Red, White and Liberal

by Alan Colmes

  The Myth Continues

  Those parts of the media that truly do have a liberal agenda have done a lousy job of conveying a strong message. False ideas about the Clintons linger, as the real skinny on some of Al Gore's statements and some of the truth about Bush 43 have barely seen the light of day. Conservatives have done a much better job promoting their ideas on talk radio and cable news and have been at the forefront of commandeering the Internet as a tool to spread their views.

  I admire the success of those who have said "liberal media" so many times that it is accepted as fact in some quarters. But ultimately, it doesn't matter whether there are more liberals or more conservatives in the media; what matters is that there are enough choices for the media consumer, a true concern in the age of consolidation. Unfortunately, in June 2003, the FCC voted to allow media companies to own more television, radio, and print outlets in the same market, which works against the idea of diversity. Since it is the government that controls the broadcast airwaves by awarding licenses, it has an obligation to see to it that the wealth is spread fairly. Policies should favor platforms for more voices, not fewer.

  With the advent of broadband, DSL, and cable Internet access, one would think that diversity has arrived. But small DSL and cable providers are being pushed aside by the big boys; companies like Time Warner control not only access, but also content. And our regulatory agencies aren't exactly greeting newcomers with candy and flowers.

  Diversity, options, and opportunity are hallmarks of a truly democratic society. As Hugo Black said in the majority opinion in the 1945 Associated Press v. United States case, "The First Amendment. .. rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public."

  FIVE

  Straw Men, Hypocrisy, and Conservative Lies

  Conservatives are more likely to go to church; liberals are more likely to worship trees and snail darters in their natural habitat.

  — SUZANNE FIELDS

  Here is what conservatives do so well. They construct liberal straw men by trying to define what a liberal is, they lie about liberals in the process, and then they recoil in horror at what they've just invented. Often, they don't live up to the high moral standards to which they hold others. It would be nice if on little issues like sex, war, and government, they'd practice what they preach.

  From President Bush's insinuation that the Democrat-led Senate was not interested in the security of the American people to the more generic and egregious claim that "Liberals don't care about this country," conservatives have talked trash about liberals to advance their own agendas. Some liberals become perennial targets. Do you think some people will ever let go of their hatred for the Clintons? Conversely, won't Ronald Reagan only become more of an icon as time goes on, regardless of the true record of his presidency? Listening to the mythmakers, you'd think Reagan presided over budget surpluses and got us out of debt. Sure, conservatives have wonderful things to say about some liberals. They praise JFK and Martin Luther King Jr. Seems as though they believe the only good liberal is a dead one.

  According to some conservatives, liberals are a bunch of flag-burning, dope-smoking, welfare-collecting (yes, all welfare recipients are liberal), Jesus-hating sexaholics hell-bent on the destruction of America. I hope I'm able to bring more perspective to these inane perceptions.

  I see the left/right dichotomy a bit different than the columnist Suzanne Fields does. For example, if we want to do a little stereotyping, and with apologies to comedian Jeff Foxworthy, the creator of "You might be a redneck if. . ."

  You Might Be a Conservative If. . .

  You believe Clinton gutted the military, and yet you're forced to acknowledge that that same military performed magnificently in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

  You believe government should be off the backs of business but in the uteruses of women.

  You think it's okay to overspend if the money goes to a defense contractor, but not if it goes to a single mother with no husband and no job.

  You can't stand Democrats if they're named Ted Kennedy, but you love them if they're named James Traficant or Zell Miller.

  You despise the fact that Bill Clinton tried to bring peace to the Middle East, but you love that George Bush brought war there.

  You believe the government doesn't know how to run schools, but it does know how to run school prayers.

  When a Democrat agrees with you he or she has an agenda, but when you agree with him or her, you're bipartisan.

  You believe in family values, unless the head of that family happens to be gay.

  You believe that when Democrats control the Congress and they stop you from doing things, its proper to blame them for obstruction, but when you control the Congress and they try to stop what you're doing, its proper to shut down the government.

  You don't think this is very funny, but it would be hilarious if it were mocking Democrats.

  It's much more difficult for a liberal to be hypocritical than it is for a conservative. Conservatives are more likely to take absolutist positions because they see the world in stark, good versus evil terms. Because the world isn't just black and white, conservatives back themselves into ideological corners from which they cannot be easily extracted. For example, Larry King asked then vice president Dan Quayle what he'd do if his thirteen-year-old daughter told him she was having an abortion. Quayle gave a very real, human answer, not the answer of a politician with an agenda: "I hope I never have to deal with it. But obviously I would counsel her and talk to her and support her on whatever decision she made."

  As though guns were going off at the beginning of a horse race, you could practically hear the judges saying, "Let the backpedaling begin." The next day the vice president said he'd support her decision only if she were an adult. Marilyn Quayle, the vice president's wife, said that if her daughter became pregnant "she'll take the child to term."

