Debating with Conservative Friends

Angelo Lopez's picture

One could say that my life has been a series of debates. This is not to say that I’m argumentative. I’ve just been lucky in my life to have had friends with whom I could talk about issues and debate politics and religion. Although I’m fairly liberal in my politics, I’ve had in my life a fair amount of conservative Republican friends with whom I used to be able to debate on points of disagreement and while still maintaining a sense of respect for each other. Somehow, though, those type of talks have become less frequent in the past couple of years. I’m not sure if people in the past few years have just become more polarized along certain positions and are no longer tolerant of differing opinions. It’s become rare to meet that kind of friend, that friendship of opposites, and I miss those type of conversations.

When I was a kid, I used to always argue with my friends about our favorite basketball players and teams. People looking back to the 1980s always think of the Lakers and the Celtics, but in the playgrounds I played in, most people liked Doctor J and the Philedelphia 76ers. My brothers and I were Celtics fans, so it was natural that we’d wind up getting into arguments with our friends about who was the better player: Bird or the Doc. Bird had a greater outside shot and was a great passer. Doc drove better to the basket and was the greater leaper. Bird was the rebounder, Dr. J was the greater individual defender. We never convinced anyone to change their minds about anything, but it was fun to just argue things out and gab.

This extended to politics. One of my best friends was a guy named Eric. He was a Reagn Republican, but he was not the typical Reaganite. Eric was an agnostic who didn’t like the religious right, but he felt that anything was better than Carter. We talked a lot about politics at that time, especially when Reagan decided to ship nuclear missiles to Europe. Considering the vehemence of some of our debates, it’s ironic that years later, Eric came out of the closet and is now farther politically to the left than I am. Whenever I see him, I always tell him that my arguments finally got through to him. In reality, his experiences coming out as a gay man changed his perspective on politics and the way he saw the world.

Three houses down from my parents house were our friends Rollie and Rick. My brothers and I would hang out with them and play basketball every Friday, Saturday, and sometimes Sunday. When I visited their house, I’d sometimes talk to their father about politics. He knew I was a Democrat, so he’d talk about how we’re always taxing and spending with little regard on how that affects the working guy. During the 1984 elections we’d talk about the merits of Mondale and Reagan, and it was nice that he talked to me even though I was not old enough at that time to vote. When Reagan won in a landslide, I congratulated Rollie’s father and he was fairly gracious.

I was lucky in my young life to be around people who respected differences of opinions and didn’t try to coerce me to agree with them. During my college years, I didn’t really talk much politics as my college girlfriend and our circle of friends were relatively apolitical. My classmates in the art building were more focused on improving their art than in talking much politics, although a few fine arts students that I knew were fairly radical, more so than I was at the time. It was odd, but the best political conversations I had at the time were in the basketball courts. I’d just drop by a court for a pickup game, and after the game, we’d sometimes talk politics. Most of those people were not that ideological, but they had definite opinions about government doing too much to help the poor or government bureacracies running amok.

Things began to change in the mid 1990s. I had started attending an Asian American evangelical church and the first few friends that I made, I was able to be free in my opinions and engage in some fun conversations. As I became more of a regular member and I started making emotional attachments to the community, things began to change. The views of the people at that church are fairly diverse, but the vast majority of the evangelicals that I met tend to be conservatives, basing their politics on a literal interpretation of the Bible. They were a different brand of conservatives than the ones I knew outside of the church: while the nonchurchgoing conservative friends tended to be a bit more tolerant of differences of opinion and were able to enjoy the give and take of a fun debate, a lot of the conservative churchgoers were a lot more dogmatic and you could tell they didn’t approve of liberal positions like the right to choose an abortion and homosexuality. The people in that church who were moderate or liberal tended to be quiet about their views, and I learned to be quiet in my opinions too. They were nice people and I made many a lot of friends with them, and I just didn’t want to rock the boat. I saw how they would often use peer pressure to get individuals to conform, or else ostracize those who didn’t conform, and I just slowly learned to keep any differences of opinion to myself.

