do? Switch parties? Abandon your passionately held core values?

In the end, it wasn't liberal argument that caused American conservatives to begin changing their tone. It was observation. They observed their leaders describing one reality while their own eyes witnessed something very different. This process was slowed by conservatives' broad belief in systemic liberal media bias, a belief that invalidated much of the critical information the public received from 2001-2005, but eventually the weight of incoming data simply overwhelmed the Republicans' ability to deny it.

Conservative rhetoric has been moderating ever since the fall of the Republican legislative majorities in November. The triumphalism of 2003 is gone (ironically, Cal Thomas wrote one of the more regrettable triumphalist columns after the fall of Baghdad, proposing a "cultural war crimes trial" at which liberal critics of the invasion would be held accountable for their predictions of disaster... predictions which have since come sadly true). So is the bullying stance adopted by the White House after Bush's reelection in 2004. Hubris isn't a uniquely Republican vice, but conservatives are the ones dealing with its aftermath at the moment.

So let's be clear that conservatism is not what's at stake today. All that's really required of Republicans right now is a step back from the Constitutional abyss into which they've been gazing. In trying to support tough, effective action against our terrorist enemies, conservatives trusted too much in the integrity and competency of their elected leaders. Buoyed by that unconditional support, Republican leaders in the White House and Congress crossed legal Rubicon after legal Rubicon, mocking anyone who expressed caution, restraint or respect for abstract legal concepts.

That was a mistake, but thanks to the 2006 mid-terms, not a fatal one. I see conservatives beginning to draw distinctions between their values (toughness and conviction in the face of America's enemies) and the real-world expression of those values (warrantless wiretaps, military tribunals, secret overseas prisons, torture, etc.). And that's good.  So long as our system of checks and balances survives this crisis, our Republic will have a chance to correct its mistakes.  That's all our Constitution promises us, really: the chance to work things out.

And so here we are, a polarized nation trying to grope its way back to unity and sanity while the White House, with about 18 months of lame-duck irrelevancy remaining on its term, burrows deeper into denial and isolation. The timing is awful -- we've got more Americans on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan than ever before -- but so it goes.

The first step in taking our country back was to stand firm against the abuse of law, and we did that successfully in November. The next step is recognizing what is good and valuable in the people with whom we disagree, and columns like this one by Cal Thomas help to take the poison out of patriotic symbols and rituals that have been tainted by political abuse over the past five years.

Happy Independence Day, Cal.

Comments

[Agricola]

"What makes me feel optimistic is the hope that modern conservative politics, which crossed the line from zeal into zealotry after 9/11, may be moderating its way back into relevancy. Perhaps we are turning the corner on a dangerous time in our nation's history, an era that reached its nadir in the period between November 2004-06."

What will make me feel optimistic is when modern liberal politics, which crossed the line from zeal into zealotry after 1/20/2001, will begin moderating its way back into relevancy.

"In the end, it wasn't liberal argument that caused American conservatives to begin changing their tone. It was observation. They observed their leaders describing one reality while their own eyes witnessed something very different. This process was slowed by conservatives' broad belief in systemic liberal media bias, a belief that invalidated much of the critical information the public received from 2001-2005, but eventually the weight of incoming data simply overwhelmed the Republicans' ability to deny it."

Read: 12,000 voters.

"The first step in taking our country back was to stand firm against the abuse of law, and we did that successfully in November."

Huh?

Look, I'm all for turning down the rhetoric and engaging in serious bi-partisan discussion to solve our ever larger woes. But to blame the current situation on a bunch of right-wing wackos, out to subvert the Constitution in order to lock up "progressives", is not a good start to the healing process. There is plenty of blame to go around over, say, the last 20 years, and if the excesses of the last 8 years do result in a new middle ground, I will take comfort in the fact only if the middle is a little farther right than it was in 1999.

