Greater Democracy news and opinion via email:
- To subscribe, send a blank message to greaterdemocracy-subscribe at greaterdemocracy.org
- To unsubscribe, greaterdemocracy-unsubscribe at greaterdemocracy.org
Weblog Team
Dana Blankenhorn
Michael Cudahy
Jock Gill
Jon Lebkowsky
Robert Steele
David Weinberger
Paperless Papers
"...To Dare Mighty Things..." by Michael Cudahy (written specifically for Greater Democracy)
The Internet Constituency by David Weinberger
Open Spectrum FAQ
Why Open Spectrum Matters: The End of the Broadcast Nation by David Weinberger
Nodal Politics by Jon Lebkowsky
Societies of Cooperating Cognitive Solutions, a weblog post by Jock Gill
Is Money Killing Democracy in America? by Jock Gill
Resources
Howard Dean Meetup (first Wednesday of each month)
Blog for America: The Official Howard Dean Weblog
Center for Democracy and Technology
Nonprofit Technology Enterprise Network
Archives
October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002
Featured: A New Restoration – American Politics for the Third 100 Years by Michael Cudahy and Len VickersTuesday, October 28, 2003 An August Surpriseby Michael CudahyBush: Vice-President Cheney to Step Down Giuliani to Join Republican Ticket The Associated Press Thursday, August 26, 2004; 11:49 AM WASHINGTON -- A somber President George Bush said today, in an emotional Rose Garden press conference, that Vice-President Dick Cheney has asked to be replaced on the Republican ticket due to health reasons. With the Vice-President at his side, the President said that Cheney's health had to come before all other considerations. He thanked him for the selfless contributions he had made to his administration, and to the country, and wished him a calm and healthy retirement. Bush said that he had asked former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to join him on the Republican ticket, and that Giuliani had accepted. The President said that he was confident that his party's delegates would confirm his choice of Giuliani as Vice-President when they convened next week in New York for the 2004 Republican National Convention. ... Continued ... Discuss
Thursday, October 23, 2003 The Margin of Victoryby Michael CudahyAs the days grow shorter, and the nights get colder, and sleep becomes something that is measured in minutes – not in hours – it would seem that many Democrats have been forgetting the true purpose of the 2004 Presidential election. To defeat President George W. Bush, and put an end to two decades worth of neo-conservative abuse of the American system of democracy. These primary elections are not about inciting a new American revolution. Our system of government is too strong, and the people of this country are too wise to embark on such a potentially destructive journey. These elections are not about "Taking America Back." It does, after all, belong to us. They are about reminding those who have so slyly exploited the system that their manipulation is no longer welcome, and will no longer be tolerated. We do not live in Tiananmen Square. We are citizens of the United States of America. We are blessed with an eloquent set of canons drafted by gifted visionaries that begins, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union." Somewhere along the line, as the counters on the various presidential web sites and blogs click down the days until the first meaningful votes are cast, the tone has become increasingly shrill, amongst some in the Democratic political community. Meanwhile at The White House, Karl Rove and his campaign advisors are laughing. He is telling his friends, "I knew they'd do it, they're Democrats they just can't help it." If we play into Rove's hands, we will have squandered a rare opportunity to reshape the face of American politics and government. And, the Democratic Party will run the risk of exiling themselves to minority party status for the next generation. History has shown us that every presidential election has a dynamic that drives it. In my opinion, one of the defining issues that will decide this election is whether the Democratic Party is willing to embrace the hunger for change that is sweeping this nation, and welcome the millions of voters demanding that change into its ranks. As a disenfranchised Republican who is deeply dissatisfied with the status quo, I am looking for a home. And current polling shows that 14% of registered Republicans feel as I do. That is a potential of a minimum of 7,000,00 votes. Millions of Independents feel the same. It is the margin of victory. In this primary election season 20 states will allow Republicans to crossover and vote in Democratic primaries. Another 9 states will allow Independents to vote in either primary they choose. It would seem, however, that none of the Democratic presidential candidates have any particular interest in including those of us who do not have a (D) behind our name. The closer we get to the primaries the more partisan these contests become. And, at a moment when innovation, integrity and intellectual audacity would be deeply welcome, we seem to be returning to the politics of the past. If in fact the Democratic Party is to be the agent of change in next year's election, they must be willing to reach out to all of us who so desperately want to remove