Here's why I'm a liberal. I notice that the biggest annoyances in my life tend to come not from the government, but from the private sector, which tends to be opportunistic, selfish, deceptive, at times criminal, and exploitative both of the environment and of their employees. Liberals are big on government because it's the only power that can reign in the private sector.
People who complain about government should bear in mind that whenever government is bad, it can be changed through public pressure or the electoral process. When a private business is bad, it can't be changed. The public has no control over a private business. This is why I am against privatization of any more public assets, because that's a step in the wrong direction, toward the very things it is supposed to remedy: corruption, abuse and inefficiency.
The fact that we have had so many conservative politicians in power for so long is the reason the U.S. and world economy tanked. They have wasted over a trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan with pointless and counter-productive wars. Meanwhile, Republicans chafe at the thought of applying the same amount within the United States, and call Obama's stimulus package "uncontrolled and unnecessary spending." To me, unnecessary spending is when you bomb villages in Pakistan, thereby inflaming the entire Pakistani population against the United States. Why should we kill civilians and make new enemies, and not build roads here in the United States? It would seem to me that U.S. taxpayer money should be spent in the U.S. The only thing the war on terrorism has accomplished is creating new terrorists and wasting a trillion dollars.
With a trillion dollars, there are many good things that could have been done. The main area I'm thinking about involves scientific research that might cure diseases like cancer and AIDS. I have friends and family that suffer from these diseases. I would imagine most people do. What's not to like about curing these illnesses? Would that not be a better use of a trillion dollars than creating new enemies? Or what about developing an alternative energy source, so that we don't feel tempted to invade nations like Iraq? With a trillion dollars, we could have taken solar power to an entirely new level, just to name one example. We could have built a modern nuclear reactor beside every major city in the nation, which would reduce pollution by a massive amount. Right now, with the car companies asking for a government bailout, we should strong-arm them into producing only fuel efficient cars like hybrids and nothing else. If the automakers want government assistance, they should be willing to be part of the solution on the energy crisis as well.
Just think of all this money that has been wasted on the desert sands of Iraq. If you really hate the United States and want to hurt it the maximum amount, then and only then does invading Iraq makes sense. I was personally disgusted, appalled and disillusioned that my tax money was misused in this way. It's truly an appalling, massive waste of the nation's wealth that has tarnished our image abroad forever. In my opinion, George W. Bush was the worst President in our nation's history just for the horrible miscalculation he made over that single issue, Iraq. I am certain that in retrospect he probably wishes he had not done it, but the rush to war by his Administration was unforgivable. Bush ignored all the information that would have argued against invasion. Why is that? I believe Bush was a narrow-minded person, convinced that he was always right about everything; the type of person to think of all his detractors as traitors and scoundrels. In reality, who was the traitor and scoundrel other than George W. Bush himself, along with his henchmen in the Administration, starting with Dick Cheney? If they had really loved America in the genuine way that liberals do, they would not have squandered the nation's treasure on a pointless conflict.
Why does does the image of the United States matter? Who cares what other people around the world think of us? These are the questions that seemed to flicker through President Bush's mind. He did not seem to be concerned about the feelings of other countries, such as Arab countries, countries in Western Europe or in Asia. Many of our allies were aghast at the invasion of Iraq, and friction developed with France and Germany. Instead of heeding these signals, the Bush Administration ignored them, and the right wing in the U.S. looked upon France as a treacherous fair-weather friend.
How does a bad image abroad hurt the United States economy? People are making decisions every single day on what products to purchase for themselves, their families, and their businesses. If they have a choice between an American product and a product manufactured elsewhere, it might matter what they think about America. If we are perceived as a nation of arrogant war-mongers that thumb our nose at the U.N., then people will be less likely to buy American. If we are perceived as not following the Geneva Convention and torturing prisoners, do you think people in other countries will buy American? I see a shopper in a department store putting an item back down on the shelf, because the label says "MADE IN USA," and she thinks: my money would be used toward prisoner abuse and bombs raining down on helpless civilians, women and children. Multiply that one shopper by several billion, and it is not difficult to see that this ugly war hit our economy hard. I think the Iraq war and fallout resulting from it was the direct cause of the economic meltdown in the U.S.
The many hidden costs of war are never obvious to the people who start wars. President Clinton may not have been perfect in the area of sexual monogamy, but while in office, he knew better than to get the country deeply ensnared in an overseas conflict. I remember the Clinton years with fondness. The economy was booming, people were happy. Don't you wish we could travel back in time to the year 2000? Everyone would know not to vote for George W. Bush then, because to vote for Bush would be like voting to cut your retirement funds in half.
