Why should a gay man be interested in the reproductive freedom? Solidarity. Why would a conservationist give a dam about civil liberties? Solidarity. Why should a labor organizer oppose the war? I think you see my point. We are stronger when we can agree to work together. It is a simple enough bargain: I'll agree with you, if you agree with me. Then, why are we so fractured? None of us can win "our" issue alone. As I was saying, why should a socialist care about...
HOLD UP A SECOND! WHO INVITED THEM?
I'll state explicitly something that everyone knows at some level. Some words can't be said in American political discourse, like socialist. Some ideas can't be reasonably discussed; communism, socialism, and most things associated with them are definitely out of the question. Have you ever heard someone praise communism? That's a good way to be dismissed as insane. I've had union organizers tell me "don't say the U word." We get a visceral reaction to these words that resists reason.
George Lakoff has said that liberals are suffering from hypo-cognition: the lack of words and associated ideas with witch we can defend our principals. I agree. However, we should explain the cause of the problem before trying to solve it. Mr. Lakoff would claim that we need a liberal counterpart to the right wing think tanks is needed to develop language. That's not a bad idea, but I think the problem has been around for a lot longer than think tanks.
Even if this language were developed, conservative Democrats wouldn't use it anyway. They are continually trying to find the third way, treating their allies like they are enemies.
We are critically fractured. The Democratic Party suffers because liberals are split into factions.
I credit none other than Joseph McCarthy with popularizing the method that slowly but surely brought the Democratic Party to minority status, and I don't mean his witch-hunts. With baseless slanders of treason, the Red Scare ruthlessly demonized one small part of the liberal fringe as a threat to the country. More importantly, it successfully forced a choice. Democrats had to choose between defending American Communists or abandoning them to the conservative wolves. Defending them meant answering questions of patriotism, anti-Americanism, and accusations of being soft on our enemy in the Cold War. We know the result: communists were abandoned in short order, effectively wedged them out of the respectable political spectrum, and communism was berated from both sides of the isle. Rumors of the International Communist Conspiracy soon raged unopposed. Inevitably making it a verboten topic. That's right unspeakable and unthinkable.
We got rid of McCarthy, but McCarthyism still hangs around. Conservatives learned from his successes and eventual failure. After McCarthy's censure, conservative campaigns avoided using the power of the government to prosecute their campaigns. Instead, they choose to mainly stick to slander from media sources, and set their sights on their next victim. To date, conservatives have played the demigod on a number of issues: "pinko" socialists, "corrupt" unions, "drug crazed" hippies and African Americans, "lazy" welfare recipients, "feminazi", environmental "terrorists", and most recently "anti-family" homosexuals, to name a few. They have all come under the fire of a conservative slander campaign to discredit them to force liberals to choose between defending or abandoning them. Every time charging that the selected group was either an infiltrating enemy, a threat to our freedoms, anti-American, or in some way harming our country. Rush Limbaugh railed against the evils of the feminazi as though they were a danger to the country, and enemies to all men. He was effective enough to drive the term feminist out of the main stream. Add another word to the list of verboten.
During George H W Bush's first campaign in 1988, conservatives decided to start a smear campaign against the very idea of a liberal. This attempt was more ambitious than the others, but the choice was the same: defend or abandon your left wing. The result was the same: abandon.
After the 2004 election, there was much discussion about how to appeal to "moral values" voters that were scared by homosexuals marrying. When moderates suggest abandoning homosexuals for the sake of wining the "vital center", we give homosexuals no reason to vote Democratic witch makes us weaker, and Republicans have no one to oppose their bigotry witch makes more bigots. We lose; they gain. That's no compromise; that's capitulation.
It's like the communists again. If liberals abandon this seemingly small faction, they will not be able to defend themselves in public opinion alone. They will be forced out of the mainstream, and homosexuality will slowly become verboten again, under the weight of conservative demigods.
If we keep abandoning our allies and turning against our friends, eventually everything that was once liberal will be made verboten. We need to consider this harsh reality that conservatives with the help of moderate liberals with intentions of maintaining their influence have systematically marginalized large groups of liberals over the last 40 years with the disastrous results for us: dividing us against each other, marginalizing ideas, and driving people out of the political process. We need to abandon the capitulation, and embrace solidarity.
I wonder how long it is until the wing nut noise machine attacks me as a threat to this country. Would anyone defend me after I've turned my back on them? Not likely! Let us find ways to unite liberals, progressives, and leftist of all stripes. If there is ever a time to compromise, it is with our allies.
Bill Clinton was wrong when he said, "When people think Democrats win." When people unite Democrats win.