This was during the Clinton years, and a lot of the conservatives I knew hated Bill and Hillary with the same vehemence that progressive nowadays hate our current President. I learned at that time to be free with my political opinions only with other like-minded liberals or moderates. I’d meet young conservatives straight out of colleges and universities during the late 1990s and early 200s who were very dogmatic about the free markets being the cure to all our ills, and disdainful of any government aid to the poor. I’d always be annoyed at them, until I reflected that I might have been that way coming out of college as well, only from the liberal view of things. Eventually I was enmeshed in a few conflicts in the evangelical church that got me to start thinking for myself again, and I left the church in 2002.

I don’t know if the Clinton and Bush years just polarized the left and the right wings more, leaving less room for friendly debates. I sometimes even got in trouble with liberal friends, as when I supported Joe Lieberman in his run for the presidency in 2004. I don’t agree with Lieberman’s position in Iraq, but I do agree with his positions on the environment, on most social issues, and I admire his strong advocacy of labor rights. On these issues he’s actually more progressive than Howard Dean and especially John Murtha. And I thought his plan for a progressive tax structure was better for redistributing wealth than any candidate except Dennis Kucinich’s. No one really listened to me though.

A few years ago, I decided to research friendships between people with opposite political opinions. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were best friends, even though Adams was a strong Federalist and Jefferson was a passionate Republican. Their friendship was rocky at times, and they had a falling out in the 1790s, but their friendship was recovered in the 1800s with the assistance of their mutual friend Benjamin Rush, and they had a wonderful correspondence where they freely exchanged their views that lasted till the end of their lives. Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart were best friends, even though Fonda was a New Deal liberal and Stewart was a conservative Republican. They stayed friends all their lives, agreeing that their friendship was more important than their differences in political views. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill were friends, and O’Neil was at Reagan’s bedside offering support to Ronald and Nancy after the assasination attempt in 1981. One of Ted Kennedy’s closest friends in the Senate is Orrin Hatch, and it was Hatch’s urgings in the 1990s that helped lead Kennedy to finally deal with his alcohol problem.

I don’t have as many conservative friends anymore as I once did. One conservative friend that I do have though, is my brother-in-law, Erik. Erik is a fiscal conservative, thought his views on social issues are rather liberal. I enjoy visits with him, because he’s one of the few people nowadays that I can talk politics freely with who won't get bored of me. Though he’s a social liberal, he feels it’s a mistake for the courts to rule for issues like homosexual and abortion rights to be imposed on the land, feeling instead that activists should do the hard work of changing the electorates’ opinions on these issues so that these issues are resolved the legislature. We clash mostly on the free market and the role of government. From Erik’s point of view, the government does more harm than good when it tries to put its reach on the economy and alleviating poverty, and that the unfettered free market would better alleviate many of society’s problems. I, on the other hand, believe the free market has basic flaws that only the government can resolve.

I enjoy these conversations, and I think it’s good for me that my progressive viewpoints get challenged. It forces me to articulate why I believe the things that I believe, and it makes me see the strengths and weaknesses of my political beliefs. In my many years of arguing with conservative friends, I’ve never been convinced of the rightness of their ideas. But it’s helped me to see that they have a valid point of view, and hopefully it helps them see that my own left wing beliefs have some validity as well. Instead of two monologues going passed each other, which has been my experience with a lot of the more adverserial conversations that I have had with more hostile conservatives, my talks with conservative friends have been actual dialogues. And in this polarized political atmosphere, more dialogue is needed.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Glad times are changing Stephen

Angelo Lopez's picture

I'm glad that conversations with your conservative friends are getting better. My in-laws are Republican, the fiscal conservative/social liberal type. They hate Hillary, but didn't like the Bush years and see McCain as 4 years of the same. They're actually going to support Obama. I don't meet as diverse a crowd anymore, but I'm glad that you see a tide turning.

