Over time, that "City on a Hill" seems to have endured a whole slew of incarnations --- with one constant: its portrayal as an ideal, a pinnacle of triumph. Its earliest known reference appears to have been a biblical citation (Matthew 5:14).
Centuries later, a Puritan, John Winthrop, cited the embryonic city of Boston as "a city on the hill being watched by the world": perhaps the earliest reference to American exceptionalism. Nor did its use as a metaphor escape "The Great Communicator", Ronald Reagan back in the '80s.
Since then, that "City on a Hill", has become a place most of us can only dream about. As the late, lamented comic genius George Carlin used to say, "Why do they call it the American dream? Because you have to be asleep to believe it!"
Speaking of the '80s, here's how income gains have been distributed nationwide since then. Specifically, between 1979 and 2007, gross income for the lowest 20% of households has increased by 16%: not nearly enough to keep pace with mounting everyday expenses. On the other hand, the top 1% has reveled in a 281% income jump.
Just as a basis for comparison, here's the way it pans out:
-Lowest 20% (of households): 16%
-Middle 20% : 25%
-Top 20% : 95%
-Top 1%(within that top 20%): 281%!
(Source: Congressional Budget Office)
Yet the Republicans in Congress stubbornly refuse to consider raising taxes on that priveleged 1%, with no concern for the consequences: the likelihood that millions of people, right here in the United States of America could well be condemned to lives of despair, hopelessness, and even premature death as vital programs get scuttled.
It's looking as if that "City on a Hill" is now the exclusive property of our nation's paymasters. Believe me, I'd like to be proven wrong. In any event, we need to keep trying to facilitate change, even if like Don Quixote, we're just tilting at windmills.
In the meantime, that "City on the Hill" has been locked and latched!
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Monday, March 11, 2013
It's Great That They're Communicating, BUT ....
Yes, it's comforting to know that Obama and members of Congress have begun a dialog regarding the sequester. It would be nice to reach an agreement before we begin experiencing the direst consequences of a prolonged impasse.
Still, it's kind of discomforting to hear reports that the Obama administration is apparently proposing cuts to vital social programs as items up for discussion --- much to the chagrin of many fellow Democrats. I guess they're being offered in the spirit of compromise.
Yet I find myself asking: "Where was this will to negotiate and compromise back in 2011?" A lot of pundits claim that there's ample blame to go around in reference to the sequester; after all, both parties signed off on it.
True, but it seems to me that the Democrats cosigned under duress. If my memory serves me, congressional Republicans insisted that they would not authorize a normally routine action: raising the national debt ceiling. They got their way by throwing a collective tantrum. When a li'l kiddo throws a tantrum, there are several options available: 1) Some "quiet time", 2) issuing a pacifier, or maybe 3) a well-placed "potch" on the fanny. Or 4) caving!
Well, it seems as if Obama and the Dems chose Option 4. (Admittedly, Option 3 would have been a tad awkward).
In fact, House Speaker, His Orangeness John Boehner, was ecstatic. He was quoted, declaring, "I'm very happy! I got 98% of what I wanted!" Yet now, the Democrats are being expected to compromise?
Don't get me wrong, the bipartisan dinners and other outreach efforts are fine. I also realize that many Republicans in Congress are concerned about being "primaried" from the right, so they feel as if they're beholden to the Tea Party line, even if it's against their better judgment.
But if the Republicans can't get a handle on their internal squabbles, the rest of us shouldn't be punished for it. On the other hand, the Democrats ought to realize that the progressives in their midst have policy priorities in synch with majority sentiments. Every national, issue-oriented poll confirms this.
If the Dems don't start asserting themselves, many of their supporters, especially young and minority voters might decide to go "missing in action" in 2014. That seems to be what happened in 2010.
Let's not go for an encore.
Still, it's kind of discomforting to hear reports that the Obama administration is apparently proposing cuts to vital social programs as items up for discussion --- much to the chagrin of many fellow Democrats. I guess they're being offered in the spirit of compromise.
Yet I find myself asking: "Where was this will to negotiate and compromise back in 2011?" A lot of pundits claim that there's ample blame to go around in reference to the sequester; after all, both parties signed off on it.
