My fellow Americans, in the wake of chaos, lies, and war, a new order of freedom and democracy is dawning. This is the era of Bryce Exceptionalism. I, Bryce, was anointed by my creator with a unique understanding of morality and the governing of men when soon after my birth I chose freedom and democracy as guiding principles of my life. This was revealed to me in my divine vision of a Shinning Guy upon a Hill(available in paperback)
You will be as a guy upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon you, so that if you deal falsely with God in this work you have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from you, you shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world.
And in this vision, blessed by God Himself for as long as I stay true to this vision. And there on my hill I will be a beacon to all who seek a life of freedom and democracy. I vow to stay true to this holy vision come hell or high-water.
How dare you? How dare you Mr. Friedman attempt to associate yourself with the informed opinions you have so derisively dismissed in the past? The history of your column is a litany of unquestioned support of neocon lies about Iraq. You defended the war-mongering. You defended the fear-mongering. You defended the invasion. You defended occupation. And now, you defend the escalation. You are no liberal. You are what you argue. You are a neocon.
I can hear the conservative campaign commercials and stump speeches this year whisper their sweet siren just like they always have:
The modern GOP strongly defends our security, the Constitution, limits big government, fights for truth, justice, honesty, accountability, moral values and the American way. Really, trust us.
But this year, I hear something else as well, the steady drip of scandal after scandal laying bare the lies hidden behind slogan.
I've recently discovered what may become our most prized family heirloom. In the back of an old chest, between yellowed newspaper and some transcripts of a 1932 FDR speech I found it: my great grandmothers recipe for powder. At first time I read its' simple text, I knew the value of this treasure. I gently blew off the dust and wonder how such an important document could have become lost to liberals for so long.
I just heard another "Call To Action". That's it... one to many... that was the straw and the camel's back is broken. I can't take it anymore....
"Elections have consequences." Now some Democrats have used this phrase to illustrate why their bowing to the GOP's intimidation was the right thing to do, but I use them for a different purpose. Elections decide who governs. The Democratic Party is in the opposition and that is exactly how it should act. Oppose, rhetorically, every page of legislation that is proposed by the GOP. If the bill passes, they are the majority; they have won the right to pass legislation. But, they should expect no help from us, nor should they expect silence no matter how much they spin. And they should know that when they pass bad law (like the "national language" bill) than they will get flogged with it from signing till the next election. Now is the time for... words.
Mr. President, I have had enough of your lies, your arrogance, and your incompetence. Last night, you asked for our support because we must not shrink from the threat of terrorism. I am convinced that we face a far greater threat than terrorism: you, Mr. President. You have become a far greater threat than Al Qaeda because in response to their attack you seem willing to sacrifice many of the things we hold most dear: our security, our military, our freedom, and our democracy.
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.
In response to Chris Bowers and others call to reframe the War on Terror, I propose we broaden the discussion to any enemy. So I propose this question: How should a liberal treat their enemy?
What are the topics that we can't talk about and be taken seriously? And how did they get that way? A lot of the Ohio vote controversy here has resulted because the one side is considered a conspiracy theory, and thus totally discredited. Automatically. Why can't we have a serious discussion about the possibly of and evidence of conservatives getting together to break the law?
-- more --
In an attempt at reframing issues from the progressive perspective, I encourage diaries to suggest frames on important issues, and offer them for discussion.
New Frame: Enforced Pregnancy
Argument: I oppose enforced pregnancy. The government should not force any woman to bear a child against her will.
Ever since the day before the election I've a song stuck in my head: Bob Marley's "Three little birds". You know the one; the chorus goes "Don't worry about a thing. Every little thing is gona be all right". Watching the exit polls, the returns, the concession and acceptance speeches, the pundits proclaim the triumph of the Religious Right, none of it ruined my mood. Am I stunned, or in denial? Where did this emotional shield come from? I haven't felt the depression so often expressed on Dailykos.com after the election. And until now I could not explain it to myself.
