Centerblue.org

The ink is barely dry on the Democratic majority in Congress and already both the far Left and the Right are spinning the numbers, statistics, and what it all means into a dizzying array of contradictory “facts.”

On the Right, you have the so-called “Architect” Karl Rove saying that the election landslide was really just “typical” for an election six years into a President’s term….and that other than a few relatively “minor” factors like Iraq the conservative movement remains on track to cementing a permanent majority. After all, he says, if just a few thousand votes had gone the other way the Republicans would still be in control. He foresees the resumption of Republican dominance in two years.

On the Left, you have folks like Atrios trying to claim that there is no “Center” in politics, and that what people have been hoodwinked into calling “the Center” is in fact the Left. He can’t think of anything that belongs to a “radical left” agenda that isn’t considered “centrist” by the pundits who say that centrism ruled the day in the election.

What a bunch of spin.

To Karl Rove: you can twist and massage numbers all you like. Don’t forget that the backbone of your “Republican hegemony,” Bush himself, was elected by a mere 300 or so votes in Florida. The fact is that this country is not interested in your twisted, bigoted brand of conservatism–and the last six years have demonstrated the Republican party’s incompetence in adhering to its own ideals of limited government, balanced budgets, and a strong and sensible national defense.

To Atrios and the Kos folks claiming a Left-driven mandate in Tuesday’s election: I can think of PLENTY of liberal ideas that if done by this Congress would cause voters from all those conservative and moderate districts we won to send their freshmen Democratic congressmen packing in two years:

• Tax increases on anyone except the most wealthy, especially if coupled with any spending increases.
• Over-regulation of business on issues that don’t affect the life and health of consumers.
• Unconditional granting of citizenship to illegal immigrants.
• Codifying gay marriage into law or re-opening the gays in the military debate.
• Immediate full withdrawal of troops from Iraq, as some liberals are demanding.
• Messing with the death penalty.
• A complete gutting of the Patriot Act instead of balancing the liberty compromised in each provision of the Act with the security benefit obtained (a balancing exercise never contemplated in the current version that consists merely of rights-limiting mandates.)
• Nationalization of health care with an accompanying tax increase (at least without a very clear explanation of how people would actually pay less than they do under the current system.)
• Outlawing the Pledge of Allegiance (or striking its references to God) in schools or any other such nonsense, as advocated by some liberals.
• Making abortion substantially easier to get than it already is.
• Radical environmental reforms (at least without a strong justification of how it relates to global warming, a fact which I think people of all political persuasions are beginning to accept.)

Now folks like Atrios and my friend Boztopia can claim that the Center is gone if they like, and that it’s really just part of a “sea of blue” that was theirs all along. Or they can claim that the Center simply moved Left. More likely, it’s the Left realizing the futility of some of its more radical ideas and understanding that in order to govern in this country they’re going to have to lurch somewhat to the Right whether they like it or not. The Center hasn’t gone anywhere–the Left has.

Look at other topics that were once considered conservative or centrist and are now all the rage among the Left: a strong national defense, a phased solution in Iraq, a balanced budget, cutting taxes such as the Alternative Minimum Tax, cracking down on employers who hire illegal aliens.

Folks, you can claim these were your ideas all along if you like, if they will help the new Congress govern from the “sensible middle.” (I personally don’t believe that’s the case, although I’m delighted that the Left finally got serious about the realities of what it takes to become a majority.) But it would be a sad and highly incorrect conclusion to assume that because people chose the ideas espoused by this “new Left,” if you will…that they by transitive property also signed on to all of the radical, batty, or even idealistic but unrealistic ideas that come from the far Left. It just isn’t so.

The Left can govern on a platform of sensible ideas that span the political Center, or they can go back to being an impotent minority. They can’t have both in a country that leaned Right after 9/11 without a lot of gentle nudging back to the Left that will take place only in small steps over time. Push too hard and too fast, and all those new Democratic districts will go right back to being Red in two years.

Several weeks ago I read an excellent article that made the argument that conservatives had successfully made a bad word out of the term “liberal” over the course of the past thirty-plus years–despite the fact that liberalism was responsible for many of our societal advances in the mid-20th century. The article argued that it was time to fight back against that perception and to show the world just what a bad word conservatism can be. Unfortunately I did not bookmark the article and have not been able to find it despite my best effort to Google for it–if anyone knows the article I’m talking about then please reference it in a comment.

While some of my politics are centrist, I identify far more with the Left than the Right. In keeping with the spirit of taking back the word “liberal” as a good thing, I present the top ten reasons why liberals are better than conservatives:

10) Liberals prefer to be sensitive to the issues of various groups of people, while conservatives deride sensitivity as “political correctness.” (”Macaca,” anyone?)

