Okay, so Obama's not the most liberal senator. But who is? Enquiring minds want to know . . .
« Worst. Article. Ever. | Main | Jesus »
Liberal baiting
31 Jan 2008 05:21 pm
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/19155
Comments (36)
How are you measuring liberalism?
Bernie Sanders would probably be the most leftist, but that's not the same thing.
None of them. There is no such thing as a liberal senator, just thoughtful, sensible moderates and frothing crypto-nazi neo-cons.
As a strong supporter of Barack Hussein Obama I can only say that right or left he will be this country's salvation.
Almost immediately Obama--likely with an eye on national office--shaded himself toward the center. His rhetoric was cool, often timid, not the zealous advocacy on behalf of peace, justice and the dispossessed that had characterized Wellstone's tenure.
Evidently the argument that Obama isn’t the “most liberal Senator” consists of pointing to another Senator who died before Obama was elected and saying that he was “more liberal.” Under this standard any Republican who is labeled “the most conservative” will be able to defeat the label by just pointing to grave of Robert Taft.
If inquiring minds want to know, that lets you out. So why is this even here?
I'd suggest he's perhaps not the most liberal senator running for the democratic nomination.
Senator Clinton just announced (first question of the CNN/LATimes debate tonight) that to solve the mortgage crisis, she would freeze interest rates for five years.
I'd be interested -- any thoughts from the economists out there on the likely result of Hillary Clinton's economic policy?
So Hillary has superpowers now? Freezing interest rates? Yea that will work well.
Geeze, at least McCain admits he knows nothing about economics.
Senator Clinton becomes more Nixonian with each passing day.
Whitehouse? Sanders? Boxer? Feingold? Those all seem like the most plausible.
WTF does liberal mean? The definition keeps changing depending on who's doing the talking.
Tim Connor wrote: If inquiring minds want to know, that lets you out. So why is this even here?
Evidently, it is the female rutting call of the Uninquiring Mind, answered by you?
None of them. There is no such thing as a liberal senator, just thoughtful, sensible moderates and frothing crypto-nazi neo-cons.
What's it like to be so consumed by partisan hatred?
Freddie--that was a joke.
Perhaps not a funny joke, but come on.
I used to try to calculate this based on several interest group ratings of "How (US) Liberal X is." I believe Barbara Boxer is up pretty high on the list and yes so is Kennedy. Sanders might be even higher, but he was still in the House when I looked into this.
What's it like to be so consumed by partisan hatred?
I dunno, but lately I feel consumptive bouts of bi-partisan hatred coming on. Say, will there be a line for Mickey Mouse/Donald Duck on the bulletin in November, or will I have to write that in myself?
What's it like to be so consumed by partisan hatred?
If you really want to see pure hatred, find a conservative blog/forum and say you're in favor of open borders. It's amusing yet scary at the same time.
Perhaps not a funny joke, but come on.
Ted Stevens
John Cornyn
Jim Inhofe
Tom Coburn
Jeff Sessions
Saxby Chambliss
Orrin Hatch
Pat Roberts
Mitch McConnell
Don't sell yourself short, Rob - it was funny! It was one of those "it's funny because it's true" jokes.
If you really want to see pure hatred, find a
progressive blog/forum and say you're in favor of Joe Lieberman. It's amusing yet scary at the same time.
"Apostates" get the worst treatment. Jeffords was fairly well despised by Republicans for a time. If he was not as despised as Lieberman it's partly because he was never as significant or interesting a member. In comparison Liebermann was a VP candidate.
Still there are certainly things that make people on a progressive/Left forum flip out. I mentioned on one that I was against abortion and I was pretty quickly called a drueling retarded Nazi.
The terms "liberal", "conservative", and "moderate" certainly have objective definitions in our political culture, but most people passionate in their politics are simply incapable of using the terminology correctly. This is due to the fact that "moderate" has taken on the connotation of reasonableness, while the other two terms are used derisively to describe one's political opposites.
There was a debate, once, on Political Animal in which every liberal on the comment thread was utterly convinced the NY Times was not a liberal newspaper. They argued this position passionately and, in my opinion, they really believed this, even though the position itself is complete nonsense.
There is an interesting post by Steve Benen discussing the screwed up methodology used to determine such rankings.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/013024.php#more
Going by one form of liberal Sanders might top as he's never gotten less than 85% from the ACLU
http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=27110&type=category&category=13
ACU listed Ted Kennedy as the least conservative in career record.
The terms "liberal", "conservative", and "moderate" certainly have objective definitions in our political culture
Please enlighten me, because I have no clue what they mean.
There was a debate, once, on Political Animal in which every liberal on the comment thread was utterly convinced the NY Times was not a liberal newspaper.
Those would be the people I was making fun of, however cryptically.
Those would be the people I was making fun of, however cryptically.
Not that cryptic. However, Freddie's response did remind me of reading The Calvin & Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Collection. Specifically, Waterson shows one of his old cartoons where Hobbes is trying to bait Calvin by telling him that he was actually adopted, that he will be sold off for indentured labor in a cannery at age ten, that's he's being fattened up for slaughter, etc., and Calvin believes enough of it that he questions his mother for three panels before reporting back to Hobbes that it was nonsense.