[Tim]

Mystery in the Heartland

So it turned to a domestic substitute by demonizing the latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, school-bussing, fetus-killing, tree-hugging, gun-fearing, morally relativist and secularly humanist so-called liberal elitists, whose elders had been "soft on communism" while they themselves coddle criminals, women, and same sexers, eat brie, drink chardonnay, support Darwin, and oppose capital punishment in defiance of the "moral values" of ordinary, god-fearing, flag-waving, assault gun–carrying Americans.

It seems that as a person ages, you get to watch the generational pendulum swings in the culture war. If only for the good ol' days when the Left could successfully "Goering" the Right as: beer-drinking, SUV-driving, home-schooling, misogynistic, planet-killing, gun-loving, bible-thumping and puritanistic so-called fascist overseers, whose elders had been "Nazi collaborators" while they themselves oppress criminals, women, and same sexers, eat meat, drink tap water, oppose Darwin, and secretly wish they could be the ones pulling the capital punishment switch.

Oh wait, were those days ever really over?

Peter Levine: the wrong kind of liberalism

[Tim]

A Guide to Red and Blue America

[Janet Edens]

Here's the thing I never get about these discussions and why I decline to participate so often: Conservatives do not equal "right-wing whackos" and liberals do not equal anything-goes socialists.

Why are we so intent these days to force a black-and-white definition?

I don't debate with the same grasp of language that many do. I don't claim to have the depth and experience in idealogy that some seem to have. Maybe I'm just a slightly above average American voter. Frankly, I don't know what it means to be "conservative" or "liberal" anymore. Does anyone remember the days when you could be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal? How about when "Conservative" meant pro-privacy and anti-government?

How can you possibly extrapolate from an opinion on one subject someone's entire philosophy of life and politics? But it's done all the time. On blogs and TV and radio and everywhere else. If you are this, then you must be that. If you oppose abortion, you must think women shouldn't even be voting. If you have doubts about the war, you must want to dismantle the CIA.

If you don't pick one side and stick to it without blinking, you'd better be prepared to defend your right to even participate in the conversation. No matter which side you choose.

That is screwed up, which ever side started it, however long ago.

[Agricola]

Janet,

We don't agree on much, and maybe I don't understand what you said, but I agree with what I think it means.

[Tim]

Dan: "From the fall of the World Trade Center to the mid-term elections of 2006, Republicans controlled all three branches of government."

You realize, Dan, that this statement is false? It's false on its face because the Democrats primarily controlled the Senate from January 3, 2001 to January 3, 2003.

I also consider it false because it politicizes the Supreme Court, unless you truly believe the Supreme Court is run by one or the other political parties.

To Share and Share Alike
Clinton and the Democrats
Democrats settle into power in the Senate

[Tim]

The Xark ideal & Scoble's No. 3

Xark was born out of the idea that by embracing many interests we could build a community of readers and writers and participants that was more interesting than a self-selecting, narrowly focused, special interest blog.

'Xark!' The FAQ

Xark! seeks to create a safe place in which people of divergent backgrounds and gifts may creatively discuss -- sometimes seriously, sometimes playfully -- whatever issues and ideas happen to engage their curiosity. It hopes to expand beyond the typical rhetoric of blogs, not by creating one new style, but by opening the discussions to many styles, many mediums ... and many topics. Instead of mimicking a high-pressure, formalized debate forum, Xark! is more like an extended, rambling house party.

The Xarker Manifesto

On victimization

1. The worst thing that liberalism ever did for American culture was to elevate the status of "victim" to a level at which it has become almost universally coveted. This occurred when we allowed victimization to be interpreted as a free pass for unlimited self-righteousness and wretchedly bad behavior.

So, Dan was so victimized by the Bush administration, Fox News Channel and Cal Thomas that "it made me want to fight back with every tool at my disposal."

[Daniel]

Tim,

I don't really know how to respond to you on this, because I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

[Tim]

Dan, I've left 4 comments on this thread and sent you an email.

What would you like me to clarify?