Fours years later, I have more mixed feelings about Lieberman. I was fairly embarassed a few years ago when Lieberman wanted Democrats to stop criticizing Bush over his conduct of the Iraq war. If anything, I think the Democrats were too timid in their criticisms. That's my big gripe against Joe and I can understand why many Progressives are mad at him. I don't really like his foreign policy positions and his free trade positions, but I like his domestic positions. He's tried to get a cap on global warming passed the Senate, and I like his positions on social issues like abortion and gay rights, his positions on the environment and on labor. I tend to like mavericks, so his independence doesn't bother me. I think because I was once in a union, I look more sympatheticly on him. He fought for laws to protect striking workers from losing their jobs to scabs, and I respect that. I just wish he wasn't so gung-ho on Iraq.

You must be a Sixer fan. The Doc was great too. I'm praying for the Celtics to get passed Detroit and make the championships. It would be cool to see a Celtic/Laker series again.

Lieberman and Hagee (and a petition)

wpeltz's picture

Angelo,

What about Lieberman still standing with Hagee after McCain finally cut loose from him? I would think that Lieberman would have been turned off by Hagee's comments on Hitler and the Holocaust being the good work of God in order to get Jews to go to Israel. (In addition, Hagee in the past has blamed Jews for bringing persecution upon themselves, starting with our 1st century rejection of Jesus as Messiah and continuing with assorted bad behaviors through the centuries since then.)

Yet Lieberman is going to be a featured speaker, again, for Hagee at an upcoming Christians United for Israel "Israel Summit" in July.

The new web site "J Street", a "pro-Israel, pro-peace movement" site, has a petition to Joe at http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2747/t/3267/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=.... It asks him not to go to that summit and to break it off with Hagee.

As a side light, although the idea that God uses evil people to achieve his purposes is in fact, alas, thoroughly Biblical, the passage in Jeremiah that Hagee uses to illustrate his pro-Holocaust position is grossly misapplied by him. He uses Jeremiah 16:16-18. If you read the whole chapter, I think you will see that the text talks about Judah being overcome by their enemies and being removed from Israel. Rather the reverse of the alleged purpose of the alleged divine stage-managing of the Holocaust.

Bill

I have no defense for Hagee

Angelo Lopez's picture

Hi Bill

Thanks for the post. I have no defense for Hagee and I have no explanation for the motivations of Lieberman attending that summit. I don't agree with Hagee's assertion that Jews have brought persecution upon themselves, and I don't agree with his assertion the Holocaust was God's work to bring Jews to Israel. I think that's insane. I don't know the extent of Lieberman's relationship with Hagee, but I'm guessing that Lieberman probably does not hold on to the beliefs that Hagee espressed on the culpability of Jews and I'm willing to give Lieberman the benefit of the doubt. I would also like to see the context on Hagee's comments, in the same way that I wanted to see the context of Reverend Wright's comments when the controversy about him occurred. I'm not willing to say that just because Lieberman is attending a Christians United for Israel summit, it does not mean that Lieberman supports Hagees assertions about the Holocaust and Jewish blame for their own persecution. Perhaps Lieberman is attending just because of the summit's support of Israel.

I think there are valid criticisms of Joe Lieberman. His unquestioned support of Bush's Iraq policy, his attempts to stifle the Democrats' criticisms of that policy and the attempt to get people to rally around Bush... these are valid criticisms of Lieberman. I think though that Lieberman honestly believes that the Iraq occupation is right. I also think Lieberman is wrong in that belief. His position on Iraq though obscures the many times that he's fought for progressive causes. He's fought for laws to protect striking workers from losing their jobs to scabs, he's fought attempts to open up protected areas of the Alaskan wilderness to oil drilling, he voted against Alito for the Supreme Court, he's fought for civil and gay rights, he's fought for the right of women to choose. I think Lieberman is the last of the old Cold War liberals, people like JFK, LBJ, Daniel Patrick Moynihan,... people who were liberal in social issues and issues of poverty but also believed in a strong military presence overseas. I don't agree with everything that Lieberman believes, but I also believe he's a decent man. One of the mistakes that the Republican Party made in the past 8 years is letting the Conservative purge their party of moderates or anyone who didn't tow the line. It would be a mistake for the Democrats to make the same mistake.