9) Conservatives prefer cutting taxes on the wealthy even if it creates deficits. Liberals believe in paying for what you spend.

Conservatives prefer to thumb their noses at the rest of the world. Liberals remember that America is the leader of a community of nations.

7) Conservatives prefer to shoot first and ask questions later. Liberals prefer to ponder the long-term consequences of their actions before using force.

6) Conservatism cares most about what is best for the individual, and is therefore inherently a selfish philosophy. Liberalism cares most about what’s best for society and the environment as a whole.

5) Conservatives prefer to prey on the environment for the sake of industry. Liberals understand that without a healthy planet and environment there can BE no industry.

4) Conservatives want to legislate morality to other people who may not share their views. Liberals prefer to live and let live.

3) Conservatives believe that majority rules. Liberals understand that the Bill of Rights was crafted to protect minorities from the predations of majorities.

2) For conservatives, religion and politics are like bread and butter. For liberals, they are like oil and water.

And the top reason in my mind why conservatism is backwards and Luddite:

1) Conservatives prefer looking to the past for guidance on solving today’s problems. Liberals understand that times change and often require new approaches to problems not envisioned by our forefathers.

I also can’t help but toss in one last one for the sake of humor:

0.5) Have you ever known anyone “hip” who was a conservative?

A couple of recent articles highlight the fact that the ideas of preserving our environment and of moving our culture from a wasteful to a sustainable one are gaining currency across the entire political spectrum.

This article in Newsweek discusses how both individuals and corporations are taking environmentalism in their own hands when confronted with overwhelming evidence of global warming and environmental degradation. In addition to highlighting some individual efforts, it discusses some changes going on in conservative Corporate America:

*Architects are beginning to incorporate eco-friendly considerations into their skyscraper designs. The best current example is the Hurst Corp. headquarters in Manhattan, which is totally infused with sunlight and which employs hyper-efficient use of energy. A new Bank of America tower planned for Manhattan will capture and use every drop of rainwater that falls on it, and will use methane from cafeteria scraps to help power the building.

*Wal-mart, condemned by many for its corporate practices, is going green. After bringing in Al Gore to consult for its executives, Wal-mart is pledging to reduce its carbon footprint by 20% in seven years. It will do so, for example through use of far more efficient packaging–the article states that reducing the packaging on just one line of toys will save $3.5 million in trucking costs and spare 5000 trees. It will also make far greater use of materials like organic cotton for clothing. If every business followed Wal-mart’s lead of reducing emissions by 20% the United States would meet the Kyoto Protocol despite the inexcusable dereliction of duty in Washington for failing to sign the treaty.

*Green technology has become the darling of venture capitalists, who are eager to get in on new technologies on the ground floor.

These changes are happening because they simply make common sense, and not just to liberals. Evangelicals are signing on because more and more are realizing that cherishing and preserving the environment is the good and Christian thing to do. The incontrovertible nature of the data on the global climate crisis is also winning over reasonable conservatives. “Al Gore can’t convince me, but his data can convince me,” mused one Republican in the Newsweek article.

The article notes that the US has a chance to become a leader in developing green technology and exporting it to the rest of the world. We could become that by spending $100 billion a year on it, the amount equal to what we’re throwing at Iraq right now. In doing so we would generate jobs, improve our standard of living, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and greatly improve the dangerous trade deficits we’re running against the rest of the world. This is the kind of initiative that requires bold leadership from both Left and Right.

Separately, another article in today’s Washington Post discusses how environmentalists are allying themselves with hunters to protect natural preserves against the predations of drilling and oil companies. These two camps may come to blows on gun control, but they both understand the need to protect these fragile ecosystems and their ability to sustain themselves.

It’s easy to look to more drilling as a way of easing the nation’s energy problems, but such drilling will not significantly impact the overall imminent decline in petroleum availability nor will it resolve our energy problems in the long run. Insisting on drilling ever-more-expensive locations for smaller petroleum returns is like feeding a crack addict some more crack; it postpones but does not eliminate the day of reckoning. Sooner or later we have to move off petroleum. Until we do we will be held hostage by our addiction to foreign oil, because no amount of domestic production will ever eliminate that dependence. That’s all quite apart from the environmental incentives to stop burning fossil fuels. The logic of reducing our oil addiction becomes ever more evident to the entire political spectrum every time there is an increase in the price of gas at the pump.

Articles like these demonstrate that environmentalism has begun to rise above petty partisan bickering. It’s a problem that everyone faces, as Katrina attests, and is a problem that all must resolve. Environmentalism need not be in opposition to a strong economy, and can instead produce jobs and improve our lives. That’s a goal worth fighting for whether you’re on the Left or Right.