Our efforts thus far in combating al Qaeda have failed because we are feeding our enemy with ever victory. Every time we kill an Iraqi, we feed terrorism. Weather through donations from other Moslem countries or a vengeful family members taking up arms, our heavy handed tactics are working against us. We must stop wasting our troops swelling the ranks of al Qaeda. We must starve this beast.
Any efforts directed against al Qaeda should concentrate their funding and recruitment abilities. Following these guidelines, we will starve al Qaeda.
Religious conservatives have won on an agenda of bringing Christian dogma to a courtroom near you. Weather it be abortion, FCC regulations, marriage equality, or your choice of religion, the right is intent on choosing for you how you will live. Our liberal leaders have shot back with a resounding silence. Their fear of being labeled immoral has stymied them.
It is time we, as liberals, stop hiding behind Supreme Court decisions older than we are, abandoning homosexuals, and battling for the Bible belt at all costs. We would do better arguing for those want the freedom to listening to Howard Stern, have an abortion, choose a lover of the same sex, buy pornography, pierce and tattoo whatever we want, or pray to Buddha. Why should we be forced to cease and desist when we hurt no one else? Howard Stern is already off the air. The possibility of overturning Roe is no longer remote; it is now likely. Not long ago this would be dismissed as hysteria, but with John Ashcroft in control of the Justice department and Bush claiming leadership of the nation, this administration will work to limit our moral freedom.
We have seen the conservative method fail this week in striking detail. The big lie failed. Faced with incontrovertible evidence the administration is still scrambling for an effective way to spin the looting of the Al Qaqaa explosives.
That's not to say they haven't tried. When the big lie fails always make it bigger. That's the rule. The Washington Times thinks the Russians took the explosives before the invasion. The Pentagon released photos showing trucks outside the bunkers to back that up. Neither explains the video footage of the bunker in April 03. If those lies don't work, they'll try something else. They can't help themselves. The most important thing to understand here is that their best strength has turned into their greatest weakness. Doggedly staying on the message handed down from the RNC and never admitting mistakes has done wonders for conservatives since the "Republican Revolution" of the mid 90s. But attempting to refute the obvious with nothing but spin will ruin their credibility. We are seeing their prime vulnerability. We should give them more examples of reality to dismiss out of hand.
The first step to recovery is to admit we have a problem. The problem in Iraq is the occupation. The reason we are there is impose our will. Until we confront this fact the Iraqi's will continue to resist.
We must liberate the people of Iraq. Allow them to run their own affairs. Removing Sadam Hussein from power was a good deed. But replacing one iron fist with another helped no one in Iraq.
I've been noticing lately that some prominent conservatives making boldface hypocritical charges. The Bush campaign has attacked Kerry through the Swift Boat Liars as cowardly. George Bush spent his military career in the Texas Air National Guard. Bill O'Reilly calls Paul Krugman a propagandist during their debate while using time honored propagandistic techniques as straw men, guilt by association, and name-calling. "Hypocrite" doesn't seem to be in their vocabulary.
One of the greatest untapped possibilities of bloggs is creating and distributing policy. A volunteer think tank could create policy papers representing the progressive point of view and distribute them from one site. The debate could work like the open source software community. A topic is opened for discussion and comments requested. The best opinions and arguments would be voted into the current position paper. If and when someone comes up with a better argument and the community agrees, the position changes.
In the name of peace and democracy, this administration replaced one unpopular Iraqi authoritarian with another, sacrificed over 900 soldiers lives along with over 5000 wounded, killed thousands of Iraqi civilians, and is spending approximately 100 billion per year with no end in sight. In response to any criticism, our president insists that we must "stay the course". And though criticism to his hard line stance abounds, we have yet to discuss alternatives.
We can exit this quagmire, but we must first understand the muck around us. We are held by a fallacy witch states that democratic elections must wait till there is peace and stability. We should stop thrashing about fighting an enemy we cannot seem to identify.