True, but it seems to me that the Democrats cosigned under duress. If my memory serves me, congressional Republicans insisted that they would not authorize a normally routine action: raising the national debt ceiling. They got their way by throwing a collective tantrum. When a li'l kiddo throws a tantrum, there are several options available: 1) Some "quiet time", 2) issuing a pacifier, or maybe 3) a well-placed "potch" on the fanny. Or 4) caving!
Well, it seems as if Obama and the Dems chose Option 4. (Admittedly, Option 3 would have been a tad awkward).
In fact, House Speaker, His Orangeness John Boehner, was ecstatic. He was quoted, declaring, "I'm very happy! I got 98% of what I wanted!" Yet now, the Democrats are being expected to compromise?
Don't get me wrong, the bipartisan dinners and other outreach efforts are fine. I also realize that many Republicans in Congress are concerned about being "primaried" from the right, so they feel as if they're beholden to the Tea Party line, even if it's against their better judgment.
But if the Republicans can't get a handle on their internal squabbles, the rest of us shouldn't be punished for it. On the other hand, the Democrats ought to realize that the progressives in their midst have policy priorities in synch with majority sentiments. Every national, issue-oriented poll confirms this.
If the Dems don't start asserting themselves, many of their supporters, especially young and minority voters might decide to go "missing in action" in 2014. That seems to be what happened in 2010.
Let's not go for an encore.
Monday, March 4, 2013
The Grownups' Answer to the Sequester
As I write, a mandate imposing draconian budget cuts, also known as the sequester, has just kicked in. Air travel is expected to be affected within a few days; air traffic controllers and TSA security personnel will be cut back to four-day-a-week work schedules. Major delays are expected.
Unless Congress changes course, vital programs and services are likely to be severely affected over the next few months. Essential services such as police and fire protection, education and disaster relief will not be spared. Nor will vital programs such as Head Start and WIC, (the latter which emphasizes health and nutrition counseling for women, infants, and children). Conservatives who try to trivialize the consequences of such cuts never consider the human costs. ("Oh, tut-tut", they stutter dismissively, "It's only a piddling bit of each program's overall budget that's getting cut." Well uh, those piddling bits translate to denied opportunities for many folks --- especially kids --- who'd just like to have the chance to enrich their own lives as well as those of their communities' --- and break the cycle of poverty and despair). That translates to potential "human capital" that's lost to all of us; we could all be the poorer because of that.
What really boggles the mind is that the sequester could be repealed in the bat of an eyelash if only majorities in both houses of Congress had the will to do it. But instead, congressional Republicans have cynically passed the buck to President Obama by giving him the opportunity to "rationally target" the cuts, presenting him with a scalpel to replace the meat cleaver. In other words, they want him to "own" the sequester.
The reality is that an assortment of revenue increases mandating that corporations and Wall Street poobahs pay their fair share of taxes (partially by closing loopholes and cutting subsidies) could largely cover the $85 billion a year in cuts mandated by the sequester. But Mr. McConnell and Mr. Boehner, speaking in behalf of their Republican colleagues and their collective tantrum, are insisting that revenue proposals are off the table. It's all about spending cuts! Spending cuts! Spending cuts! We gave you your nasty ol' tax increase, they say. (Last time I checked, that "tax increase" was simply a partial restoration of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest households).
When a child throws a tantrum, a little quiet time generally works. But when an entire party stages a collective tantrum, the only real solution is to show the nation who the congressional grownups are. The members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus seem to be prominent among the adults in the room.
Although it gets precious little exposure in the mainstream media, the Caucus has crafted a measure called "The Balancing Act". As the title implies, it has proposed a combination of revenue increases and budget cuts, but with a focus on humane priorities. Here's the link: The CPC's Balancing Act .
For starters, this measure would repeal the sequester, replacing it with seemingly common-sense reforms that would help reduce the deficit over the long-term, but do so without mortgaging the future of generations to come.
Here are some of the other highlights:
--- Meaningful taxes on Wall Street speculators, particularly
hedge fund managers.
--- Closure of loopholes for private jets and yachts.
--- Elimination of incentives for "off-shoring" of both jobs and
corporate profits (the latter specifically for tax avoidance)
--- The end of corporate subsidies, especially for oil and
agriculture.