an administration that has abused its power, and our trust. Democratic presidential campaigns are implementing remarkable Internet innovations. Traditional web pages are being transformed into portals of meaningful policy, and organizational dialogue – using political blogs. Vast amounts of money are being raised – most in small donations, and thousands of Americans are being drawn into the political process – many for the first time. These web based interactive communications tools present the Democrats with the opportunity to reconfigure the landscape of American politics. They are engaging American voters in critical conversations about issues that will affect their lives, and the lives of their children. Instead of driving wedges between groups, like the Republicans have been doing for the last 25 years, they have the potential of creating a dynamic that can begin to bring people back together – in the great Democratic tradition. To have real power and value, these conversations must be welcoming and bipartisan – not just animated voices in self-contained echo chambers. This discourse must also contain a long term, visionary component. We must lay the groundwork for a new approach. We have an opportunity to establish a new American politics. A chance to distinguish the third century of our republic by reviewing and restoring the visionary principles provided to us by our founding fathers two hundred and twenty-seven years ago. This restoration must be built upon a willingness on the part of our leaders, and citizens alike, to anticipate, cooperate and innovate. As with all opportunities, however, it will not last forever. If we observe it, but allow it to slip away, we will face a political future written in the hand of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. The choice is ours, and we must make it now. Equally important, thousands of campaign workers must be willing to understand that political primary campaigns can be exhausting, nerve wracking crucibles that do not always end up the way they might hope. Whether people are working for Kerry or Clark, Dean, Gephardt or Edwards, they must make a personal commitment to the fact that the prize we are all fighting for is to take back The White House, and seats in the Congress as well. The answer is in our hands. Can we wage a tough, honest fight and emerge united in Boston this August? Or will we shatter the way Karl Rove is counting on, and deliver the election into the hands of George W. Bush? I, for one, am not eager for four more years. Discuss
Richard Florida: "Crazy people run this country"Richard Florida, author of The Rise of the Creative Class, speaking in Austin last night, ended his lecture with a strong note of caution about the Bush administration. Crazy people run this country, he said, and they're shutting the U.S. down, closing the borders and reviving the 50s control mentality. This is damaging in so many ways, but Florida's concern is that creative people won't come to America, and creative people in America will leave. Florida's research has shown a clear link between openness, creativity, and business innovation; his ongoing focus is on the relationship between creativity and economic growth. The message here is that there will be economic repercussions if the policies of the Bush administration are sustained much longer. All our creative people will flee, he says. We will lose what made us great. We have to struggle for the future of this country. [Link to Florida's Creative Class web site.] [Discuss] &ndash Jon Lebkowsky
Sunday, October 19, 2003 A conservative's review of Al Franken's 'Lies and the Lying Liars'Those of you who read Greater Democracy know that there are Republicans like Michael Cudahy to deplore "the exploitive and calculated rhetoric being employed by the current Republican administration in Washington." Add Becky Miller, former senior aide to Bill Sizemore, president of Oregon Taxpayers United, to the list of principled conservatives who are troubled by the dishonesty and unprincipled, undemocratic tendencies within the American neoconservative movement as it gains more power (and more arrogance). Miller has written a positive review of Al Franken's book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, something we didn't expect from a conservative, but the message here is that the line is not drawn according to ideology at this point. The line is between those who are committed to honest, fair democratic governance, and those who are committed to ... something else. [Discuss]