  Dr. William Bennett became an easy target for critics when it was reported that he lost $8 million playing the slots in various casinos. I like Bill Bennett and if it's true, as he avers, that he "didn't bet the milk money," then this is really an issue between himself, his family, and his God. Nevertheless, because of his image as the country's "morality czar," the author of The Book of Virtues had to endure jokes like, "Did you hear about Bill Bennett's new book? It's called The Virtue of Bookies." I'm sure that even Dr. Bennett would agree that when you have a carefully cultivated public image, being teased in this manner comes with the territory.

  Maintaining a strong moral code while allowing for the vicissitudes of life can be a tough balancing act. Before you conservatives start yelling "moral relativism," I would argue that relativism is a fact of life, not just a theory. It's easy to say that abortion should be outlawed, that teenagers should practice abstinence, and that people who need public assistance should be thrown off the rolls after eighteen months. But if it's your daughter who is pregnant, your son who is indulging in adult behavior, or your brother who is jobless or homeless, you face a problem that won't be solved by absolutist positions.

  If They Just Say It Often Enough ...

  When lies are repeated often enough, using the Goebbels model, they become part of common parlance and are challenged less and less as time goes by. Conservative political operatives have used this technique to support their own ideas and invalidate liberal ones. Let's examine some of the oft-repeated sentiments and statements injected by the right into America's bloodstream.

  Republicans have been quite successful in feeding the perception that Democrats are soft on defense and national security. We have a president who didn't know the leaders of Pakistan, India, and Chechnya when asked to name them by a Boston television reporter during the 2000 presidential campaign, but that didn't seem to hurt him. It may be that Bush 43's most significant multicultural experience prior to moving to Washington was dining at the International House of Pancakes. As we've found out, it's
good for a potential president to know about those other countries out there. Might come in handy one day. But it's the Democrats who get blasted for being out of the loop on issues of national security and foreign affairs.

  Did Tom Daschle Gas the Kurds?

  Speaking in Trenton, New Jersey, on September 23, 2002, Bush 43, the man who claimed to be "a uniter not a divider," made this uniting comment on the Homeland Security Bill: "The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people."

  Tom Daschle, in an emotional speech on the Senate floor, rightly took Bush 43 to task for the insinuation that Democrats are less interested in protecting America: "You tell those who fought in Vietnam and World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people because they are Democrats. . . . That is outrageous. Outrageous." Daschle was criticized for using the Senate floor to make a political speech. Where was he supposed to make his impassioned plea, the floor of the New York Stock Exchange? Perhaps only Republican views should be offered on the Senate floor. On that same Senate floor were Democrats Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a highly decorated World War II veteran, and Max Cleland of Georgia, who sacrificed the use of his limbs while fighting for our country in Vietnam. I suspect these two American heroes care very much about national security.

  Although Republicans have positioned themselves as having the market cornered on foreign affairs, it was the Democrats who argued successfully for the creation of NATO, a move staunchly opposed by Republicans from the Midwest, especially Senator Robert Taft of Ohio. Democrats engineered the Marshall Plan, navigated the success of the Cuban missile crisis, the enduring peace between Israel and Egypt, the halting of genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo, and have been at the forefront in negotiating various treaties that have reduced nuclear threats.

  Even before his emotional reaction to Bush 43's attempt to brand him, Tom Daschle has been a target. Literally. During the anthrax attacks Daschle's office was hit. The minute he became majority leader he was branded an "obstructionist." When Republican John Thune ran against Democrat Tim Johnson for Senate in Daschle's home state of South Dakota, a conservative group ran ads comparing Daschle to Saddam Hussein. In 2001, Richard Lessner, head of "American Renewal," part of the right-wing Family Research Council, ran a newspaper ad in South Dakota that asked, "What do Saddam Hussein and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle have in common?" And the oh-so-logical answer: "Neither man wants America to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." This piece of advertising loveliness then juxtaposed pictures of the two men. Gee, I wonder which one is more dangerous to America?

  Jimmy, Billy, and Hilly

  Jimmy Carter and Bill and Hillary Clinton are three of the most demonized Americans these days. In a September 5, 2002, op-ed piece in the Washington Post, former president Carter had some harsh words in his analysis of America: "Formerly admired almost universally as the preeminent champion of human rights, our country has become the foremost target of respected international organizations concerned about these basic principles of democratic life. We have ignored or condoned abuses in nations that support our anti-terrorism effort, while detaining American citizens as 'enemy combatants,' incarcerating them secretly and indefinitely without their being charged with any crime or having the right to legal counsel."

  Predictably, this led to a great outcry. Former Reagan defense secretary Caspar Weinberger, appearing on Hannity & Colmes on November 20, 2002, responded to one of Sean's questions by accusing liberals of believing that America deserved to be attacked, and then reduced that, upon further questioning, to an accusation against Carter.

  WEINBERGER: . . . you'll hear more and more people of a broad liberal stripe taking this position that makes them apparently feel good because then they're not praising the country. And you can't praise the United States if you want to be a good liberal. . .