And on the military side of the ledger:
--- Reduction of compensation for private defense contractors
to that of civilian Pentagon employees.
--- Elimination of Cold-War era weapons programs.
--- Adjustment of procurement priorities to 21st Century
needs.
On the investment side of the ledger, the Balancing Act specifies increased funding for education at all levels as well as improvements in our decaying infrastructure. In other words, more jobs! Other vital social programs would apparently at least be spared from the meat-axe. So would programs benefitting veterans.
If this budget proposal was to ever receive a respectable level of coverage in the dominant media --- enough to result in popular awareness --- then maybe, just maybe, Congress could be pressured to act on it.
In the meantime, the recurring congressional tantrums really ought to be addressed. Pacifiers, anyone?
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
The Voting Rights Act Should Be Expanded
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are currently arguing the merits of the Voting Rights Act, in particular its most controversial component, Section 5. This provision mandates the following: any change in electoral procedures in specified states with a history of discrimination must be cleared with the U.S. Department of Justice.
During the debate earlier today, Justice Antonin Scalia, the most vocally conservative member (as opposed to Clarence Thomas, the most silently conservative justice) made a remark that caused audible gasps in the courtroom. He declared that "the Voting Rights Law is a perpetuation of racial entitlement." Hmmm! I had never realized that the right to vote was ever considered an "entitlement" rather than a right. (You're some teacher, Mr. Scalia, you really are).
Most states affected by the mandate have a sordid history of imposing draconian limits on the electoral rights of African Americans. However, prior to the 2012 elections, many Republican-dominated state legislatures throughout the country have crafted measures designed to disenfranchise groups likely to vote Democratic; specifically minorities, low-income households, and students. But millions of determined voters in affected states heroically defied the roadblocks, often enduring hours-long waits.
Many states are attempting to mandate voter ID laws, allegedly to combat vote fraud, which is virtually non-existent. Pennsylvania is a perfect case for expansion of Section 5. (State Senate Majority Leader Mike Turzai, infamously crowed that the voter ID law "would allow Romney to win Pennsylvania"). Because time was limited for obtaining IDs, voters were given a reprieve for the 2012 elections. But the state has every intention of enforcing it in 2014.
What's really mind-boggling to me is that Congress has routinely reauthorized the Voting Rights Act; it was last renewed in 2006, unanimously in the Senate. (Even Alabama Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions voted aye).
Yet the unelected Supreme Court may have it in its crosshairs!
A decision is expected in May or June. Justice Anthony Kennedy may furnish the pivotal vote. Stay tuned.
During the debate earlier today, Justice Antonin Scalia, the most vocally conservative member (as opposed to Clarence Thomas, the most silently conservative justice) made a remark that caused audible gasps in the courtroom. He declared that "the Voting Rights Law is a perpetuation of racial entitlement." Hmmm! I had never realized that the right to vote was ever considered an "entitlement" rather than a right. (You're some teacher, Mr. Scalia, you really are).
Most states affected by the mandate have a sordid history of imposing draconian limits on the electoral rights of African Americans. However, prior to the 2012 elections, many Republican-dominated state legislatures throughout the country have crafted measures designed to disenfranchise groups likely to vote Democratic; specifically minorities, low-income households, and students. But millions of determined voters in affected states heroically defied the roadblocks, often enduring hours-long waits.
Many states are attempting to mandate voter ID laws, allegedly to combat vote fraud, which is virtually non-existent. Pennsylvania is a perfect case for expansion of Section 5. (State Senate Majority Leader Mike Turzai, infamously crowed that the voter ID law "would allow Romney to win Pennsylvania"). Because time was limited for obtaining IDs, voters were given a reprieve for the 2012 elections. But the state has every intention of enforcing it in 2014.
What's really mind-boggling to me is that Congress has routinely reauthorized the Voting Rights Act; it was last renewed in 2006, unanimously in the Senate. (Even Alabama Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions voted aye).
Yet the unelected Supreme Court may have it in its crosshairs!
A decision is expected in May or June. Justice Anthony Kennedy may furnish the pivotal vote. Stay tuned.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
State of the Union Speech: Chock Full of Good Intentions
President Obama wasted no words. While it wasn't humanly possible to address every salient issue in an hour-long speech, (for instance, the postal service's fiscal troubles weren't mentioned), he managed to cover a lot of territory.