Friday, October 17, 2003 United Worldby Dana BlankenhornDemocrats need a meme that will overcome the Vietnam Syndrome I wrote about earlier, and will point in a new direction. During World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt had such a meme. He called it the United Nations. There was no such thing at the time. He used the phrase to describe America and its allies. In American propaganda films of that era, like Hollywood Canteen, you will see it used to refer to Chinese, Polish, and French "freedom fighters" as well as Americans and British troops. Since the UN was created in the wake of that war, American right-wingers have demonized it to the point where it has become as useless a political rallying point as the League of Nations was in the 1930s. This has been done deliberately. The demonization has reached a peak in our time, with Bush’ defiance of the UN seen as a badge of honor by most Americans. But the foreign policy issue of the 2004 election remains a question of unilateralism or multilateralism. So I propose a new meme to describe the Democratic stance, the United World. The fact is that in the War on Terror our enemies are weak, divided, and hopeless. They hide in caves. They have no home. They can triumph only if the world refuses to unite against them. The Bush policy has guaranteed this. The Bush policy can’t even win endorsement from Mexico or Canada. The stance of Canada regarding the Iraq War is very, very similar to that of France. When you’ve alienated Canada, you’ve gone too far. The U.S. was alone in the run-up to this war, it was alone in the prosecution of this war, and despite the Security Council approval of continued occupation, it remains alone. We are stretched beyond the breaking point by our rejection of the world. But rejection of the world has been a hallmark of Republican politics for nearly a century. It was why the Republicans rejected the League of Nations, why Republicans became isolationist (to the point of ignoring the rise of Hitler) in the 1930s. Despite Republican support for the Democratic-led Cold War, this rejectionist attitude returned as soon as that war was over. Against this, the Democratic Party has a century-old tradition of embracing the world. Woodrow Wilson died defending the League of Nations. Franklin D. Roosevelt died while bringing the United Nations into being. Today, as never before, the world is really on our side. The ideas of a competitive economy, individual liberty, and a government of the people are rejected less-and-less, even in East Asia, where China has embraced capitalism. Their fealty to our ideals is sometimes questionable, but it is growing. Our nurturing support of those ideals is all that is needed for them to triumph. Yet the Bush Administration has steadfastly rejected this. To these Republicans you’re either 100% with us or 100% against us – common ground isn’t seen unless it’s our ground. It’s a one-way street. This is childish. This is dangerous. If the world doesn’t hang together, in the face of international terrorism, then it will certainly hang separately. Thus, a United World. This is the meme we should lay out, this is the meme we should defend, this is the meme we should take to the American people. Unity, not unilateralism, is our strength. What does this imply for our future? It means going back to the UN and seriously engaging our Security Council partners on what to do about Iraq, not merely winning an endorsement of our solo efforts. It means working with the UN and Interpol to isolate and destroy the terrorist infrastructure, rather than acting in disregard of it. It means re-endorsing international treaties, on trade and the environment and disarmament, rather than rejecting them. It means, more than anything, rejoining the world community, standing with our allies instead of against them, recognizing that they share our pain and much of our view, and that they will join us if we will lead, rather than just demanding that it be our way or no way. A United World can save the planet, save its people, and end the threat of terrorism. A Divided World, the Bush World, assures only our destruction. It is leading to death right now, and the only way out of death is to embrace life. Unite the World, win the war, and then win the peace. Discuss United World
VerifiedVoting.orgby Jock GillDave Farber's IP list pointed at <http://www.verifiedvoting.org/> This is a very serious problem. A growing concern over the inadequacies of election equipment in the United States has recently been heightened by the problems of the 2000 Presidential election. Added to the mix is the election reform mandated by recent federal legislation attempting to address the concerns. The result is that many states are scurrying to replace their older equipment with new electronic voting computers. Unfortunately, election technology has not advanced to the point where it can provide us with electronic systems that are reliable enough to trust with our democracy. In other words, we just aren't there yet. Here are the facts: Computer experts say today's voting machines are prone to errors and vulnerable to fraud. Defective hardware and bugs in software could decide who wins an election. Even thorough testing can't reveal malicious programs that could subvert an election. Many election officials don't realize the risks inherent in using electronic voting machines. Courts have ruled that secret software can be used to record and count our votes. Manual recounts will be impossible in districts that don't allow voters to inspect a paper record of their votes. What does this mean about the 2004 election?Americans will use voting computers with secret software that has not been sufficiently scrutinized, just as they have in past elections. They will have to trust computers to record and count their votes correctly - computers that are not advanced enough to ensure the security and accuracy that could justify their trust. If something odd occurs, manual recounts of the original ballots will be impossible , because the only record of the votes will be in electronic form, which will, of course, match the questionable tally. ----snip, see <http://www.verifiedvoting.org/> for whole story Discuss VerifiedVoting.org