Lieberman's defense of Hagee

wpeltz's picture

Angelo, I didn't mean to imply that Lieberman agreed with Hagee's words about Hitler. In fact, later in the day Lieberman called those comments "deeply unacceptable and hurtful". He went on to say "I also believe that a person should be judged on the entire span of his or her life's works. Pastor Hagee has devoted much of his life to fighting anti-Semitism and building bridges between Christians and Jews."

His motivation? He thinks CUFI is "a vital force in supporting the war against terrorism and defending our ally, Israel."

Given Hagee's views on the End Times and the necessity for Jews to be in Israel for Armageddon to occur, and the subsequent destruction of Jews who don't accept Christ, I think Lieberman lacks good judgment about what constitutes a good defense for Israel.

Here's some of Hagee's sermon, "The Battle of Jerusalem", from about 10 years ago:

"Theodore Hertzel is the father of Zionism. He was a Jew who at the turn of the 19th century said, this land is our land, God wants us to live there. So he went to the Jews of Europe and said 'I want you to come and join me in the land of Israel.' So few went that Hertzel went into depression. Those who came founded Israel; those who did not went through the hell of the holocaust.

"Then god sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says -- Jeremiah writing -- 'They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the holes of the rocks,' meaning there's no place to hide. And that might be offensive to some people but don't let your heart be offended. I didn't write it, Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel."

In a book published in 2006, "Jerusalem Countdown", Hagee wrote "anti-Semitism, and thus the Holocaust, was the fault of Jews themselves -- the result of an age old divine curse incurred by the ancient Hebrews through worshiping idols and passed, down the ages, to all Jews now alive."

He says he wants to ensure against a second Holocaust. But Armageddon, in his view, is like the Holocaust in that most Jews would die.

He also wrote that "Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews." You might think that Lieberman would want to steer clear of that kind of anti-Catholicism, which has been manifested by Hagee in many other comments.

Bill

re:Lieberman's defense of Hagee

Angelo Lopez's picture

Hi Bill

Sorry about misconstruing your post. I actually don't know much about this Hagee Lieberman issue that you raised. You're right that Lieberman should not be associating with someone who is antiCatholic and antisemetic. I don't have much to say because I really don't know much about Hagee, other than what I've read lately in the news and in some of these Crossleft posts. My judgements on Hagee are based on that, but I have to admit, that's superficial knowledge of someone. From what I've heard though, Hagee seems like someone whose opinions I wouldn't approve of.

Angelo

Lieberman & Hagee

Angelo Lopez's picture

Bill, I just want to add that I'm not trying to dispute you. You've given me information that I didn't know before and it's been helpful. When I attended an evangelical church, I witnessed occassions of both antiCatholicism and antisemitism among certain individuals and groups. During the times they occurred, I kept quiet and the people around me didn't challenge them because we were afraid of going against the group. With groups and individuals more than willing to try to coerce people to think their way, I learned the hard way that one should be careful about who one chooses to associate with. It's plausible in my ears that Hagee would say these things. Many conservative Christians are not anti-Catholic or anti-semitic. But there is a portion who are.

My original post was about friendships with people we disagree with, but I understand there are limits to what kind of disagreements we should tolerate. What those limits are, depends I guess on each person. Do we keep a friend if they spout a racist remark? Or a homophobic or antisemitic remark? I think we should challenge them on an offensive remark, but do we give up on that friendship? It's a tough call and I guess we have to judge on an individual basis.

I guess I'm getting a bit wary of this guilt by association trend. A few weeks ago Obama was getting hassled for his relationship with Reverend Wright and his association with a former radical from the 1960s. You're right that Lieberman probably shouldn't speak at Hagee's conference if Hagee has not recanted on his comments on Jews and Catholics, and if he hasn't done things to undo the damage his comments may have had. But we should not go overboard like what happened during the McCarthy era, when people were blacklisted for their suspected associations with communists. I remember in 1984 when Jesse Jackson made off-the-cuff comments against Jews. There was a big uproar about it, but he apologized for it, and I still supported him in 1988 when he ran again for President.

