What does "Maverick Leftist" mean?

I got asked this in several places on another diary, so here's the answer in one easy bite (and then I can just link people to this if they ask in the future).

I consider myself a leftist because I believe that the Marxian concept of "surplus value" is essentially correct: capitalists are skimming money off labour that they don't really deserve.  (I'm not talking about petty bourgeois who work hard right in their mom n' pop enterprise, but big capitalism, the shareholder style Edwards talked effectively about, where fat cats are collecting dividends forwarded to one of their luxury homes.)

I'm also a pragmatist, though, so instead of voting whatever party promises to nationalise major industries, make the economy sustainable and equitable, and guarantee a job, home, and health care to every citisen, I support Democrats.  Just like a lot of you do, I'm sure, even though the Democrats don't live up to your every ideal.  

I think, frankly, that I'm more pragmatic/realistic than a lot of Deaniacs and Naderites, who constantly proclaim that Democrats are "Republican Lite" (some of them sure are, but not as many as you guys claim) and seem to think that unabashed Nation style progressives could win the presidency or take a majority of the Congress.

My "maverick" positions are basically threefold:

(1) This one you probably know already: support for an interventionalist foreign policy aimed at promoting liberty and treating every oppressed human as deserving of rescue to the degree reasonably possible (not the degree convenient or easy).

(2) I want a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to first trimester abortions, but ban all others (except for special circumstances a review board would decide).  I also think they should have left that comatose woman in Florida alive, as her family wants.

(3) I am for reparations for slavery, and increased funding for minority education and jobs programs, but not for affirmative action that humiliates blacks and passes the buck to later failure rather than early intervention.

•  Well, now.

  This diary is far more civilized than the last one.

  I disagree with just about everything you said in your Three Points, though.

  (1) I think it's up to the oppressed people to rescue themselves. It's one thing to come to their aid when asked; quite another to decide FOR them that they need rescuing. Especially when they are so conveniently situated over natural resources we covet.

  (2)

   i. There is no fucking way I will entrust my reproductive rights to a "review board." Who appoints the board? Same people who appoint the FCC and the Cabinet? Whoever's controlling Congress that year? No, thank you. And how did you get to decide that the 1st trimester is the appropriate cut-off date? Before you give me your reasons, please understand, I don't CARE what your reasons are. They are YOUR reasons, and NOT agreed on by everyone.

  ii. "They should have left that comatose woman in Florida alive, like as her family wants." First -- she wasn't comatose. She was brain dead. Not in a coma -- BRAIN DEAD. As in, NEVER COMING BACK. Ever, ever, ever. Second -- Her FAMILY didn't have jurisdiction over her medical decisions. Her HUSBAND did. Her FAMILY intervened and subverted his power of attorney.

  (3)

  i. Reparations, while a nice idea, are impractical and ultimately insulting: What, exactly, is the monetary payoff you propose giving each and every African American? And how do you propose they "prove" how far back their family's enslavement went? Do we do it on a graduated scale? By generation? Tricky stuff, that.

  ii. Affirmative Action may seem insulting to you, but I doubt the black Americans who have benefited from it agree. The ugly and pathetic truth is, America is still pocked with institutional racism, and will be for at least a couple more generations. The least we can do for a race that still buckles under the weight of the deck stacked against them is give them a frigging hand once in a while.

  But thank you for presenting your case and your opinions in a civil manner. I appreciate it.

  by Maryscott OConnor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:47:39 PM PDT

  •  I think I was civil all along...

    ...and I don't believe you were fair to me in your use of zeroes.

    But: I enjoy discourse and debate (shocker, huh?), and in appreciation for the olive branch you seem to be offering, I'm all for moving forward.  I just ask, please, that you give my viewpoint a chance before censoring it.  I'm really not so horrible, honest.

    Now, to address your specific points:

    "I think it's up to the oppressed people to rescue themselves."

    Wow, I'm sorry--but that sounds awfully cold.  This is why my true polar opposite is not the neocons (and not the antiwar liberals either, despite what some try to claim), but the paleocons like Bob Novak and Pat Buchanan, who say "ehhh...not our problem."  I just can't go for that.