Wednesday, October 15, 2003 Vietnam Syndromeby Dana BlankenhornThe biggest lie ever told by the Right is the one about Vietnam Syndrome. Vietnam Syndrome, they say, is a disease of fear. The Gulf War cured it. Colin Powell himself said this, back in 1991. But Colin Powell lied twice. Vietnam Syndrome is not a disease of fear, it's a disease of arrogance. And the Gulf War didn't cure it. In fact, it's raging right now. I've been racking my brain wondering why millions of people, mostly male, continue to support this War. They lie about it, lie outrageously. They claim Saddam Hussein must be leading the resistance, that it's just a few malcontents, that behind the violence things are getting better. They claim we're going to win. Even Howard Dean is infected. But he just says we have to win. We're all afraid to fight Vietnam Syndrome, because we're all infected. And this is why Democrats have been so timid, in so many ways. Because Vietnam Syndrome isn't something a minority of us suffer from. It's what the majority suffers from. And in a democracy you don't take on the majority. Is your child taught about Vietnam in school? If it is mentioned at all (and usually it's not) the lesson is a lie, or at best, ambiguous. The fact is we LOST. And we deserved to lose. What we called Communism they called nationalism, and in the end more of them were willing to die for their country than were willing to die for the South Vietnam we created, mainly because we created it. Millions and millions of Vietnamese suffered horribly for decades, first fighting the French, then fighting us. They lived in tunnels like rats. They had their homes and farms bombed. They suffered chemical weapons attacks. Yet still they fought. And as soon as we tired of it, they swept through and won. Communism had nothing to do with it. They've been struggling against Communism ever since 1975. But Communism was the ideology their leaders fought under. That's because Communists were the only people willing to give them arms against the French. Communists supported them throughout the war with America. If that last paragraph was at all difficult for you to read, then you are suffering from Vietnam War Syndrome. Because that paragraph is simple historical truth. Look at it again. What is there for you to argue with? That Communists supported the Vietnamese? That the Vietnamese fought? That they suffered? That they won? But I doubt that any high school history program in America is teaching that paragraph as I just wrote it. The Right has systematically expunged the lesson from their own minds, and that of their children. And so we are making the same mistake again. We are confusing others' cause with our cause. Iraqis aren't fighting us because they like Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, anymore than southerners fought for the Confederacy because they all had slaves. They fight because we're there. Unlike the British, we have become an Occupying Power. We've got a lot of scared kids over there &ndash not enough of them – who shoot first and ask questions later for good reason. But every attack, and every response, hardens a few more Iraqi hearts and minds against us. So now more young people are willing to carry RPGs, to fire them against our cars and Humvees. Now more civilians are willing to lure American soldiers to ambush. As UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said just yesterday, as long as the occupation continues, "the resistance will grow" in Iraq. Yet we won't see it. The only cure for arrogance is humility, and this is a medicine millions of Americans would rather destroy the world than take. You go to a Republican meeting and preach humility, see how long you last. Preach humility on Fox, or at a Southern Baptist Convention. It's like trying to preach humility to the Daughters of the Confederacy in 1900. Vietnam has become the Lost Cause. We are all the South. Iraq has brought out the second rising of the Klan, the rising that begat Jim Crow, the Leo Frank case, and that "great piece of celluloid" (Woodrow Wilson's words) called "Birth of a Nation." Whether we win or lose this war is irrelevant to the syndrome. The lies are the problem, and the lies remain manifest. How deep do the lies go? A few months ago Colin Powell stood in the UN and said, with a straight face, that America has never fought a war of conquest. He said this right in front of the Mexican ambassador, a nation dismantled in 1848 by an American war of conquest, one that captured Mexico's capital, and lost it what are now Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico. How deep do the lies go? In 1902, an equal distance in time from the Civil War, as we are from Vietnam, Americans fought a guerilla war in the Philippines, having just won a second war of conquest, this time against Spain. We were about to take Panama from Columbia to build our canal. We felt then, as now, that we could do no wrong because our motives were so pure. Well we can. And we have. And until American classrooms are willing to teach that truth, the Vietnam Syndrome will go on and on. Discuss Vietnam Syndrome
