After watching the VP debate, you could imagine that homosexual Democrats and gay marriage advocates would be demoralized; once again, they watched the Democratic candidates mimic the Republicans on that issue.
But that would assume they don’t perceive the wink-wink, nudge-nudge that has become the Democratic modus operandi — concealing liberal policy with a fig leaf of conservative-sounding rhetoric.
In this instance, Sen. Joe Biden said there would be “no distinction, none whatsoever” between heterosexual and homosexual couples, before adding an implausible disclaimer: “[BRCK BM] nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage.”
A more potent example is abortion. Practically every Democratic politician in the United States now claims to be “personally pro-life,” which is essentially indistinguishable from being “pro-choice.” The tell is how comfortable the abortion lobby remains with this development, given that the “safe, legal and rare” mantra and the calls for finding common ground by reducing unwanted pregnancies results only in more public funding for organizations like Planned Parenthood. Or did you think the Democrats had any other method in mind? They certainly won’t be demanding abstinence education, championing individual responsibility or encouraging traditional faith-based solutions.
You can go down the list of hot-button issues, and in most cases, you’ll hear the Democrats sugar-coating their comments with conservative buzz words and halfhearted appeals to conservative values:
- They’re not against the 2nd Amendment right to self-defense, they’re just in favor of severe restrictions that limit how you can obtain firearms, where you can use them, and who can legally carry them.
- They’re not in favor of higher taxes for you, they’re just in favor of higher taxes for everyone else — your neighbor, your employer, evil corporations and greedy people.
- Sure they support a balanced budget, they just want to raise taxes and decrease defense spending enough to meet ever-higher levels of entitlement spending.
- Sure they support the troops, they’re just against funding their mission and against allowing them to complete it successfully.
- Sure they support the war on terror, they just object to calling it a war on terror, identifying the enemy, defeating the enemy in the “central front” of Iraq, confronting it on the battlefield rather than the courtroom, securing our borders and shoring up the nation’s defense in any practical way.
The nation would be better off if the Democrats would just come clean with what they really think about the issues, but as long as conservatism appeals to the majority of voters, we’ll be subject to increasingly muddled debates.
You can go down the list of hot-button issues, and in most cases, you’ll hear the Republicans sugar-coating their comments with liberal buzz words and halfhearted appeals to liberal values:
* They’re not against immigration, they’re just in favor of severe restrictions that limit who can come into the country, prescribe what immigrants can do when they get here, and reserve the right to kick them out of the country at a moment’s notice.
* They’re not in favor of higher taxes for you, they’re just in favor of putting your great-great-great-great grandchildren into debt.
* Sure they hate war, they just want to spend more on warmaking technologies that have little apparent value in the current climate and to ensure that the rhetoric we have stands up to the wars we might one day wage.
* Sure they support veterans, they’re just against extending total health benefits beyond their immediate terms of service or helping them get an education by extending the GI Bill.
* Sure they support the war on terror, they just prefer to let the enemy define where the “central front” is, legitimize the enemy’s goals by treating them as if they are more than common criminals, and “enhance” the nation’s defense in impractical ways that do little but antagonize powerful states and ignore the real threats.
* Sure they support giving lip service to regulation, they just prefer to protect the revolving door between public service and private lobby, enrich their friends with outsize giveaways on the front and back ends, and lament the inconvenience of having to enforce laws that are intended to prevent the poisoning of public land, water and air.
The nation would be better off if the Republicans would just come clean with what they really think about the issues, but as long as common sense appeals to the majority of voters, we’ll be subject to increasingly muddled debates.
(Mick, when you write posts like this, it always seems as though you’re surprised at how political rhetoric works. But that can’t be true, can it?)
Hey Mick,
I read your blog all the time and just had to voice a Ditto on this one! Have you been on the phone with Rush?
How does political rhetoric work, Greg?
In mysterious ways, Mick. Would you like me to recommend some books?
Dear Greg,
Your comment doesn’t address Mick’s point that Democrats (Obama in particular) are dressing their liberal wolves in conservative sheepskin in order to appeal to the conservative heart of this country.
