Tag Archives: liberal

Words

Several years ago actress turned animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot found herself in legal trouble with French authorities.  The former screen siren openly condemned the Islamic practice of animal slaughter during the Aid al-Kabir holiday. She’d been in such a predicament before – several times.  French law doesn’t actually forbid disparaging religious ideology, but it looks down sharply upon it, as it can be considered slander or worse, a conduit to hate-obsessed violence.

It’s surprising, considering France fought hard against Nazi occupation during World War II.  One tenet of Nazism is that anyone who speaks out against the government is deemed a traitor.  But, short of slander or threats of violence, criticism of governing bodies and religion is free speech.  Imprisoning anyone, or even threatening to levy a monetary penalty for such views, runs counter to that.

All of it strikes hard for me – and other writers and artists – here in the U.S., as we witness ongoing assaults on various forms of free speech.  Book bans remain a primary source of concern.  And with Republicans in charge of the White House and both houses of Congress, the attacks continue.  Social extremists have always been opposed to any viewpoint that doesn’t conform to their standards – whether it’s coming from the left or the right.  The voices of moderates seem to get lost in the chaos.

Recently the U.S. government – under pressure from the Trump administration – compiled and presented a list of words that are forbidden on federal web sites and other documentation.  They include such terms as “biologically male”, “clean energy”, “inequality”, and “woman”.  This is real!  I have a tendency towards creating outrageous stories, but I’m not intoxicated or deranged.  Well…not yet.

Regardless, the list definitely isn’t a manifestation of liberal outrage at the most right-wing president in decades.  It’s a result of years of conservative ideology designed to put people and institutions in categories and re-enshrine bigotry and hatred into the American conscience.  The leftward shift in culture and politics in the U.S. beginning in the late 1950s eventually met the hostility of Reaganesque antipathy towards anything viewed as different or the other.  The Trump era is the culmination of it all.

Those in formerly marginalized groups who also voted for Trump and his ilk shouldn’t be surprised – but they are.  For example, Cuban-Americans voted overwhelmingly for Trump, as they often have for the Republican Party.  As Cuba has been under communist rule since 1959, those fleeing the country have been given special protection from American law.  The same luxury hasn’t been granted to people fleeing war and violence in other Latin American nations, such as El Salvador and Guatemala.  However, the Trump Administration’s efforts to reform immigration law have started to impact thousands of Cuban immigrants.  Now, Cuban-Americans have the audacity to be horrified at the betrayal.  Remember the adage: be careful what you wish for; you might just get it.

We also need to recall the words of Martin Niemöller:

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Trump and his cronies appear to be going after anyone who doesn’t fit the narrow definition of who he is.  His hypocrisy is glaring.  He never outwardly espoused any religious fervor until he first ran for president, but now says Christian ideology should be taught in schools.  If he believes in true biblical content, then consider the Christian Bible’s 7th commandment: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Exodus 20:14.

There are others.

“I am a stranger and an alien residing among you; give me property among you for a burying place, so that I may bury my dead out of my sight.” Genesis 23:4

“The sinless one among you, go first. Throw the stone.” John 8:6-11

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:30-31

I’m sure this would be too much for him to handle.  It’s too much even for some devout Christians to handle!

Whatever words someone wants to use, they shouldn’t be frightened into compliance.  Russia, Iran and North Korea do that.  No truly democratic society wants to echo such autocratic leadership.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays

Glassed

Around the turn of the century, I saw news that a women’s college here in the U.S. had contemplated admitting men within a year or two.  The shock and outrage from the female student body was as palpable as it was vociferous.  Ironically the institution had a male chancellor at the time.  He tried explaining to the crowd that the college was trying to maintain its viability, but his voice was suffocated by the intense hysteria.  You would have thought the incoming male students would be selected from a sex offender registry.  I’m sure those young women had long since bought into the feminist myth that all men are naturally prone to violence, especially sexual assault.  Almost immediately, however, the college rescinded its decision, much to the delight of the students.  That same male chancellor made the announcement by unfurling a banner that bore the term “For Women Again”.  The crowd erupted into cheers of relief; some even popping open bottles of champagne.

At the bank where I worked at the time, the subject arose during a lunch conversation.  I was the only man in the small group, and my female colleagues collectively agreed that they understood the reticence of that college’s students to admit men.  But, of course, I had to opine by highlighting the obvious anger those young women expressed at the initial announcement.  “I wonder what those little girls will do when they enter the adult world and have real problems.  And there’ll be men all over the place, and there’s not a goddamn thing they can do about it.”

I suppose my constituents weren’t surprised by the statement, but to some extent, they had to concur.  There was a time when the genders were explicitly separated, and everyone seemed fine with it.  Men did this, and women did that.  And things functioned relatively well.