Underneath, Waterson notes (I quote from memory), "Boy, did I get a lot of angry mail over this one. I thought the juxtaposition was sufficiently ludicrous that nobody could possibly take it seriously. As I've discovered, some people take everything seriously."
Even if you have an different impression:
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate. (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/)
In Germany (where I live) you would consider Obama not really as liberal but that has to do with our strong socialdemocratic tradition. Anyway he seems to be the best candidate especially in terms of international relations.
Even if you have an different impression:
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate. (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/)
In Germany (where I live) you would consider Obama not really as liberal but that has to do with our strong socialdemocratic tradition. Anyway he seems to be the best candidate especially in terms of international relations.
I thought that ADA ratings would provide the answer, but both Hillary and Joe Biden have had recent years of 100% ratings from the ADA. Since both of them currently pass for "moderates" among Democratic senators, ADA ratings may be necessary, but not sufficient. Anyone still in his or her first Senate term should be ineligible for this dubious honor.
So if you want "the most liberal Senator," you can't go wrong with Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin or Russ Feingold. (Maybe Carl Levin, too.) Probably each has a lifetime ADA/ACLU, et al. rating of 98%+, and has been reelected at least twice (Harkin's in his fourth term, and Levin's in his fifth).
To Nelson: From what I can tell two somewhat constant factors are the idea of "peace through military strength" versus "peace through negotiation" and "the individual is responsible for his/her own success/failure" versus "society has a responsibility to assure people succeed."
In the US people who identify as conservative believe that military strength is the best way to achieve peace. They also believe that when an individual fails it's probably their own fault.
There really should be more than that. US conservative also used to contain a belief in federalism, tradition, fiscal restraint, and small government. These things are apparently unimportant now.
Anyway people who identify as liberal tend to see negotiations as the best way to peace. They also believe in programs to "assure" people succeed. When an individual fails it's probably because of genetic illness, bad childhood, or society.
US Liberalism also values social liberalism and some level of egalitarianism. Hence taxing the rich, disapproving of exclusivist groups (like the Boy Scouts), gender inclusive language, etc serve the idea of eliminating inequality. While their views on sex and gender are "liberal" in a relatively classic sense. Those are about lowering restrictions and disregarding tradition or religious authorities.
Thanks Thomas!
It's interesting to me because an economic liberal over here believes in soaking the rich and a large government but in France for instance someone who calls themselves an economic liberal believes in low taxes and less government intervention.
Yeah it's a bit confusing in that our terms don't conform to original or "obvious" meanings of the word. Although some of it does conform to our history in a way.
The US began as a Federal Republic so the idea of a small government with states-rights is conserving to this nation. (Yes I said this is no longer important to self-described American conservatives, but it still is to leading conservatives) Likewise liberalism here in some ways started with a fondness for radicals like the French Revolutionaries. Some of them did emphasize egalitarianism and at the very least certainly did take stuff from rich people.
Still there's been some change just in my lifetime though. When I was young "small government" and federalism was as important to self-described conservatives as "peace through military strength." Going by the polls of the last few years self-described conservatives no longer believe in small-government. I'm thinking this might be a temporary change which will reverse itself. Likewise liberals seem to have lost a bit of interest in the "universal embrace" "treat every foreigner as a friend" type stuff. In the 1990s US liberals were accused of wanting the US to play "global police" by many, but certainly not all, conservatives. Now liberals seem to be more favoring of withdraw from the world and its problems.
Arguing that some of Obama's positions are wrong/bad/etc. may make sense. But suggesting that he is "the most liberal" Senator means only one thing: panic on the part of the self-proclaimed conservative establishment, because of the number of conservatives who are coming around to support him.
The label of "liberal" is, pretty obviously, the only argument against him that they think that they have remaining. They can hope that it will be enough to stem the tide. Call it the King Canute approach.
On the Democratic primary front I think it could conceivably help him. Clinton at times has tried to portray him as soft on core Democratic Party values or some such.
In general it could hurt him, but maybe not as much as they're hoping. Several sources listed Kerry of having a lifetime record that was among the most liberal, Obama has one-year as most liberal according to one group.
Going by the polls of the last few years self-described conservatives no longer believe in small-government. I'm thinking this might be a temporary change which will reverse itself.
My theory is that they believed it right up until Bill Clinton declared that "the era of big government is over," at which point out of hatred for all things Clinton they immediately adopted the opposite position. If Hillary loses (or after Bill dies) they will go back to being in favor of small government.
A second theory would be that they really do believe in small government even now, but they feel they just can't justify it In A Time Of War. So during the Cold War they were big spenders, after 1992 they became small spenders again, and now they have oh so reluctantly become big spenders once more. They will continue to reluctantly spend vast sums of money on The War, which, since it is open-ended and probably generational at best, means they will reluctantly spend vast sums of money forever. But they do still believe in cutting taxes; being In A Time Of War or not, cutting taxes is always a great idea.
| 
Are we starting a pool?
I don't know...I'll say Kennedy.
But it's certainly fun to watch the aides to both Obama's and Clinton's camps trying to have it both ways, as liberals and moderates, appealing at once to the base and any cross-over support they can get.
Something tells me one of them is going to have more success at this than the other...
Posted by DG | January 31, 2008 6:18 PM