    "There is no fucking way I will entrust my reproductive rights to a 'review board.' "

    Then avoid getting pregnant, or get your abortion in the first trimester.  That's not exactly draconian (it's the same requirement France has, for gosh sakes!), and by having a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to those first trimester abortions (and universal health care to pay for them) you end the endless uncertainty that hangs over the Supreme Court.  Frankly, there are much more important issues (particularly, the rights of the accused) that confront that Court, than to have the focus on every nomination be Roe.

    I'm not clear on whether you actually want me to answer you about the reasons for the first trimester cutoff, since you said you "don't care".
    You're certainly right that you can't get everyone to agree on everything.  If you could, we'd have no politics and no Daily Kos.  By definition, our system of laws will not please everyone.  I'm just advocating for what I think is right.

    On the Schiavo case, who's to say that a man she had known for a couple of years knows better than her biological relatives?  Do most people even know that a husband's wishes, even if you only recently got married and have no kids, supercede those of the family you grow up in?  People obviously disagree as to whether she is "brain dead"; I think it's better to err on the side of life.

    (3) I believe reparations should be partly in the form of payouts, and mostly in the form of endowments to provide business loans, educational opportunities, low income housing, etc.  They should be means-tested (if you're rich, you kind of already scored your reparations) and could be doled out based on genetic analysis if people got all picky (blood quantum is already widely applied for American Indians; my mother is generally considered high enough while I am not, though I did benefit from a couple different affirmative action programs with lower restrictions).

    Straight up lowering of standards, though, has been found to result in increased failure of blacks, for example dropout rates at prestigious law schools.  Without affirmative action, you might end up with more black lawyers since people are encouraged to take their most prestigious acceptance.

    You don't have any argument from me about entrenched racism.  That's why it pisses me off so bad when people suggest I should join the GOP.  It's so blatant, how they picked up the mantle of all the redneck Southern whites who didn't like the accomplishments (setbacks, for them) of the civil rights era.  It's like when Democrats (ironic how the parties switched sides--that has always fascinated me) after the Civil War pushed back the progressive reforms the "Radical Republicans" had brought, and instituted Jim Crow.  They are on the wrong side of history.

    Alan
    Maverick Leftist

    by SlackerInc on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 07:23:22 PM PDT

    •  If you're so anti-GOP...

      then why do you mimic their talking points, talk up their war and allow them to define Democrats (The Dean scream) and Democratic issues?

      If you think you aren't, you're blatantly wrong, it is very transparent.
      

      by 2care4others on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:03:05 PM PDT

      •  Look at my other diaries and posts

        Like this one.  Are those GOP talking points?  Ask anyone in my town, for that matter, if I'm a Republican--they'd find that pretty damned funny!

        Hell, look me up on the FEC's website.  I must be under "deep cover", giving only to Democrats, is that it?  ;-)

        Alan
        Maverick Leftist

        by SlackerInc on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:13:30 PM PDT

        •  I've just read two of your diaries

          And yes, from what I see, your reality is defined by GOP talking points, it certainly isn't the reality I live in.

          by 2care4others on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:26:27 PM PDT

    •  Um, dude...

      I didn't give you any zeroes.

      Each and every one of my ratings was a 2.

      by Maryscott OConnor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:22:03 PM PDT

      •  I apologise then

        My bad.  I must have confused you with someone else, in the swirl of all those mini-threads that disappeared and reappeared as various raters battled it out.

        Alan
        Maverick Leftist

        by SlackerInc on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:41:02 PM PDT

    •  As for the rest of it...

      We don't really have much common ground. You made two statements regarding the abortion issue that just INFURIATE me:

      "Then don't get pregnant, or have your abortion in the first trimester."

      Oh, GOD, there is so much wrong with that. I won't parse. (But if I were to parse, I'd start with the women who have no CHOICE in the matter of getting pregnant, move on to women who either didn't know they were pregnant in the first trimester... or women who discovered the fetus had severe defects, etc).