Or are you seriously alleging that Republicans (McCain in particular) are taking more liberal stances for political convenience? If so, you’re doing a poor job of it.
* They’re not against immigration, they’re just in favor of severe restrictions that limit who can come into the country, prescribe what immigrants can do when they get here, and reserve the right to kick them out of the country at a moment’s notice.
It’s pretty much accepted that John McCain has moved toward the RIGHT on this issue. I personally believe this for political reasons, not ideological (I hope); still, doesn’t support your thesis.
* They’re not in favor of higher taxes for you, they’re just in favor of putting your great-great-great-great grandchildren into debt.
Being against higher, more patriotic taxes is a liberal principle?
* Sure they hate war, they just want to spend more on warmaking technologies that have little apparent value in the current climate and to ensure that the rhetoric we have stands up to the wars we might one day wage.
Ok, at least this one fits the template, as “hating war” is supposedly a liberal principle. (never mind that it is really “some wars”)
* Sure they support veterans, they’re just against extending total health benefits beyond their immediate terms of service or helping them get an education by extending the GI Bill.
Again, is supporting veterans a liberal principle? Nope.
* Sure they support the war on terror, they just prefer to let the enemy define where the “central front” is, legitimize the enemy’s goals by treating them as if they are more than common criminals, and “enhance” the nation’s defense in impractical ways that do little but antagonize powerful states and ignore the real threats.
ditto.
* Sure they support giving lip service to regulation, they just prefer to protect the revolving door between public service and private lobby, enrich their friends with outsize giveaways on the front and back ends, and lament the inconvenience of having to enforce laws that are intended to prevent the poisoning of public land, water and air.
Ditto again. I’ll stick to attacking your failed structure of the first clause rather than absurdity of the second clause.
The truth is, Greg, you and Barak Obama are far more liberal than the vast majority of Americans, and many conservative principles are still very popular. Obama knows his real positions would cost him the election, which is why he has continued to slide toward the center in rhetoric. McCain was already in the center.
On the immigration question… is it really just Republicans who want to limit the number of visas available each year; offer visas that are specifically tailored to work, education or visitation; and assign consequences for activities that violate the terms of those visas?
Perhaps your immigration line was a tad hyperbolic and you simply meant it to read as an argument relative to a more liberal Democratic immigration policy that nevertheless still assigns immigration quotas and sets the terms and stay periods of visas?
Regardless, I personally favor increased levels of immigration, fewer restrictions and less severe consequences for visa violations, provided our tracking systems, enforcement operations and federal infrastructure are up to the task. I don’t consider that a liberal position, but perhaps others will disagree.
Or are you seriously alleging that Republicans (McCain in particular) are taking more liberal stances for political convenience?
The fact that McCain has a section on his website outlining a “plan” for health-care reform is evidence enough that you’re wrong about him not giving lip service to “liberal stances.” His policy proposals may resemble no liberal’s that you know, and the upshot of those proposals may do what few liberal proposals would, but given the fact that public opinion is widely in favor of some sort of government intervention in the health-care system, he has no choice but to talk about it at length.
But your question, Neil, that’s as absurd as Mick’s argument that “the nation would be better off if the Democrats would just come clean with what they really think about the issues.” Mick’s as red state as they come, but really? Only Democrats need to “come clean with what they really think about the issues”?
To the major point, perhaps we should grant Mick the benefit of the doubt. He’s writing about Democratic hypocrisy, and it’s a blog post, and he is under no obligation to be thorough because of it. His underlying wish is inclusive: “The nation would be better off if the everyone would just come clean with what they really think about the issues.” To that, If that does happen to be his underlying intent, I say: How romantic!
Now health care reform is liberal? That’s news to anyone who subscribes to free market conservative reforms such as those prescribed by Dr. David Gratzer.
Eighty-five percent of the Americans surveyed in the Kaiser poll I linked to in 7 are in favor of increasing government’s role in providing health insurance. But I take your point. Health-care reform is as liberal as “promoting life” is conservative.