How Low Can They Go?

The only interesting thing about the recent Congressional debate about whether Terri Schiavo should have her feeding tube removed is that it proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that these conservative Republicans will do anything -- anything -- to gain political advantage.

The way we know this is that intervening (or maybe we should say interfering) in this case goes against everything that these people claim to believe in.

They claim to believe in the family -- and yet they are interfering with the family: that is, Terri Schiavo's husband (and if you don't think that her husband, and not her parents, qualifies as her family and the one who should be making any decisions about her medical treatment, try reading the Bible -- a book they claim to believe in).

They claim to believe in state's rights -- and yet they are trampling on the rights of the state of Florida to decide this case. Florida judges have decided this case over and over again -- but, as with the presidential race in 2000, when these people want something, the rule of law in a given state is treated like a used Kleenex.

To put it bluntly, Tom DeLay doesn't give a rat's ass whether Terri Schiavo lives or dies. He wants to exploit this human tragedy for political advantage. Period. He thinks that by turning this into a hot-button issue for conservative Republicans they will reap a political windfall in 2006, instead of losing Congressional seats the way the party in power usually does in an off-year election.

This is something that is intensely personal and private and should not be decided by a bunch of bloviating Congressmen trying to win votes in red states by exploiting human tragedy. Because anyone who would do that qualifies as the scum of the earth.

Lenin is reputed to have said that the French Revolution failed because its leaders were insufficiently ruthless. That's something that can't be said of Tom DeLay and his gang of Republican thugs. If they'll do this, they will do anything.

Tom Moran

It's Easy To Be Conservative

I've decided that one of the reasons why people vote Republican is because it's easy to be conservative. Let me explain why.

Conservatives believe in about three things. Okay, maybe four. But when you get down to it, they really believe in one big principle, which is the subtext of everything else they profess to believe in.

What is that principle?

They want the rich to get richer at the expense of everyone else.

Why are they, for example, so monomaniacal about tort reform? Because lawsuits are just about the only thing (aside from a Congress that is increasingly supine) that is capable of keeping large corporations in line. No lawsuits, no threat. No threat, and the rich can get richer with impunity -- at the expense of everyone else.

Why do they want to make the tax cuts permanent? Because they want to make it difficult if not impossible for those tax cuts to ever be rolled back -- so the rich can get richer at the expense of everyone else.

The question is, not why the Republicans do this, but why do people continue to vote for these people? Why vote for people who want to do nothing but slash taxes on the wealthiest people and raise taxes on the middle class (who are paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes now than they did when Bill Clinton was president)? Why are they willing to, in effect, underwrite the wealthy at their own expense?

Easy. No one wants the rich to pay more in taxes because everyone thinks they're going to win the lottery. And when they're rolling in money, they're not going to want to pay taxes on their winnings.

So you don't really have to think to be a conservative, because your thinking has been done for you. All you have to do is spout some pre-packaged cliches about big government and liberal elitists, or perhaps even less than that -- all you have to do is say "ditto."

And as easy as it is to be conservative, it's hard to be progressive -- and for this the progressives are partly to blame.

Ever since Ronald Reagan became president, progressives have been defining themselves by what they're against, not what they're for. They still do that today. Why? Mostly because it's easy -- especially in Washington, which is a town where playing defense is a lot easier than playing offense. Democrats in Congress tend to be a passive-aggressive bunch (with a few notable exceptions), because when you're out of power it's easier to be that way.

But progressives have to define themselves and their beliefs if they're going to succeed. It's not enough to say that the other side is wrong -- you have to state in terms that ordinary people can understand what you're going to do and how you're going to do it.

I think that's going to be the big test for progressives in the next few years -- to define and explain their beliefs in such as way as to be able to get them across to the country. Because when progressives articulate their beliefs, and do it persuasively, they tend to win. And we need to win in 2006 to set up a win in 2008 -- because we can't have these people in power much longer.

And now you'll excuse me while I go check my lottery numbers. I feel lucky.

Tom Moran