Liberals? We Don’t Got No Stinkin’ Liberals Here
In his Washington Post elections blog, Dan Balz writes:
Long before wrapping up the Republican nomination, McCain made clear that against either Clinton or Obama, he would cast the campaign as a contest between liberalism and conservatism. He has strayed from Republican orthodoxy at times in his career, and has irritated his own party repeatedly by the brashness of his style and his willingness to work with Democrats. But this week has provided renewed evidence that the general election will offer Americans a clear contrast in governing philosophies.
Unfortunately, that’s just not true. Regardless of who the Democratic nominee actually is, what voters will find in November is not a contest between liberalism and conservatism, but between pragmatism and conservatism.
A liberal candidate would not, like Hillary Clinton, issue a mandate on the private purchase of health care, or like Barack Obama, concentrate on making insurance more affordable.
Instead, a liberal candidate would call for true, single-payer universal healthcare, a system that removes the whole concept of for-profit insurance companies from the equation by expanding Medicare to cover all Americans, including dental care, mental care, visual care, long-term care, and prescription drugs. It would be paid for by our taxes, the same way we pay for our community policing and fire safety, our education, and our roads. No private citizen would have to see a healthcare bill, ever.
A liberal candidate would not, like Hillary Clinton, want to continue the embargo against Cuba, or like Barack Obama, say that “tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power — political, economic, and military — could bring success [in the Middle East] even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria.
Instead, a liberal candidate would suggest something as revolutionary as a Department of Peace to stand proudly beside the Department of Defense. Think about that for a moment. The 2008 budget for the Department of Defense tops out around $500 billion. That’s $500,000,000,000 spent in the preparation of war. Think about shifting just ONE of those billions of dollars to a new department in the executive branch whose sole purpose would be preventing war.
A liberal candidate would not, like Hillary Clinton, support the invasion of the Netherlands if a U.S. military officer was arrested by the International Criminal Court, or like Barack Obama, hedge on the issue, asking for more safeguards for Americans.
Instead, a liberal candidate would admit that America’s military personnel and its political leaders are just as culpable as the soldiers and leaders of developing countries. A liberal candidate wouldn’t suggest that Americans deserve more leniency when it comes to international war crimes simply because of their American heritage. They wouldn’t suggest that American actions are beyond the reproach of the world community.
A liberal candidate would not, like Hillary Clinton, work to expand the military, or like Barack Obama, call for an additional 65,000 Army soldiers and 27,000 marines. A liberal candidate wouldn’t look at a military budget that comprised 46% of the world total and say, “We need more.”
Instead, a liberal candidate would suggest that we cut our military budget by at least 15%. Consider: “U.S. military spending is 29 times as large as the combined spending of all six rogue nations (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion.” A liberal candidate would redirect that 15% — which amounts to $75 billion — to support domestic policies like education, infrastructure (Minneapolis bridge, anyone?), and healthcare.
A liberal candidate wouldn’t, like Hillary Clinton, have supported the Defense of Marriage Act, or like Barack Obama, say that “marriage is something sanctified between a man and woman.”
Instead, a liberal candidate would stand by this nation’s inexorable march toward equal rights and recognize that preventing gays and lesbians from marrying the persons they love is of a kind with refusing African-Americans the right to vote. A liberal candidate would say that the promise of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution extends to every American, regardless of how “different” their lifestyles may be.
I support Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential Election, and if she maneuvers to win the Democratic nomination, I will vote for Hillary Clinton in November, but make no mistake: neither of the Democractic candidates are dyed-in-the-wool liberals. They are both left-leaning centrists.
If the Democratic party wanted to nominate a liberal candidate, they would have nominated Dennis Kucinich.