I originally made this post to answer Stephen's post and describe my feelings on Lieberman. My one big gripe is his support of Iraq and his attempts to stifle Democrats who criticized the Bush's Iraq policy. But I still respect the many times he's fought for progressive causes. In 2005 the liberal activist organization Americans for Democratic Action gave Lieberman a liberal quotient of 80 out of 100 in 2005; a 75 in 2004; a 70 in 2003; an 85 in 2002; and a 95 in 2001. He's led the effort to prevent oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, fought attempts to weaken the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. He's fought to protect a woman's right to choose and he's fought to protect affirmative action laws. He's fought for laws to ban discrimination in employment and housing based on sexual orientation. He's fought to prevent hate crimes against gays, to provide the same benefits for domestic partners that are enjoyed by straight spouses. He's fought to ensure collective bargaining rights and to safeguard worker's rights.

These are all good things. It's just too bad that Lieberman is wrong about one of the most important issues of our time, one that has caused the deaths of many Americans and Iraqis.

Lieberman, Hagee, and friendship

wpeltz's picture

Angelo,

Your points are well taken. Friendships with people we disagree with are important. I've had many such friendships. As I've mentioned before, one of the great things about church is that you find yourself in relationship with some people you'd otherwise never give the time of day to. I've mentioned a couple of extreme conservatives who I thought were over-the-top and who thought the same about me, yet we came to appreciate each other without ever trying to change each other's views, except, perhaps, by example.

In the case of Lieberman and Hagee, however, we're not talking about personal friendships. Instead, it's public political policy and political maneuvering. If Lieberman and Hagee went way back as old friends, I wouldn't ask him to break off his friendship. I would, however, ask him, on political grounds, the validity of which I would be prepared to argue, not to promote his friend's political views.

Obama-and-Wright is quite different from McCain-and-Hagee, or Lieberman-and-Hagee. In all the hoo-ha about whether or not he should have stayed in Trinity UCC for so long, no one, including Obama, dared to say that friendship transcends political differences.

Bill

I Agree With What You Wrote Bill

Angelo Lopez's picture

Bill, I agree with what you wrote. I agree that Lieberman, as a public official, has reponsibilities that a private citizen has about who he can associate or not associate with. And think that if Hagee has not apologized for his antisemitic and anticatholic remarks and has not made concrete attempts to undo the damage that those remarks have made, then Lieberman should disassociate with him. And I concur with Jim that I've witnessed antisemetism and anticatholicism among fundamentalists.

I'm not defending Hagee's antisemitic or anticatholic views. I'm not trying to say that the Hagee-Lieberman relationship is same as the Obama-Wright relationship. I'm only saying that the road to impugning a person by association inevitably leads to something like the Red Scare or the Cultural Revolution if we're not careful and allow things to go too far. I think Lieberman is speaking at Hagee's group only because of their shared support of Israel; it shouldn't impugn that Lieberman is promoting Hagee's other more offensive views. I remember watching Ken Burn's documentary on Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. In order to find as many allies as she could to get passage of laws to get women the right to vote, Susan B. Anthony had to sometimes ally herself with people who supported women's suffrage but also held racist views on African Americans and supported segregation. Anthony fought hard for the end of slavery and found racist views offensive, and her allying herself with segregationists for women's suffrage did not mean that she supported their views on race.

I think that's my main worry about this, that someone can be impugned on something by association. I'm defending Lieberman on this because I like Lieberman. I do think Lieberman deserves the criticism directed his way about his uncritical support of the Iraq war and his attempts to mute Democratic criticism of Bush's Iraqi policies. But we should also remember that Lieberman has been a strong supporter of the environment, of labor and unions, of civil rights and the right of women to choose an abortion. Lieberman has consistently scored over 90% in the National Environmental Scorecard from the League of Conservation Voters for the course of his Senate career, over 95% from NARAL for protecting a women's right to choose, over 90% from the Human Rights Campaign for his senate career in opposing discrimination against gays and lesbians. Lieberman may be a friend of Hagee, but he is a lot more liberal than Hagee is.