But I pointed out that, if women want true equality, they have to accept that men are part of that equation.  In many ways, for centuries, men have excluded women from the decision-making process; claiming there was a “place” for them.  Women have fought back and demanded a place at that proverbial decision-making table.

Oddly one of the women sitting with me in that lunch room didn’t believe women should be in positions of power, such as the U.S. presidency.  “We have too many emotional and hormonal problems!” she said, much to the shock and chagrin of the other women.  She wasn’t the first woman from whom I’d heard that.  But this was 2000, and I was certain such beliefs had been relegated to ancient times – like dial phones.

A few years before that particular conversation a similar debate arose among me and some female colleagues at the bank; another one about gender parity.  I noted that, if women wanted true equality with men, they needed to start registering for Selective Service – like the men have to do.  In the U.S., Selective Service is the most blatant form of sexism.  The current system was reinstated in 1980 by then-President Jimmy Carter.  Every male in the U.S. born since January 1, 1960 has to register for it within 30 days of their 18th birthday.  In the face of a never-ending Cold War and the sudden Iranian hostage crisis, it was a call-back to an older time in America.  There’s no penalty for late registration, but there are plenty of punishments for failure to register – including jail time and a six-figure fine; no admittance to college; and no financial aid.  The issue was a big one when I was in high school and it became a concern during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

In the aforementioned workplace conversation, one of my female colleagues – the mother of a single college-aged son – responded, “When men get pregnant,” before storming off.  Another woman concurred with a laugh.  But I pointed out that men have to register for Selective Service; otherwise, face some serious legal repercussions.  Women, on the other hand, don’t have to have children if they don’t want.  There is no law that compels women to get pregnant.  My female cohorts couldn’t offer a logical reply.

All of that came back to me last week, when Vice-President Kamala Harris accepted the Democratic Party’s nomination as presidential candidate.  She’s only the second woman and the first non-White woman to be so honored.  This year’s presidential campaign has literally turned out to be the oddest in decades; certainly the most unusual in my lifetime.  And at the age of 60, I don’t have too many first time experiences left.

I started coming of age in the 1970s, just as the contemporary feminist movement was making more concerted inroads into a patriarchal American society.  I recall how just being male seemed to become anathemic.  Many women demanded full and complete equality with men in every aspect of civilization.  Yet, by the 1990s, I noticed some women (and men) expected a double standard.

Women can’t reasonably demand to be treated as equals to men in business and politics, yet still expect to be placed in the same category as infants and children when it comes to their health and welfare.  In other words, don’t insist on being given the chance to be the CEO of a major corporation, a governor, a Supreme Court justice, or president of the United States and still want to be the first ones in the lifeboat when the ship hits the ice berg.

If you want equality, I’ll give you equality.  But, remember the old saying: be careful what you wish for; you might just get it.  When it comes to progressive attitudes, I sometimes think of the 1967 film “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”.  Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn portray a liberal San Francisco couple whose all-inclusive ideology is tested when their daughter (Katherine Houghton) introduces her fiancé (Sidney Poitier) to them.  While the movie is rife with stereotypes, the general message is essential: how sincerely should people value and hold onto their beliefs.  The presidency of the United States has often been deemed the ultimate “glass ceiling” for women.  As we march further into the 21st century, members of every previously-marginalized group need to consider how much shattered glass they want on the floor of progress.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays

History Wash

“History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.”

Maya Angelou

Last November, when he won reelection by a large margin, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis declared that “Florida is where woke comes to die.”  I still don’t know who created the term “woke”, much less why or when.  But it’s become the latest toy in the diaspora of political angst.  If “woke” means historically accurate or aware, then those of us with at least half a brain are more than fully “woke”.  I can’t say the same for the conservative mindset.

In the latest salvo against historical accuracy, the state of Florida’s education board approved a spate of standards in teach African-American history.  The new measures require lessons on race to be taught in an “objective” manner that doesn’t “indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view”.  Excuse me?  Objective?  Indoctrinate?  Only social conservatives in the Deep South would view solid history studies as indoctrination.

Not to be outdone on the ignorance scale, an Oklahoma education official, Ryan Walters, has declared that the notorious 1921 Tulsa race massacre – which resulted in the bloody deaths of some 300 African-Americans – wasn’t actually about race and that teachers should not “say that the skin color determined it”.  The 1921 Tulsa event remains one of the most sanguineous racial events in U.S. history.  It’s similar to a 1923 slaughter in Rosewood, Florida.  But, in the eyes of social (and mostly White) conservatives, they apparently were just really bad days.

Not surprisingly, these changes in teaching regimens have generated controversy – and anger.  In response to Walters’ claim, Alicia Andrews, chair of the Oklahoma Democratic Party, stated, “How are you going to talk about a race massacre as if race isn’t part of the very cause of the incident?”