       Instead, I will leave it at this: Abortions and whether or not to have them should be the provenance of a woman and her doctor -- PERIOD. An abortion is a MEDICAL procedure. The government has absolutely NO business interfering with medical decisions between patient and doctor. It is JUST as wrong for a government to dictate when a woman CANNOT have an abortion as it is for a government to dictate when a woman MUST have an abortion (China... advocates of the mandatory aborting of "defective" fetuses...).

      "Frankly, there are much more important issues (particularly, the rights of the accused) that confront that Court, than to have the focus on every nomination be Roe."

      Says YOU, pal. And BOY, am I tired of people who will NEVER have to face the decision for themselves telling those of us who HAVE or WILL... that it's not as important an issue as others.

      One more thing, and then I have to stop or I'll have an aneurysm:

      "...by having a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to those first trimester abortions (and universal health care to pay for them) you end the endless uncertainty that hangs over the Supreme Court."

      Remember that pesky Amendment that marked the beginning of the "Prohibition Era?" What happened to it?

      Riiiiight. There seems to be something you don't understand about the anti-choice extremists -- you know, the ones who bomb clinics and assassinate doctors? These people will NEVER stop fighting against reproductive choice in this country. You think a Constitutional Amendment will shut them up? Forget it, man. This is a struggle that will NEVER end. There IS no middle ground. People who try to convince themselves and others that there is a viable compromise are simply DELUDED as to the nature of the extremists on both sides of the issue.

      I can't continue. I just can't. I'd love to tackle the SChiavo case and the reparations and the Affirmative Action and the Colonialism-masking-as-Altruistic-Nation-Building...

      but I simply cannot face another round. It's infuriating, it's exhausting... and ultimately a big fat waste of time, as you and I disagree on far too much to ever find enough common ground on which we could have a picnic and say Bygones.

      by Maryscott OConnor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:40:59 PM PDT

      •  Our picnic

        What do you say, let's give it a shot!

        We could talk about:

        --Free trade vs. fair trade
        --the working poor, and living wage legislation
        --universal health care
        --the environment
        --civil liberties
        --the right to organise

        and I bet it would be a big freaking Kum Ba Ya tea party.  Seriously.  We shouldn't let our differences, intense as they may be, obscure our common goals!

        Alan
        Maverick Leftist

        by SlackerInc on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:52:40 PM PDT

  •  Another Problem with Reparations

    It buys into the Republican idea that inherited wealth is deserved. People who are unjustly imprisoned should certainly be compensated, but why should anyone be compensated for the suffering of their great grandfather?

     

    by cybo on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:39:50 PM PDT

    •  Because...

      people do pass on wealth, in more ways than pure financial transfer.  Just living in a more affluent area has a powerful effect on a young person's development.

      But okay, if we went to a confiscatory estate tax system like Japan has, and funded lots of jobs and housing programs for the poor of all races, that would work for me.

      Alan
      Maverick Leftist

      by SlackerInc on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:49:19 PM PDT

•  What the fuck makes you think

  we want to read another diary from you? You could have answered this question in that other lameass diary instead of starting this all over again. And by the way, Mrs. Schiavo, "that woman in Florida" as you call her, has the RIGHT to have her husband make her medical decisions for her. HE is the family she has chosen, not her parents. Your positions are inconsistent at best.

  by BlueGoo on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:48:32 PM PDT

  •  don't tell me slacker

    has gone pissing people off again.

    calm down... calm down!

    slacker!  slacker!  work on this won't ya?

    seriously bluegoo, you might consider that slacker does want to be in the tent and help the tent stand (never afraid of weak metaphors or flame wars, pyrrho dives in... /me stops to don asbestos suit cough cough fking asbestos!).  He has a few odd positions for a progressive... but at least individuality is good... and they're real opinions.

    Would that more republicans would be as open to his opposition.