As promised, the focus was primarily on economic concerns; matters that resonate with folks beyond the Beltway, the ones who keep this nation vital. At times he did reach across the aisle, acknowledging that both parties have worked to lower the deficit. He also noted that the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act (every Democrat and half ---<only half!> --- the Republicans supported it. House Republicans were urged to give it the high sign too).
However, in light of the Republicans' overall unwillingness to compromise during his first term, the President appears to have been chastened. He knows that the programs he proposed will have popular support, regardless of lack of congressional will.
Still, in light of frequent criticism for federal overreach, Obama made an effort to recognize the beneficial work of state programs. For example, during his promotion of pre-school education, he cited successful operations in Georgia and Oklahoma, among the reddest of red states. He also emphasized that the return on investment in such initiatives --- both human and capital --- would far outweigh the costs.
But despite congressional Republicans' insistence that there'll be no discussion of generating more tax revenue, the President spoke of closing corporate tax loopholes (which deny the government billions of desperately-needed dollars), and raising taxes for companies that outsource jobs, while lowering them for firms that create domestic employment.
Among other highlights of his speech were proposals for an Energy Security Trust, a "Fix It First" program for long-overdue infrastructure upgrades and repairs, and a bill to make it easier to refinance homes. In all cases, public-private partnerships were emphasized.
Not to be overlooked was the most emotional part of the evening. Acknowledging that both parties appeared to be in synch regarding background checks, Obama appealed to Congress to pass meaningful controls on the distribution of firearms and ammunition. He stated, "We must protect our most precious resource: our kids."
Honoring the memory of Hadiya Pendleton, a Chicago honors student (whose parents were seated with Michelle Obama), he appealed to the Congress to cast their ballots in behalf of sensible gun-control legislation. The President further cited the venues of other recent massacres: Newtown; Tucson; Aurora, Colorado; Blacksburg (Virginia Tech); and Oak Creek, Wisconsin. "These families (of survivors) all deserve your vote," he declared.
If legislation regarding background checks does pass, it'll be a significant achievement. But even in the aftermath of Newtown, the chances of any sort of firearms or ammunition control measures seeing the light of day seem dicey at best. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Recent polls, especially issue-oriented ones, indicate that Obama and the congressional Democrats have a strong mandate. Non-Tea-Party Republicans are surely aware of this. But still, too many, especially in the Republican leadership seem unwilling to give an inch. Their overarching concern seems to be getting "primaried" from the right in 2014.
I guess the question is, will the Obama Administration's noble intentions be allowed to wither in legislative limbo? Or will the Republicans come to their senses?
One final item to consider: the sequester-fueled budget "super-cuts" --- a creation of the Congress --- are two weeks shy of kicking in! Mr. McConnell, Mr. Boehner?
As promised, the focus was primarily on economic concerns; matters that resonate with folks beyond the Beltway, the ones who keep this nation vital. At times he did reach across the aisle, acknowledging that both parties have worked to lower the deficit. He also noted that the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act (every Democrat and half ---<only half!> --- the Republicans supported it. House Republicans were urged to give it the high sign too).
However, in light of the Republicans' overall unwillingness to compromise during his first term, the President appears to have been chastened. He knows that the programs he proposed will have popular support, regardless of lack of congressional will.
Still, in light of frequent criticism for federal overreach, Obama made an effort to recognize the beneficial work of state programs. For example, during his promotion of pre-school education, he cited successful operations in Georgia and Oklahoma, among the reddest of red states. He also emphasized that the return on investment in such initiatives --- both human and capital --- would far outweigh the costs.
But despite congressional Republicans' insistence that there'll be no discussion of generating more tax revenue, the President spoke of closing corporate tax loopholes (which deny the government billions of desperately-needed dollars), and raising taxes for companies that outsource jobs, while lowering them for firms that create domestic employment.
Among other highlights of his speech were proposals for an Energy Security Trust, a "Fix It First" program for long-overdue infrastructure upgrades and repairs, and a bill to make it easier to refinance homes. In all cases, public-private partnerships were emphasized.