Like I said, Lieberman deserves criticism for his support of Bush's Iraq policy. But because of his support of liberal positions on the environment, civil rights, gay rights, abortion rights and worker's rights, I would oppose any attempts to bury Lieberman by impugning him by association with Hagee.

Angelo

Agreement, and a small area of disagreement

wpeltz's picture

Angelo -- At the risk of going on too long about this, I think there's an important distinction still to be made.

The problem with Lieberman speaking at Hagee's Christian Zionist event, from my point of view, isn't simply Hagee's past anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish comments. It's the nature of his and Lieberman's "shared support of Israel".

That is, Hagee, like Lieberman, is a war hawk. He's convinced Armageddon is coming and he wants to hasten it. He's for attacking Iran, not just in defense of Jerusalem but as part of his End Times scenario. He foresees the ultimate destruction and damnation of all Jews who don't convert to Christianity. Therefore, I think Hagee is not a real friend of Israel or of Jews in general. I believe his agenda doesn't deserve Lieberman's support.

So I don't think that this is a question of impugning Lieberman by association. It's the nature of Hagee's policies that's at issue here. My position is that Lieberman's support of Hagee is like his support for Bush's Iraq policy. (And like his support of McCain and like his trashing of Obama, who had supported Lieberman, his Senatorial mentor, in Joe's re-election campaign against an anti-war Democratic challenger.)

Bill

May be debating on something we don't have a disagreement on

Angelo Lopez's picture

Bill, we may be debating something where we don't actually have any disagreements on. If you're right about Hagee's views on Armageddon and the ultimate destruction of Jews who don't convert to Christianity, then you're right that he's not a real friend of Israel or Joe Lieberman. What you're describing sounds like a friendship of convenience between Hagee and Israel.

One of the few things I dislike about Lieberman is his hawkish foreign policy positions. I think there's a Good Joe and a Bad Joe: the Good Joe supports civil rights, gay rights, the right for women to choose, the fight for labor and unions, the fight for a better environment; the Bad Joe supports the Iraq War, tries to mute criticism of Bush's war policies, talks about invading Iran, supports John McCain. I think the growing antagonism between Lieberman and the antiwar activists over the past 6 years pushed the Good Joe into the background and pushed the Bad Joe into the forefront. I'm hoping that someone in the Democratic Party could reach out and bring the Good Joe back in the forefront again.

Good Joe has been a lot less prominent

Stephen Rockwell's picture

Angelo,

There are some issues where Lieberman is okay on. He certainly hasn't been an outspoken proponent on the progressive issues that you named, although he certainly has been supportive.

I, for one, can simply not look past the war-mongering rhetoric of Lieberman. There's nothing progressive about it. He had gone well beyond a hawk to an acceptance of the neo-con ideology and using those who adopt a Christian fundamentalist worldview as it relates to Israel. He was one of the last outspoken supporters of the Iraq War and has rarely said a critical thing about the Bush administration's execution of the war. Meanwhile he was the first Democrat to rap Bill Clinton about his Monica issues. As far as I'm concerned, this guy is not the same team.

But let's also look at the way the guy operates. He is frankly one of the worst "politician politicians" who'se main purpose is that he stay in power. For example, rather than fully commit to the 2000 Presidential race, he decided to be a candidate for re-election for his Senate seat. Did he forcefully go after Cheney in the debate? No, that might ruin his reputation as the centrist. Rather than help Gore, by aggressively taking on the other side, he bent over backwards to play nice. The next time he was up for re-election he LOST the Democratic Primary. He then decided to run as an independent. How politiciany can you be to next accept the will of the people who made your career possible for 24 years! That's like Hillary choosing to run as independent (I wouldn't put it past her, but I think most people would be outraged by such a move.)