    Now slacker... I hope you were not so bad I'll regret his defense.

    by pyrrho on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 07:12:34 PM PDT

    •  Allright, pyrrho-

      since you vouch for the guy and all.... ;)

      by BlueGoo on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 07:15:48 PM PDT

•  You Had Me Until You Started Talking Issues....

  I consider myself a maverick leftist, too.

  Just not a whacko.

  (2) No one gets a late term abortions for fun. Your proposal essentially buys into the logic that ignore the real-world realities that lead to such choices.

  (1) Interventionist, sure!  Just not military. Again, it's the pragmatics that obviate any further need for discussion. Say I agreed 100% with your motivations and assessments of relative values. One look at the history of rapacious US intervention--and how it serves to consolidate power, often in the hands of very insidious people, whether or not it succeeds--is enough to let me know that you just can't get there from here.

  (3) Reparations, si! But do away with affimative action? You obviously have no idea how it actually works, who it actually helps--and how--and the clear evidence of bad faith among those who oppose it.

  Actually, come to think of it, I do think that "unabashed Nation style progressives could win the presidency or take a majority of the Congress."  It will just take a whole lot of movement and infrastructure building.

  But when you consider that a majority of self-identified conservatives support a broad range of welfare state spending, for example, you begin to tap into the underlying reality that progressive policy positions have very broad support among the general population.  Conservative hegemony absolutely depends on keeping people confused. Get them in touch with the connection between their values and the policies that reflect them, and that's all you need to elect a progressive national government.

  by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:50:33 PM PDT

  •  "Whacko" is in the eye of the beholder

    "One look at the history of rapacious US intervention--and how it serves to consolidate power, often in the hands of very insidious people, whether or not it succeeds--is enough to let me know that you just can't get there from here."

    Hey, I've read lots of Zinn and Chomsky, and I lived through the Reagan nightmare.  But I would argue it is defeatist to say "the U.S. has done so much wrong, we can never do right".  That is not only politically toxic (it plays into the "America hater" rhetoric of Hannity or O'Reilly), it gives too short shrift to the incomplete and halting yet still remarkable tendency of the American system to produce progressive court decisions and even sometimes progressive legislation and executive action.  Shouldn't we wish and work for better?

    Affirmative action I dealt with in my long reply to MaryScott.

    As for the idea of the majority of people supporting Democratic initiatives, that's true only insofar as those programs help them personally.  There is not a progressive majority that would actually sacrifice an iota of their own affluence and comfort for a more just, equitable, and sustainable economy and society.

    It is interesting, though, that Kerry won the most votes among the poorest and the least among the richest.  He actually won the entire group of Americans who earn less than $100K by 50-49; but he lost the minority who earn more than that by such a margin as to more than counteract this.

    Alan
    Maverick Leftist

    by SlackerInc on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 07:48:51 PM PDT

    •  No majority that would sacrifice?

      Slacker, you said: "There is not a progressive majority that would actually sacrifice an iota of their own affluence and comfort for a more just, equitable, and sustainable economy and society."

      Ummmm, you can't prove that it's true, nor can you prove that it's not.

      I can tell you that I do indeed live this way and have for a long time and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Who knows, maybe there are many of us out there and you just have no knowledge of us yet.
      

      by 2care4others on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:08:05 PM PDT

      •  Sure there are many of us

        Millions.  Just not a majority of the U.S. population.

        Alan
        Maverick Leftist

        by SlackerInc on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:15:08 PM PDT

        •  You don't know that, you only think you do

          You can't say one way or the other, you don't have a crystal ball that gives you this answer.

          by 2care4others on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:33:16 PM PDT

          •  I think it's pretty clear

            Otherwise Nader would have beat the field in 2000, and/or Kucinich would have swept to the nomination and the presidency last year.  And we certainly would not have a GOP Congress!

            Alan
            Maverick Leftist

            by SlackerInc on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:57:06 PM PDT

    •  You're The Defeatist!

      I'm anti-militarist.  I look at what non-violence has accomplished over the past 150+ years since Thoreau went to jail because he refused to pay taxes to support the Mexican-American War, and I'm thrilled with the prospect that we can put an end to war in the foreseeable future.  There's nothing whatsoever defeatist about that.