  When it was my turn, I asked Mr. Weinberger to elaborate on that:

  COLMES: . . . Do you honestly believe that's the liberal view in America?

  WEINBERGER: Some of the liberals have taken that position.

  COLMES: Who?

  WEINBERGER; It's the blame America first.

  COLMES: Who?

  WEINBERGER: Well, you've heard Mr. Carter. You've heard a number of other people . . .

  COLMES: Jimmy Carter thinks we deserve to be attacked? hannity; He said we ought to look at the reasons why.

  COLMES: Well, he didn't say we deserved to be attacked. He never made that statement.

  HANNITY: He suggested it.

  COLMES: No, he did not. Let me ask Mr. Weinberger.

  WEINBERGER: Well, he came close to it. And the basic doctrine is that it's America's fault. The first thing you look for with any trouble is to find out what America has done wrong. And that's the philosophy that I hoped that we reversed by President Reagan and I hope . . .

  COLMES: I would take great umbrage with your contention that Jimmy Carter believes that America deserves to be attacked; as a former president of the United States, you think he really hates this country and would welcome an attack from bin Laden?

  WEINBERGER: No, but I think he takes positions that gives substantial comfort to people who do attack the United States. I think he's in great sympathy with many of the European criticisms of the United States. And that, I think, is a very unfortunate place to be.

  When Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize, his detractors unceremoniously and cruelly demeaned him. Even the chairman of the awards committee took a shot at Carter at the ceremony, saying that although Carter is the best ex-president America ever had, "Jimmy Carter will probably not go down in American history as the most effective president." Bill Bennett came on our show on October 15, 2002, and, in response to a question from Sean, had this charming comment about President Carter's achievement:

  BENNET: It's now the Nobel Peanut Prize, you know.

  When it was my turn I questioned his choice of words:

  COLMES: Dr. Bennett, I want to get back to what you said about Jimmy Carter. I'm outraged that you would diminish the Nobel Prize and Jimmy Carter, what he's done to earn it by calling it the Nobel Peanut Prize. . . .

  HANNITY: It's a great line.

  COLMES: . . . as I said, it may sound poetic and funny, but I think it's inappropriate.

  BENNETT: ... I mean, I think his record, trotting around the world coddling dictators is not particularly impressive. . . . We can disagree on that. But I did not diminish the significance of the prize. They diminished the significance of the prize. And they did it long before this happened. Remember, the Nobel Peace Prize, I think, also went to Yasser Arafat, which makes you question the judgment of these folks.

  COLMES: I think Jimmy Carter has been a beacon of peace. And certainly, this was wrapped pretty much [up at] the Camp David Accords. He's brought—helped bring—democracy to lots of places in the world, overseen elections, risked a lot of personal time and personal capital to do it.

  BENNET: Look, I think what he's done with Habitat for Humanity is fine. I think some other things he's done are fine. As a president he was a failure.

  Okay, Dr. Bennett. In the interest of being fair and balanced, we'll give you the last word and let the readers decide.

  As you can see, the man who brokered an Israeli-Egyptian peace deal in 1978, but was denied the prize at the time in favor of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, was viciously attacked by the right for his "coddling of dictators." Funny how that phrase was never used by right-wingers to describe Richard Nixon, who received only praise for his 1972 trip to Red China. While Donald Rumsfeld was traveling to Iraq to visit Saddam Hussein in 1983 and American corporations were getting licenses to do business with Iraq, Carter was doing globe-trotting of a different nature. He oversaw elections in third world countries, helped produce a cease-fire in the former Yugoslavia in 1993, and negotiated a peaceful transition of power from Raoul Cedras to the democratically elected Jea
n-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti.

  When Carter traveled to Cuba in May 2002, he had the approval of the State Department. Before he left, he asked to be briefed about Cuba's involvement with biological weapons and whether they were aiding terrorists. Satisfied that there was no such involvement, Carter was on his way. Six days before the former president left for Havana, Undersecretary of State John Bolton spoke at the conservative Heritage Foundation and claimed that Cuba had provided rogue states with information about biological research and development. It's interesting timing to suddenly bring up Cuba and bioweapons, just as a Democratic former president is to become the first sitting or former chief executive to visit Havana since Calvin Coolidge in 1928. Subsequently, Carter's trip became a subject of great controversy. While there Carter gave a nationally televised speech, urging Cuba to become part of the "democratic hemisphere," and pressing for more freedoms of speech and assembly. You'd think the ardently antisocialist American government would want our Cuban neighbors to hear just such a message. But apparently the Bush 43 administration wants to have that message delivered only by Republican messengers.

  Bill and Hillary Clinton are, of course, America's most prominent straw couple. One conservative canard is the oft-repeated line that the Clintons' health care plan would have hijacked one-third of the economy. When resources are used for essential services for needy Americans, it is not a hijacking. Using this logic, how much of the economy is "hijacked" by Social Security, corporate welfare, and the Pentagon?