Tuesday, October 14, 2003 The Role of GovernmentBy Jock GillThe use of the Internet by this year's presidential campaigns, to organize voters and fundraise, is beginning to exhibit the power and influence of new media, and their related tools. It enables us to talk together in a multitude of informed and personal conversations – outside the restrictions of traditional broadcast media and political parties. Until recently, we have been forced to be the passive consumers of mass market "advertising" and other unilateral forms of media and politics. Too many of us have forgotten we have a voice, that our voices are important, and that we can and must be heard. The "broadcast media" and politics of the last century have become increasingly celebrity driven - focusing on sensationalism - devoid of meaningful participation. The Internet and its variety of new, simple and low cost electronic tools are allowing us to rediscover our voices. It is important that we use them effectively. These new media, by their very nature, are creating new methods of composing and distributing the stories of the 21st century. These first generation tools, and soon second generation non-text based tools such as video and audio, are beginning to allow communities of interest to coalesce and dynamically discuss issues of interest that impact their lives. And they are starting to take organized actions in support of their interests. Many people call these "post-broadcast" stories, or the stories that are created and flourish beyond the boundaries of traditional media. One of the most significant new stories to emerge in the post- broadcast era is the evolution of communications in American politics. It is a story driven by frustrated, and frequently angry, citizens using escalated, available connectivity not only to be heard, but also to have an innovative and bipartisan impact on our current system of government. One of the first, and most important, conversation driven stories to emerge in the post-broadcast era must be regarding the proper role and scale of American government. Clearly government must be bigger than zero and smaller than 100%. So how big must it be, more or less, to support its generally agreed to mission? I would suggest that government must: 1] be a level playing field that does not pick winners or losers, and does not attempt to create equal outcomes; 2] be responsible for evaluating the size of opposing foreign forces that can be reasonably anticipated to threaten our country – and large enough to offer security in the face of such potential threats; 3] be large enough to protect the rights of individual citizens from the the abuses of the power that can be created by the largest concentration of economic interests, domestic and international; 4] support and maintain a reasonable public infrastructure; roads, communications, education, arts, environment, water, sewer, public safety, public health etc. There will be a lot of energized discussion on this point - as is appropriate. All in all, just what sort of a nation, culture, environment, economy and politics do we wish to leave to our grandchildren? We must focus on the evolution of our country and our world with an eye towards historic precedents, and the technological potential of the 21st century. Will it be more of the world of the latter third of the 19th century? Part President Hoover? Part FDR of the 30s and 40s? Will it be the vision of the Neo-Cons - a flat out rejection of the "New Deal", the civil rights movement and "The Great Society"? Will it be the vision of the DLC from the late 20th century? Or will it something new and greater than the sum of its many parts? Will it embrace words such as cooperation, anticipation and innovation as per the the? Cudahy & Vickers essay on Greater Democracy? What do you think? This is an important and engaging conversation. I look forward to seeing where it takes? us. Thanks to Micheal Cudahy for editing and Mitch Ratcliffe for some very useful and thoughtful comments on the first draft. Discuss The Role of Government
Thursday, October 09, 2003 Media Fascismby Dana BlankenhornIt has occurred to me, reluctantly, that we must not only fight to overthrow George W. Bush. We must fight to overthrow the media as we know it. We have too few media outlets to provide effective competition. What we have is an oligopoly, the kind enjoyed by Coke and Pepsi, or by Budweiser and Miller. This violates the basic rule of liberty, which requires vigorous competition so that people will be free to think as they will. Today there are two types of media companies. So-called “mainstream” companies, like Disney, General Electric, and Viacom, seek to maintain order, advantage and interest. They don’t seek to clarify issues. They seek, in fact, to muddy them, solely for ratings advantage. Then, of course, there is the “propaganda” media. Most of the attention here goes to Fox, but there’s also talk radio (which Fox doesn’t own), Pat Robertson’s holdings (such as UPI), the Washington Times, and The Wall Street Journal. Here there is no pretense to either public service or fairness. These media have succeeded in getting their viewers to believe outright