      What I was saying was that even if I adopted your values and motivations, I would have to conclude that military interventions would never reliably acheive the outcomes your desire. That's not defeatism. It's simply another argument for why my way is superior.

      As for your belief in people's selfishness. Well, just read Tom Franks and George Lakoff.  Plenty of people already are voting against their self-interest--they're voting Republican!

      by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 09:53:36 PM PDT

•  what's it mean?

  means slackerInc is back in the house.

  by pyrrho on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:58:39 PM PDT

•  so do you still think THIS war was

  a good idea... started by men capable to the task?

  "hmmmm?", asked pyrrho leadingly.

  by pyrrho on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 07:00:41 PM PDT

  •  Two different questions there

    Good idea, generally?  Yes.

    Started by men capable to the task?  Not hardly.

    I've tried to show restraint in citing the old WaPo article, but I've got to dip back into it now and again, especially when I feel it proves I did make my support conditional:

    My WaPo Interview

    An avowed leftist, Alan Thomas, 33, doesn't like Bush, but he believes in the war. "I don't support the president. I'm skeptical about his sincerity in wanting democracy in Iraq. But I feel he's committed to it," Thomas says.
    [...]
    Asked if he voted for Bush, he laughs. "No, no way. Never."

    Though Thomas enthusiastically supports the war, he says he'll reevaluate his position after the regime change. "If Bush tries to install a puppet dictator or if there are human rights violations, I'll be decrying it as loudly as anyone else on the left," he says.
    [...]
    He supports a war that minimizes civilian casualties.

    One thing that might not have been clear there is that I meant Bush was publicly committed to democracy, not that he was committed to it in his heart.  And I also told the guy that what I really supported was the vision of Tony Blair, and expected Blair to keep Bush honest (well, Bush is never honest, but you know what I mean), but he didn't print that.  Still, overall I'm happy with how my views were represented, and I stand by them.  BushCo has screwed up royally; but again, as Maher said the other night, it still looks like liberty and self-determination may be a cool enough thing to triumph despite their incompetence.

    Alan
    Maverick Leftist

    by SlackerInc on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 07:40:29 PM PDT

    •  This war is a good idea?

      What's so good about 100,000+ Iraqis dead, many of them innocent, including women and children?

      That's not "humanitarian intervention", that's genocide.
      

      by 2care4others on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:11:34 PM PDT

      •  They should have been more careful

        As I said, I support a war that minimises civilian casualties.  Still, by comparison WWII was far harder on the civilian population.  Should we have refrained from taking on the Nazis and fascists because there were civilians killed in the process?  Honest question--some hardcore pacifists would answer "yes".  

        And I think it's interesting that a lot of you push the need to finish the job in Afghanistan (I agree, that was botched especially in Tora Bora--they should have used US troops and not used bombing, the method hardest on civilians); yet influential people like MoveOn.org and Michael Moore opposed any military action in Afghanistan.  There were lots of horrible civilian casualties there, too, but it's hard to imagine you'd prefer we left the Taliban in power...?!?

        Alan
        Maverick Leftist

        by SlackerInc on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:19:13 PM PDT

        •  So...

          Which of Bush's umpteen excuses do you support for his justification for this war?

          Why do you think it was more important than going after Osama (**disclosure, I don't think al Qaeda bombed us on 9/11, but since so many still do, I have to ask the question in that manner). That being said, why was Iraq more important than getting whoever was supposedly directly responsible for 9/11?

          Do you think we dropped the ball in Afghanistan after we invaded Iraq?

          Why do we still not have Osama?

          Do you think Bush cares about Osama considering he said (and I saw him say this) "I just don't spend that much time thinking about him much anymore".

          by 2care4others on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:24:39 PM PDT

          •  I'm not a Bush supporter

            But to me, it's kind of like if Bush suddenly proposed a $5 increase in the minimum wage.  I'd be suspicious, but I wouldn't oppose it just because it came out of his mouth.