Not to be overlooked was the most emotional part of the evening. Acknowledging that both parties appeared to be in synch regarding background checks, Obama appealed to Congress to pass meaningful controls on the distribution of firearms and ammunition. He stated, "We must protect our most precious resource: our kids."
Honoring the memory of Hadiya Pendleton, a Chicago honors student (whose parents were seated with Michelle Obama), he appealed to the Congress to cast their ballots in behalf of sensible gun-control legislation. The President further cited the venues of other recent massacres: Newtown; Tucson; Aurora, Colorado; Blacksburg (Virginia Tech); and Oak Creek, Wisconsin. "These families (of survivors) all deserve your vote," he declared.
If legislation regarding background checks does pass, it'll be a significant achievement. But even in the aftermath of Newtown, the chances of any sort of firearms or ammunition control measures seeing the light of day seem dicey at best. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Recent polls, especially issue-oriented ones, indicate that Obama and the congressional Democrats have a strong mandate. Non-Tea-Party Republicans are surely aware of this. But still, too many, especially in the Republican leadership seem unwilling to give an inch. Their overarching concern seems to be getting "primaried" from the right in 2014.
I guess the question is, will the Obama Administration's noble intentions be allowed to wither in legislative limbo? Or will the Republicans come to their senses?
One final item to consider: the sequester-fueled budget "super-cuts" --- a creation of the Congress --- are two weeks shy of kicking in! Mr. McConnell, Mr. Boehner?
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Harrumphing Old White Dudes Always Vote
Unlike most other demographic groups, those old white guys always manage to honor their right to vote. They may devote the shank of their days to hawking and patooeying, polishing and carressing their Buicks, and harrumphing --- cluelessly --- about how the young 'uns have it so easy. No matter. By gum, they're gonna show up to punch that ballot!
This li'l factoid has an impact. In 2010, the last midterm election --- and a census year to boot --- two vital demographic groups stayed home in significant numbers: young voters (18-29) and minorities. These are two of the three key demographic groups most likely to vote Democratic, the other being women.
Here's the data; Young voters represented 18% of those who voted in 2008, as opposed to 11% in 2010. 22% of those who cast their ballots in 2010 were non-white versus 26% in 2008. One more li'l tidbit of datum: 60% of white voters supported Republican congressional candidates in 2010, in contrast to 37% for Democrats.
It's probably a safe bet to assume that the statistical breakdown was similar for state-level elections: gubernatorial and legislative contests. So, because 2010 was a census year, state legislatures --- in most states now dominated by Republicans --- got to rejigger boundaries of congressional districts to favor their candidates.
So, despite the fact that roughly a million more votes nationwide were cast for Democratic candidates, Republicans still managed to retain a significant majority in The House. Recent issue-oriented polls indicate that we are a nation that cherishes humane values. (See previous post). But if the folks who really believe in a caring society stay home during the next midterm election in 2014, their hopes and aspirations won't matter. The Harrumphing Old White Dudes will continue to have their way with us.*
It's not too early to think ahead.
* Oh, by the way, I consider "Harrumphing Old White
Dudes" to be a state of mind that transcends age, gender,
and race (despite my initial, literal description of them).
Among this cast of characters are such "old
fossils" as Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Mitch
McConnell, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin,
Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Allen West ---
as well as those who support(ed) them.
This li'l factoid has an impact. In 2010, the last midterm election --- and a census year to boot --- two vital demographic groups stayed home in significant numbers: young voters (18-29) and minorities. These are two of the three key demographic groups most likely to vote Democratic, the other being women.
Here's the data; Young voters represented 18% of those who voted in 2008, as opposed to 11% in 2010. 22% of those who cast their ballots in 2010 were non-white versus 26% in 2008. One more li'l tidbit of datum: 60% of white voters supported Republican congressional candidates in 2010, in contrast to 37% for Democrats.
It's probably a safe bet to assume that the statistical breakdown was similar for state-level elections: gubernatorial and legislative contests. So, because 2010 was a census year, state legislatures --- in most states now dominated by Republicans --- got to rejigger boundaries of congressional districts to favor their candidates.
So, despite the fact that roughly a million more votes nationwide were cast for Democratic candidates, Republicans still managed to retain a significant majority in The House. Recent issue-oriented polls indicate that we are a nation that cherishes humane values. (See previous post). But if the folks who really believe in a caring society stay home during the next midterm election in 2014, their hopes and aspirations won't matter. The Harrumphing Old White Dudes will continue to have their way with us.*
It's not too early to think ahead.