At no time between 2000 to the present day did I vote for any Republicans. I can recall with considerable pride that not only did I vote for Al Gore, but I contributed $100 to his election campaign. In 2004, I voted for Kerry. Neither of these candidates were perfect from my point of view, but they were both much better than Bush. I can imagine Gore being very interested in scientific research and development of industry here in the United States. Gore is the type of man that would immerse himself in the details and sniff out the right decision on important issues. Now the media mocked him, and continues to poke fun at him this day, for being serious, sober, and for caring enough to speak out about real issues, like global warming, instead of phony issues, like we often see on Fox News, which exists to promote war and hate on a 24-hour basis. I do not think Gore would have gotten us into Iraq. Kerry, too, had more sense than Bush. But in the case of Bush, it's a case of "like father, like son," because his father also tanked the economy and started a war with Iraq. George W. Bush was never a terribly original thinker. He simply did what his old man did before, with disastrous consequences.
The only possible gain from war is derived from looting a vanquished nation, but we cannot do that with impunity in the modern era. We would be viewed in the same light as the Nazis, although some people already view us in that light, thanks to the policies of George W. Bush. It may just be possible to undo some of the harm Bush has done in his eight years in office. I think Obama needs eight years, and the next Democrat after him will need eight years, and the Democrat after that, eight years as well, in order to get the U.S. economy back to where it was under President Clinton, before the disaster of the conservative right wing descended upon this nation. Indeed, unless the Republican party reverses much of its ideological positions, there should never again be a Republican elected to high office ever, based upon the abysmal performances of the Republicans during the last eight years.
Republicans wrecked the economy, started a wasteful pointless war, tarnished our image abroad, made the world a more dangerous place, did nothing about any real problems like pollution or energy dependence, and colluded with private interests to defraud investors and the public of billions--if not trillions--of dollars. The only thing the Republicans can be given credit for is not initiating an exchange of nuclear weapons, but that is faint praise indeed. Nuclear war is much more likely now than it was before the Republicans took over both the Congress and the White House.
Today, I support Obama's expensive stimulus package. At least this President is spending the money here at home, rather than on bombs that kill people overseas. In truth, I have not studied all of the details of the stimulus package. But for the time being, I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. If some money is indeed wasted, at least this time around it will be wasted here at home, on domestic rather than warlike actions. Rebuilding the nation's roads and working towards energy independence seems to me like adequate stewardship of taxpayer money.
The main problem in the U.S. today is that far too much government spending goes toward the defense industry. This has been an ongoing problem ever since WW2, although the situation has become aggravated over time. America needs to learn to produce products that the world actually wants to buy. We need a manufacturing sector that makes desirable products. We do not need more guns and bombs to kill people. If the current trend of mindless militarism continues, economic disaster looms. The way to remain strong is to have a strong economy and infrastructure, including education, energy, and scientific research. Our nation's largest socialist structure, the military, should be kept lean and modified over time to respond to new threats as they emerge.
These are the main reasons I consider myself a liberal. If you look at the record of liberal and conservative Congressmen, I think the liberals have more to be proud about. This is why Obama is sitting in the White House today, and why many Republican incumbents were voted out of office in the last election cycle.
The Republican party requires more than just a new face with a different gender or skin color. The American people are not all that stupid as the GOP might have supposed by this obsession with brand image, represented by the elevation of Sarah Palin, an airhead who had the sole advantage of being an attractive female. What the GOP needs is a complete transformation of their ideology, moving away from the far right wing where they are at now.
If Republicans are truly about less government spending, then they could easily show it by opposing military spending, which is the most obscene form of spending in a time of peace. This new consistent approach would be a good start for the GOP. In the past, Republicans used to oppose overseas intervention, as during the Woodrow Wilson years. Why not return to that policy? The largest area of spending by far is on foreign adventures and the maintenance of an over-sized and usually idle military. I would like to see troops performing public-work projects in the United States, much as the military of many other countries do.
Another thing the Republicans could do would be to open their party up to gays by abandoning all of their narrow-minded positions against gays. Gays only have one sane choice as far as political parties go. The Republicans have come a long way toward eliminating racism from their ranks, but they need to eliminate homophobia as well. Opposing equal rights for gays, such as the right to visit your partner when he is in the hospital, is just plain mean-spirited of Republicans. Gay spouses deserve medical insurance benefits, just as straight ones do. Things like this, you can expect a liberal to understand right away, whereas a conservative will hem and haw, while real people are suffering.