I am dismayed by Lieberman's positions on the war and disgusted with his political maneuvering. I'm not sure how you continue to support a guy like this.

Good Joe/Bad Joe

Angelo Lopez's picture

Stephen

I agree with all the criticisms that you've leveled against Lieberman's foreign policy. I supported him in 2004 because of his strong domestic positions, but I don't support many of the things he's done lately. I didn't like the Op-ed piece Lieberman did a while back in the NY Times where he stated that Democrats should stop criticizing Bush and instead get behind the President and his war policy. I don't like Lieberman's support of John McCain and his criticisms of Barack Obama's positions on Iraq. I was flabbegasted at his suggestion that we invade Iran. On foreign affairs, I'm in total agreement with you.

When it comes to Lieberman's domestic issues, though, I disagree with you. Lieberman has been more than just a passive supporter of liberal social, labor and environmental issues. On these issues, he's been a consistently strong advocate who has pushed through legislation. I'll repeat some of Lieberman's domestic positions. Lieberman has consistently scored over 90% in the National Environmental Scorecard from the League of Conservation Voters for the course of his Senate career, over 95% from NARAL for protecting a women's right to choose, over 90% from the Human Rights Campaign for his senate career in opposing discrimination against gays and lesbians, a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood. In 2005 the liberal activist organization Americans for Democratic Action gave Lieberman a liberal quotient of 80 out of 100 in 2005; a 75 in 2004; a 70 in 2003; an 85 in 2002; and a 95 in 2001. He's led the effort to prevent oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, fought attempts to weaken the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. He's fought to protect a woman's right to choose and he's fought to protect affirmative action laws. He's fought for laws to ban discrimination in employment and housing based on sexual orientation. He's fought to prevent hate crimes against gays, to provide the same benefits for domestic partners that are enjoyed by straight spouses. He's fought to ensure collective bargaining rights and to safeguard worker's rights. He's fought for laws to protect striking workers from losing their jobs to scabs. He voted against Alito for the Supreme Court. On these issues Lieberman is a very strong liberal. This is the Joe Lieberman that I supported.

I agree with you that he was too nice to Cheney in the debates in 2000. I wish he was as respectful of the antiwar Democrats as he was with Cheney. It didn't bother me though, when he ran as an Independent against Ned Lamont, because I thought Lamont was a shallow single issue candidate.

Today I don't support Lieberman the way that I did in 2004. I think Lieberman is sort of like LBJ. LBJ achieved great things on the domestic front with his Great Society programs. But he also got the U.S. stuck in a quagmire in Vietnam that cost many American and Vietnamese lives.

Republicans seem happy that Lieberman is fighting for a more hawkish Iraq policy. When things switch to domestic issues, and they find out that Lieberman is prochoice, pro gay rights, pro affirmitive action, pro gun control, pro immigration and pro union, Republicans will find that Lieberman won't be such a strong ally.

another fantastic post Angelo

Stephen Rockwell's picture

Sometimes I don't get the chance to comment as much as I would like but this is a fantastic post (even if you are on the wrong side of the Bird vs. Doc debate!).

I have found the conversations with my conservative friends and family members increasingly easier. I think part of that is my own maturity in not always forcing the issue down someone's throat, but I also think the utter failure of the Bush presidency is making some folks who were socially or fiscally conservative, re-evaluate their political ideology. If government and taxes are the evils, how do we provide for the common good, especially when disasters like Katrina hit? A go it alone foreign policy approach has gotten us bogged down in a war that almonst no one supports continuing. And I think a lot of folks are realizing that demonizing homosexuals for political gain is wrong, and that good people, indeed good Christians, disagree on gay marriage. Maybe its just my wishful thinking, but I do think the tide has changed substantially.

One question though, do you still support Joe Lieberman? He is absolutely everything that's wrong in politics in my eyes. I will post more later, but interested in hearing your thoughts around him four years hence.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
register