* Oh, by the way, I consider "Harrumphing Old White
Dudes" to be a state of mind that transcends age, gender,
and race (despite my initial, literal description of them).
Among this cast of characters are such "old
fossils" as Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Mitch
McConnell, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin,
Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Allen West ---
as well as those who support(ed) them.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Liberalism: As American as Apple Pie
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R - Harrumphing Old White Dudes) sounded a trifle unhappy the other day. In the wake of President Obama's inspiring inaugural address, he mournfully declared, "The era of liberalism is back."
For once in my life, I actually agree with the Good Senator. But I don't feel nearly as downhearted.
Recent polls reveal national sentiments on a host of issues of widespread concern:
- No Social Security cuts: 77%
- No Medicare cuts: 79%
- No military spending cuts: 33% (only!)
(Source: National Journal via The Ed Show [MSNBC])
Additional polling data indicated majority support for legalized gay marriage, and widespread belief (a 2-to-1 ratio) that climate change is man-made.
On the other hand, periodic surveys fielded by the Gallup Organization seem to have arrived at a different conclusion. But instead of focusing on specific issues, the Gallup interviewers asked their respondents how they perceived themselves politically: as liberal, moderate, or conservative. The latest sample, taken about a year ago, revealed the following data:
- Conservative 37%
- Moderate 40%
- Liberal 23%.
Something for the conservatives to crow about, right? Not so fast! Many folks, particularly among those of us with some mileage on our anatomical odometers, are skittish about identifying ourselves as liberals. Historically, at least in some quarters, a self-identified liberal would be roundly condemned: "After all, we're soft on Communism/terrorism (depending on the era) and 'welfare queens', we're bleeding-hearts (guilty as charged), and we're uncouth, unwashed boors who never blow our noses!"
So we prefer to identify ourselves, at least to the pollsters, as "moderates". (Admittedly, it's just a theory on my part, but I believe that the issue-based polls give it some credence). Conservatives, on the other hand, haven't traditionally faced the same degree of condemnation or ridicule. So they're much less likely to seek out an alternative label.
Considering where folks stand on the issues, I tend to feel that a solid majority of self-identified moderates are, in their hearts, good old-fashioned liberals, endowed with compassion and empathy.
So, come on out of the closet, people. It's okay to be a liberal! Honest!
For once in my life, I actually agree with the Good Senator. But I don't feel nearly as downhearted.
Recent polls reveal national sentiments on a host of issues of widespread concern:
- No Social Security cuts: 77%
- No Medicare cuts: 79%
- No military spending cuts: 33% (only!)
(Source: National Journal via The Ed Show [MSNBC])
Additional polling data indicated majority support for legalized gay marriage, and widespread belief (a 2-to-1 ratio) that climate change is man-made.
On the other hand, periodic surveys fielded by the Gallup Organization seem to have arrived at a different conclusion. But instead of focusing on specific issues, the Gallup interviewers asked their respondents how they perceived themselves politically: as liberal, moderate, or conservative. The latest sample, taken about a year ago, revealed the following data:
- Conservative 37%
- Moderate 40%
- Liberal 23%.
Something for the conservatives to crow about, right? Not so fast! Many folks, particularly among those of us with some mileage on our anatomical odometers, are skittish about identifying ourselves as liberals. Historically, at least in some quarters, a self-identified liberal would be roundly condemned: "After all, we're soft on Communism/terrorism (depending on the era) and 'welfare queens', we're bleeding-hearts (guilty as charged), and we're uncouth, unwashed boors who never blow our noses!"
So we prefer to identify ourselves, at least to the pollsters, as "moderates". (Admittedly, it's just a theory on my part, but I believe that the issue-based polls give it some credence). Conservatives, on the other hand, haven't traditionally faced the same degree of condemnation or ridicule. So they're much less likely to seek out an alternative label.
Considering where folks stand on the issues, I tend to feel that a solid majority of self-identified moderates are, in their hearts, good old-fashioned liberals, endowed with compassion and empathy.
So, come on out of the closet, people. It's okay to be a liberal! Honest!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)