lies (http://www.sunspot.net/features/ bal-to.fox04oct04,0,5444015.story?coll=bal-features-headlines). They are, in the end, no better than, and no different from, Pravda or the media outlets of the Third Reich. In a competitive world, the other media would challenge the propagandists, confront them directly, and fight for liberty. In this case, however, the oligopolists have made an accomodation. They will allow political power to be centralized by Fox’ friends in exchange for the maintanence of their shared monopoly. I would be far more depressed over this turn of affairs were I not an avid student of American history. At the turn of the last century Americans faced many of these same threats. Economic power was centralized among a small number of trusts, the media had become propagandistic, our young men were being sent to die on foreign soil. But there were two great movements afoot in America, and there were some ver y brave social reformers down in the grassroots. The movements were called the Populists and Progressives. The reformers included journalists like Upton Sinclair and Jacob Riis, activists like Jane Addams, political leaders like Robert LaFollette. Theodore Roosevelt gets a lot of the credit for what happened in that era, but in fact he was just following orders. He was following the orders of his President, William McKinley, and he was following the orders of the American people. Without the Progressive movement, Teddy Roosevelt could not have been a Great Man. Today’s Democratic Party faces a challenge. We have the Progressives on our side. We lack the Populists. Our failure to get them may cost Howard Dean the election. Our challenge is to get the Populists, in the South and the West, to make common cause with us, and thus to make a majority. But in the end that doesn’t matter. What matters is what we do, in the grassroots, in our own communities, in our lives as journalists, analysts, and thinkers. Everyone who signed Gov. Dean’s list has the power to move history just a little bit. They are each acquiring for themselves the skills of political organization. Through groups like the Dean Defense Forces and Dean Issues Forum, others are gaining skills in argument, in fact checking. In groups like Greaterdemocracy.org, still others are gaining skills in advocacy, and in developing issues. Throughout the blogosphere, journalists are getting around the media monopoly power, and they are being heard. I don’t know how long this process will take to work its way through. I don’ t know what form that “working through” might take. But I know it will happen. I know because it must happen. If it doesn’t, America ceases to be the hope of the world and becomes the chief threat to that hope. In which case it will happen somewhere else. &mdash Dana Blankenhorn Discuss Media Fascism
Tuesday, October 07, 2003 Notes on Post-Broadcast Communications: Transcript of a talk by Jock GillRecently I was reminded by Dewayne Hendricks that this year is the 100th anniversary of two watershed moments in the history of American science and technology. In 1903 we saw Guglielmo Marconi establish commercial radio service to Europe, and on December 17th of that same year the first successful sustained powered flights in a heavier than air machine were made by Wilbur and Orville Wright at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.As I sat down to prepare this talk, I was searching for a way to describe our enterprise as being an advance of equally significant proportions. In reviewing my research, and the materials I have written on this subject, I kept returning to the issues map on the Wirelessgrid web site. But this the map reminded me of a large fuzzy cloud -- fascinating to observe, but a little unclear with regards to its overall focus and ultimate goals. Quite frankly, it made me think of Bob Dole standing in front of a chart of the Clinton health plan -- large and confusing - and very hard to explain. And we all know the fate of that plan. I would guess, if I polled this room on the best possible set of solutions for how we could maximize the utility of our global wireless communications systems, I would get a wide variety of different answers. I suspect there are some people who would suggest a top down overhaul -- dominated by the large incumbent telecommunications interests. Other people might propose an answer that lies in a bottom up construction solution -- influenced by the hundreds of small and aggressive technology innovators around the world. But for the sake of this conversation today, I would like to suggest a third paradigm. Assume for a moment, if you will, a totally clean slate. You are in the position of the great creator and you can design any system you believe is best for a new, 21st century approach to wireless communications. You have at your disposal cutting edge physics, technology and information science architecture concepts. ... Continued ... Discuss Notes on Post-Broadcast Communications