In response to the recent Florida measures, the Florida Education Association, a statewide teachers union, denounced the new policy as a “big step backward.”  Andrew Spar, president of the association, issued a press release asking, “How can our students ever be equipped for the future if they don’t have a full, honest picture of where we’ve come from? Florida’s students deserve a world-class education that equips them to be successful adults who can help heal our nation’s divisions rather than deepen them.”

This is why we progressives view conservatism with disdain.  To us, conservative ideology is often regressive; holding onto false narratives of life’s events and who people are.  It’s also an improper revision of what happened way back when.  In 2015, controversy erupted when one of the biggest publishers of school textbooks, McGraw-Hill presented a tome that deemed African slaves as “immigrant workers”.  The caption accompanied a map of the United States in a section about immigration and read: “The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.”

The verbiage had gone unnoticed until the mother of a 15-year-old high school student raised hell over it.  McGraw-Hill promptly recalled the book and issued a public apology.

And that is what people have to do now when they encounter something so outrageous.  Ignorance is not education.  Just as the truth always comes to light, so does history.  Revising it to fit a particular narrative won’t change the facts.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays

Best Quote of the Week – May 8, 2020

A first edition of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby” that was auctioned in 2013. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District in Alaska removed the book and others because of sexual references and other language that the district viewed as inappropriate for teenage readers.

“Of course it can. All great literature makes us uncomfortable, because it addresses what makes us fully human. That includes our worst traits, like hatred of those who are different from us. So if your goal is to shield kids from discomfort, you’re going to have to censor a lot of really good books.”

Jonathan Zimmerman, education and history professor at the University of Pennsylvania, on the ubiquitous hypocrisy of liberals who want to ban books using racial slurs from grade and high school curriculums, yet remain silent about the banishment of other books by equally well-known authors with equally controversial subjects and verbiage.

1 Comment

Filed under News

Best Quote of the Week – May 1, 2020

“We need liberal democrats to fight against the new populism; liberal socialists to fight against the frequent authoritarianism of left-wing regimes; liberal nationalists to fight against contemporary xenophobic, anti-Muslim, and anti-Semitic nationalisms; liberal communitarians to fight against the exclusivist passions and fierce partisanship of some ‘identity’ groups; and liberal Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists to fight against the unexpected return of religious zealotry.  These are among the most important political battles of our time, and the adjective ‘liberal’ is our most important weapon.”

Michael Walzer, writer and political theorist, in Dissent

Leave a comment

Filed under News

Tweet of the Week – December 20, 2019

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.”

– Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), in response to the ‘Conservative Squad’.

The ‘Conservative Squad’ is a quartet of Republican congressional candidates – Michelle Fischbach of Minnesota; Nancy Mace of South Carolina; Jessica Taylor of Alabama; and Beth Van Duyne of Texas – who claim they are the answer to four Democratic women in Congress known as the ‘Squad’: Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Ohio.

Leave a comment

Filed under News

If Being Liberal Means…

Here in Texas, as well as in other predominantly conservative regions of the United States, the term “liberal” is equal to demonic.  Personally, I consider myself a political and social moderate – which, to most conservatives – still means liberal.  Anything to the slightest left of the small-minded rhetoric of right-wing, Judeo-Christian ideology is blasphemously liberal.  But, as you surely know by now, I deplore being placed in boxes to suit other people’s needs and desires.  Those who have dared to always end up with a rectal thermometer-style rebuke from me.  Their rules don’t apply to me.

But, for the past 30 years, liberals have allowed themselves to be defined by the opposition.  They’ve hidden their true sentiments about politics and social order within the lockboxes of their minds.  Outspoken liberals have been relegated to the coastal U.S. and urban America.  Thus, they are viewed as elitists and globalists; cretins who dismiss the notion of “American exceptionalism” (whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean).

In truth, liberal means educated and open-minded; compassionate and understanding.  I’m steadfast in my own outlook and opinions.  Overall, I’m just left of the center, which – again – means extremist, bleeding-heart, bed-wetting liberal to the right-wingers.  They can call me whatever name they wish, if it makes them feel empowered in their MINI Cooper of a mind.  I’ve endured worst name-calling grade school.

But, if being liberal means…

  • I believe true freedom begins with free speech and the right to vote and not with a gun.
  • I believe the United States was founded on religious freedom and separation of church and state and not Judeo-Christian beliefs.
  • I don’t believe White males have all the answers.
  • Europe is not the foundation of civilization.
  • I read more than the Christian Bible and a TV guide.
  • Men and women possess different attributes, but are still equal
  • The human race is really the only race on Earth.
  • There is life beyond this planet.
  • Industrial enterprises don’t have the right to profitably pollute the environment.
  • Queer people aren’t diabolically dangerous.

…then you can call me a liberal.  I call myself a human being with my own thoughts and opinions.  And I don’t have to run any of these by other folks, just to get their approval.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays