Liberal is not a dirty word.

I had a nightmare last night.  A fire-breathing upstart with a low IQ rose from the governorship of Texas to snatch the GOP ticket.   Whether by intelligent  design or cosmic stupidity, this “good ol’ boy” convinced half the nation that skewed statistics  from  Texas were vastly better than they  really were and somehow managed to bring the mess he’d created in his  home state to the  rest of the nation. By the time he left office, the new  president had virtually destroyed the  middle class and  the foundations on which the nation has based itself  for  over 200 years–and   he  did  the  damage based on his elementary-child’s view of  the US Constitution.

All this because people  ” don’ t vote  for the party; they vote for  the  man.”

This demands a tough question:  have we as a nation recently waken up from this nightmare and some how lived through it, or is the whole  sorry  thing staring us in the face  yet again?

DJL

In the interest of fairness, I will make a complete list of all of the Texas Governor’s good qualities.  Here goes:

Copyright 2011, DJL

If  you think Rick Perry is a tolerable candidate  for  President, consider what   he’s done to  Texas.   The so-called “Texas Miracle” a) destroyed the middle class; b) got rid of the vast majority of public services; c) destroyed our infrastructure, including the police, fire, and emergency departments, and  d) destroyed public schools.  He’s ripped all public service out  of the state, all in the name of  tax cuts.  Perry claims he’s waging war against government, and then  he calls his enemies treasonous.

It is you, Mr. Perry, committing  questionable acts.  You’re destroying the middle class to feed  your greedy friends.

I have an   entire  dictionary full of names to call you, Mr. Perry.  But unlike you, I’m classy enough to show restraint.  I will say this:  Mr. Perry makes his  predecessor, George W. Bush, look like  a mental giant.

How do Republicans come up with  the   worst  possible candidates every single time?

Hey, I have an idea for Perry and the T-party.  *   Why should poor people go  to school, anyway?   They’re  poor!  Let’s just ship  the parents to debtor’s prison, and the kids  can go to workhouses.  To hell with the Horatio Alger  concept of pulling yourself up by the shoestrings.   Who needs shoestrings anyway–or shoes  for that    matter–if they’re in the T-Party world?  We’ll completely cut out public schools, only provide private schools for kids    who  can afford–er, who deserve them–and we’ll finish  it  off by slicing all taxes on the  upper class.

How do you justify getting rid of  education?   Easy  answer, Gov Good Hair.  You cling to your Bible.  After all,  man  fell from grace when  he ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

That’s it, Gov. Good  Hair.  Keep the population dumb.   That way they’ll vote for  you .

* T-Party, in my dictionary, stands for “Turpitudinous,  Terrifying, and Terrible.”

Copyright 2011, DJL

Fresh from a bout with illness and time constraints, the Masked Liberal rides again.  Coming soon is the new Reverand Silus Fudge Show and the Podcast That’s Built to Last for Eternity. . .  More or Lesss.  The Masked Conservative will also weigh in, while my commentary includes analysis of Obama’s triangulation and the stupidity involved in extending King George the W’s tax cuts.  Stay tuned for more. ..

DreamHost promo code

The animosity and closed-mindedness of the national debate hit home for me this week.  Earlier I posted my response to the illegal immigration issue,  stressing that knee-jerk reactions like Arizona’s policies  were  not only unconstitutional but ineffective.   I wrote that the problem was multi-faceted and we should address both the Mexican economic situation and the growing supply and demand for illegal drugs in this country.  In short, I asked that all sides examine the situation with new eyes, and that we avoid simplistic, non-rational reactions but work instead to debate and discover a realistic solution.

Then I sent the article to  several Tea Party friends asking them to open up a debate.   In response, thus far,  they’ve insisted that theirs is the only way and demanded an end to the discussion.

Past discussions with Tea Partiers revealed that I was a Liberal Fascist–they’re the same, my friend reasoned, despite what is written in the history and government books (after all, academia is controlled by liberals)–and that Senator McCarthy was right about the Communists and should be vindicated.  One Tea Partier, unaware of my identity, pointed out this blog as being “dangerous” because it’s liberal, and another used “liberal” as an all-encompassing dirty label  until I asked him to stop labeling, upon which he refused discussion because I wouldn’t allow him to “debate.”

In his May 16 editorial, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman writes “voters tend to react with their guts, not in response to analytical arguments — and in bad times, the gut reaction of many voters is to move right.”  Further, he analyzes a recent study by Brückner and Grüner, “who find a striking correlation between economic performance and political extremism in advanced nations: in both America and Europe, periods of low economic growth tend to be associated with a rising vote for right-wing and nationalist political parties.”  For Krugman, the Tea Party fits into this category.

It only makes sense that Glenn  Beck and other founders of the Tea Party would accuse President Obama of both Socialism and Facism, just as my friend accused me.  It creates an “other,” an enemy, a scapegoat upon whom all problems can be blamed.  Now, unfortunately, my friends are following this dangerous line of thinking, and now, as Krugman points out, the Republican party is being more and more dominated by fire-breathing talkshow hosts.

I don’t want to think of my Tea Party friends as radical Nationalists, but the whole movement is headed in that direction.  As Michael Kinsley points out in the current Atlantic, the Tea Party is united only by a general anger toward the status quo, and movement leaders are demanding an end to big government coupled with a cry for services only the big government can provide.  In Kinsley’s words, for the Tea Party, “the government is a great `other,’ a hideous monster,” but the suspicion of big government is actually “not of government but of democracy.  After all, who elected this monster?” 

Who, indeed?  Doesn’t such an idea correspond with my last post’s thesis, which argues that by racially profiling Hispanics in Arizona, the movement is supporting a slow erosion of the liberties and freedoms it claims it represents?  Patriotism indeed. 

I challenge Tea Partiers across the country to open debate and discussion.  The message is this:  neither the right nor the left has all the right answers.  The left has been ridiculously weak on enforcing immigration laws and refused to acknowledge the problem until far too late.  The right is becoming more and more mired in knee-jerk reactions that will only lead to more animosity and growing problems.  Neither side is right or wrong all of the time, but in a world where talk radio entertainers dominate the policies of a major political party, and where reason and logic are abandoned for emotion and fear-mongering, then the national debate has reached a point of crisis.  I call out to both sides of the aisle–listen to the other and compromise.  And to my friends who have threatened to end friendships over politics, I say you’ve gone too far.  You’ll never accomplish what you want by closing off discussion.  Leadership is compromise, putting yourself in another person’s (or group’s) place, and addressing all aspects of the issue.  This anger and fear mongering from the two extremes threatens the fabric of our nation.  Debate.  Listen.   Analyze.  And don’t dismiss the opposition.  Both sides have a point.

People have asked me to comment on the illegal immigration issue,  and I’ve hesitated because of ambivalence.   As a Texan, I see elements of the immigration issue each day.  I understand the anger, but the issue is multi-faceted and should be examined from  all angles.  Several items factor into this problem:

1)  We’re next door to a political and military ally that has such a bad economy its people are crossing illegally into our country to work. 

2)  Furthermore, because of the outrageous economic conditions in that country, the drug trade has become prevalent.  Based on the law of supply and demand, the drug trade will continue to flourish, despite the outstanding efforts of border patrol and DEA, because the demand is so high from the US, and because the potential payoff for drug sales is so great. 

3)  The growing violence  in border cities (Juarez)  is similar to the violence in African tribal villages filled with gangs and druglords.  In both cases, it’s greed and profit that have triggered the situation.

In short, the problem is twofold:  the Mexican economy is a catastrophe, and the biggest source of income from the US, at least, the biggest source that the common man can see, is the drug trade. 

The problem is deeper still.  Mexican workers flood over the border illegally in hope of finding work, and Americans, in love with cheap labor and cost-cutting, hire them.  The problem is not in the people coming over the border; the problem is that we’ve created another supply and demand situation: until companies stop hiring the cheap labor and thus lower the demand, the supply will be continuous.

This brings us to  Arizona.  The recent legislation dealing with illegals is heartfelt, but it’s also unconstitutional.  Pulling people over and demanding documentation based on skin color or ethnicity is discrimination.  It is also attempting to put a band-aid on a sliced artery; it might slow things a bit, but you’re still bleeding to death.  There are no easy solutions to this situation, but one thing is clear; a law  that potentially encourages racial profiling and discrimination is likely to exacerbate the situation, not alleviate it.

My friends in the Tea Party keep talking about losing freedom and liberty because they’re paying taxes.  They’re wrong.  We all pay taxes; it’s part of the American system.  Paying more taxes is an inconvenience, but far from an attack on liberty and freedom.   However, the Arizona law is an erosion of liberty.  First, it encourages profiling.  Second, it discriminates against an entire race.  Third, it’s the first step to taking such action against anyone, regardless of race.  In issues like this (and the Miranda rights for terror suspects), we must be wary of knee-jerk reactions.  Going after  everyone is a knee-jerk.  The answer, instead, is to open a full dialogue analyzing a) aid for Mexico, b) reduction of the drug trade by creation of other goods demanded, c) reduction of the US demand for low-wage workers, d) creation of new jobs in Mexico to discourage migrant workers from crossing illegally, and e) a new policy rewarding immigrants who go through proper channels and punishing those who don’t.  And, in answer to the Tea Party,  yes, your taxes will (and should) pay for the programs I’ve just described. 

Profililng, wall-building, and name-calling will not solve this deep, complex problem.

And you think Sarah Palin is bad.  A word to the wise:  Texas Monthly and Newsweek recently profiled Texas Governor Rick Perry as the up-and-coming national Republican force.  Perry against Obama in 2012?  It seems logical if he manages to win yet another term as Texas Governor, and since the accidental governor has slipped in twice against an inferior field, there is little to suggest he can’t manage another win–especially since he’s getting the cover of national magazines, and his opponent, Mayor Bill White, is being completely ignored.

Yep, the conservatives are  right.  The liberal media are out to get them. . . and they’ll claim it, too, as soon as Perry is elected president and follows in the footsteps of his illustrious Texas mentor, George W. Bush.  And believe me, friends, Perry is W with a pompadour. 

I endorsed Bill White as soon as he proposed running.  He’s a superb candidate, and my earlier blog covers that.  Please go back in the archives and take a look.

But today, it’s time to talk about Governor Coyote. 

Sarah had her helicopter, and Rick Perry has his six-shooter.  Maybe they’ll join forces and wipe out all the wildlife in both states.  In case you missed it, the Governor demonstrated his political skills by shooting a coyote while jogging  near his home.  This well-timed bit of  Republican machismo is one of the surest ways to guarantee the Texas Bubba votes, just behind some of Perry’s other most glorious moments: turning down help from the federal government so he can cut taxes and destroy public programs and salaries of public workers;  taking Social Security and health benefits from Community College teachers;  refusing to take part in President Obama’s emphasis on teaching standards rather than the discredited over-emphasis on standardized testing; endorsing the Revisionist History principles espoused by the Texas Schoolbook Commission (as described in an earlier post and podcast), and last but certainly not least, the Governor’s coddling to Tea Party members by telling the tax-o-phobes he supported the idea of Texas dividing and/or splitting from the union over the tax issue.  I couldn’t have made up a better character on paper for a comedy about a bad politician–but here he is in real life.  Just what would qualify him to be president?

He’s funny, that’s what.  He has a good personality.  He’s tall and ha hair.  He’s not Sarah Palin.  He shows his macho side.  And, of course, most importantly, he’s a tough, liberal hater.

And so, I pose a queation to my friends on the right:  where are all your ideas?  Where are your proposals  to solve problems in healthcare, education, immigration?  So far, of the three, you and the Perrys among you have  a) endorsed shooting down the “liberal” plan because it’s liberal without proposing an alternative plan, and therefore choosing the status quo; b) endorsed the flawed No Child Left Behind law and  refusal to discuss the effectiveness of standardized testing, and  c) endorsed a giant wall around the country, a state that encourages cops to racially profile and discriminate, and a call from the governor of the second-biggest state in the union to succeed from the nation and risk a second Civil War.  Brilliant. 

But first, why don’t you finish the two  wars  the last popular Texas personality turned politician started. 

Copyright 2010 by The Masked Liberal

Reports indicate  President Obama will select Solicitor General Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court.  The pick is superb, but liberals should be prepared for a wild and angry confirmation process based on one thing: Kagan’s sexuality.    Because she is  unmarried, and because she supports gay marriage, the Kagan nomination will be treated something like the Obama presidency–the surface argument is he was born in Kenya, he’s a Socialist, he’s radical, and he won’t listen to the opposition; underneath the argument the issue that keeps factoring into the above arguments is–he’s black.  Obama was born in Hawaii, and only Internet rumors perpetuate the myth; he’s no more Socialist than other Democrat presidents such as Lyndon Johnson, and the Socialist accusation is simply a way to label him and claim he’s “not like us;” he’s far from radical–just ask the rest of the left; he nearly destroyed health care by “listening” to  the opposition and seeking bipartisan support. 

Like Obama and the issue of being black, Kagan will be accused of a plethora of shortcomings– such as not having been a federal judge prior to the nomination, a sin committed by other justices as well, such as the Republican Chief Justice William Rehnquist– all slightly related to without  actually claiming she’s gay.  The worst part, of course, is that we have no idea about her sexuality, nor should we care.  Did Clarence Thomas’s bachelorhood come up in his confirmation hearings?  Wasn’ t David Souter also a bachelor?  But we’ll hear all about her masculinity, and Limbaugh and Beck will come up with outrageous sketches and over-the-top conspiracy theories and. . . doesn’t this all seem too familiar by now?   Why can’t  we return to actual debate in this country and leave the  rest of this nonsense aside?

My prediction is Kagan will win the nomination, and she’ll be an excellent, long-serving liberal (she’ll also be  the youngest judge on the court).  However, the process will be grueling and nasty.  Here’s to hoping somehow the process opens the gay marriage debate and we finally expose the bigotry on  the right for what it actually is.