Saturday, October 04, 2003 Rush Limbaugh May Teach Conservatives A LessonThis article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached and the title is unchanged.Published on Friday, October 3, 2003 by CommonDreams.org by Thom Hartmann The reaction to the drug problem - and drug felonies - recently alleged against Rush Limbaugh highlight sharply the differences between conservative morality and liberal/progressive morality. Conservatives often mistakenly proclaim themselves the sole holders of morality. Their error comes when they define this word first and foremost in terms of personal behavior: What goes on in people's bedrooms, what drugs others may be taking in their own living rooms, whether a woman should be allowed to prevent or terminate a pregnancy. In their fervor for these issues, many conservatives think they are the only ones concerned about morality in an otherwise decadent society. Liberals, however, are equally passionate about morality. While personal morality is key in the conservative world-view, public morality is the overarching concern of liberals. Some are so passionate about this morality that they're led to acts of civil disobedience. Perhaps best summarized in Jesus' description in Matthew 25 of who will (and who won't) get into heaven, liberal morality asks: "Are the hungry fed? Does everybody have the housing, clothing, and health-care they need? Are those in prison treated humanely? Are we caring for the "strangers" - the less fortunate or less competent among us - in the same way we'd want to be cared for if we fell on hard times?" Many liberals would say that what people do in the private lives is their own business, and that if we hold to the ancient standard that only those among us without sin may cast stones at those with personal failings, we'll have a more humane and decent society. Just as liberals hold public morality as a high positive virtue, public immorality equally disgusts them: Movie stars using their power and position to force themselves sexually in a non-consensual way on others. Politicians using their positions to award their buddies taxpayer money in grants, contracts, and tax breaks. Bureaucrats, expecting a job with industry when they leave regulatory agencies, allowing those industries to make our air, water, or food more toxic. Most liberals don't care how stoned Rush wants to get in the privacy of his own home (private morality), so long as he doesn't try to drive while high (public morality). Similarly, they don't have a problem with Bill Clinton's consensual extramarital sex (private morality), but are horrified that he'd sign GATT and NAFTA without human rights, environmental, or labor standards (public morality). Bill Bennett is welcome to gamble as much as he wants (private morality), but when he supports right wing causes that harm the environment or oppress women in America or people in the Third World (public morality) he has become toxic. There's an interesting consistency to these differing definitions of morality. Conservatives like Falwell probably are free of personal sins like philandering or pot smoking, and so feel righteous in condemning others who do. And because Falwell's definition of morality is limited to private behavior, he's comfortable hobnobbing with millionaires who made their money harming the lives of others or making the world more toxic. (Just so long as they don't sleep with somebody of the same sex!) On the other hand, because liberals like Martin Sheen define morality by how well we all are taking care of us, and he's most likely never worked to increase the amount of toxic waste in the air, he's willing to both overlook the personal foibles of others and to put his life and freedom on the line for the public morality he so passionately cares about. Which brings us back to Rush. Some believe that these private/public morality differences that form the demarcation line between conservatives and liberals are instinctual, an early imprint, or genetic, the same as a person being an introvert or extravert. Others believe they're the result of experience, and people can learn from their experience and grow up enough to become a liberal. Psychologists tell us that nobody knows for sure what causes a person to become a liberal or a conservative (although there are some interesting, and frightening, studies about the latter - but let's leave that for a future discussion.) It's going to be interesting to watch. Will Rush's apparent drug problem cause conservatives to grow in wisdom, reconsider the destructive nature of their so-called "war on drugs," and begin to treat drug addiction as a medical - instead of a legal - problem like so many other liberal nations have done? Might they even discover the importance of rebuilding the pillars of public morality on which this nation was founded - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Some say it's impossible. As a good liberal, however, I'm willing to cut Rush some slack and hope for his and his followers' enlightenment. Let's hope and pray that if he gets out of this okay, he'll work to help release the millions of others today in prison for personal poor choices about drugs. Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is the award-winning, best-selling author of over a dozen books, and the host of a syndicated daily talk show that runs opposite Rush Limbaugh in cities from coast to coast. www.thomhartmann.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached and the title is unchanged. Discuss Rush Limbaugh May Teach Conservatives A Lesson
|