            "why was Iraq more important than getting whoever was supposedly directly responsible for 9/11?"

            Frankly, I think 9/11 is hugely overrated.  Pollution, poor nutrition and lack of exercise, and inequities in health care are much bigger killers than terrorism.  But when people have to live under dictatorship, that is crushing of the human spirit, all death tolls aside.  Did you know the head of Amnesty USA did not oppose the Iraq war?

            "Do you think we dropped the ball in Afghanistan after we invaded Iraq?"

            No question.  We should have left a LOT more troops there, and tried to get more international peacekeepers to protect women's rights across the countryside.  No way should we have let warlords be in charge.

            "Why do we still not have Osama?"

            He's good at hiding, and we're bad at looking?

            "Do you think Bush cares about Osama considering he said (and I saw him say this) 'I just don't spend that much time thinking about him much anymore'."

            Yeah, he lied about that in one of the debates.  I hate that guy, you know.  I really do!  I hate the fact that I'm a little bit "on his side" on this issue.  In a way, I'd rather the Republicans went back to their paleocon, 1980s style of supporting dictators like Saddam, and Democrats could clearly take the other side.  But for me, right is right, based on my personal beliefs.  I don't agree with Fred Barnes about much (honestly), but I think he is right when he says Democrats wouldn't have opposed the war (other than a few like Michael Moore, or my mom for that matter, who opposed Kosovo) had Clinton been the one who instigated it.

            Alan
            Maverick Leftist
            

            by SlackerInc on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:37:04 PM PDT

            •  So you just want to Democratize the whole world?

              Do you think we should be the world's policemen?

              Don't you think it is hypocritical that we expect to Democratize other societies and we're losing Democracy here?

              Do you think our taxes should go to pay for rebuilding the rest of the world while our schools are losing funding, our healthcare is almost non-existent, our farmers are not being supported, our wallets are being looted and our children's futures are being destroyed?

              Who the fuck are we to tell others how to do it when we obviously are proving we don't even know how to do it ourselves?

              by 2care4others on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:46:10 PM PDT

              •  I hear that all the time

                My mom, who is directly in line philosophically with the majority here, is constantly singing that refrain.  My belief is that you can never have progress if only those who are perfect and free of sin are allowed to intervene on behalf of others.

                Alan
                Maverick Leftist

                by SlackerInc on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 08:55:23 PM PDT

    •  what it gets down to i think

      you make a good case, a little better than I remember.

      this isn't a 5$ minimum wage increase, this is legalized killing to stop killing.  

      so I think for your goals you cannot justify an ally of convienience... because of the vastly different way to wield power and diplomacy.

      if Iraqi rights itself in short order (say 10 years) that will be difficult rhetorically because that may give honor to the elections, even retroactively to those that deny their validity, it still will not justify the whole invasion, how it was done, and all the policies... and you have some responsibility to realize that by being willing to have Bush render such a duty...

      would you let Bush give you Brain Surgery just because you "needed brain surgery"?

      that is the thing that I think your reason doesn't address.

      It addresses this idea that we can in fact impose democracy, morally, on the world.

      I've come around to that idea over the years myself, but I am highly doubtful that military force will do the trick in most cases.

      by pyrrho on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 10:16:49 PM PDT

•  "Maverick Leftist"???

  a James Garner fan who thinks corporations have too much power?

  by a gilas girl on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 09:06:06 PM PDT

  •  Good to see ya, agg

    And congrats on the main page posting privileges!  I always thought you were too much of a rabble rouser to get there.  ;-)

    Alan
    Maverick Leftist

    by SlackerInc on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 09:12:32 PM PDT

•  More self-indulgence

  Me me me me me me me me!

  Me.  Me me me, me me me me me

  "Me me me.  Me me me me.  Me me."

  ME!!!!

  by Bob Johnson on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 09:25:33 PM PDT

  •  I certainly ran that risk

    of a "navel gazing" diary.

    OTOH, I think I ought to have the right to defend myself.

    shrug

    by SlackerInc on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 01:40:19 PM PDT