Did you notice that excerpt (scroll down in the link to "Rebuilding casinos") we put on the Sunday op-ed page from the Biloxi paper?
I thought it was interesting for two reasons:
First, the paper put this editorial on the front page, which is kind of freaky and unusual.
Second, this is for those of you out there who persist in believing that Knight Ridder, which owns both the Biloxi paper and The State, dictates editorial policy to its newspapers. There are loads of ways I could demonstrate how false that assumption is, but few would be as dramatic as this one. Can you imagine The State, given its positions on video poker, the state lottery, and casino boats would take such a position — much less feel so strongly about it as to break the conventions by putting such advocacy on the front page?
Well, I should smile, as a Mark Twain character might say.
Related Posts
Why do you, Cindy Scoppe, and Warren Bolton have to tell us every day that you are not big-spending liberals, not toadies for the polititicians, not carpetbaggers, etc?
They feel the need to tell everyone that they aren’t big spending liberals everyday, Lee, because they get the emails everyday telling them that they are, I suppose. Problem is, they don’t see it. They live in this haze, that Cindi refers to, where they start to think they are conservative because they are to the right of Michael Moore. The editorial page is consistently written from a leftist point of view. Ms. Scoppe went so far as to defend the NY Times, despite thier 53 anti-Bush columns last MONTH. The media is liberal. The State opinion page is becoming increasingly liberal (see references to any opponent of writing a blank check to education bureacrats as being anti-education, constant printing of only anti-Bush and anti-Christian letters to the editor, and the love affair with Inez). Further, Lee Bandy, who belongs on the opinion page, writes an anti-Sanford article every other day in his personal jihad to get someone else elected governor. Look, I am a conservative. I admit that. I just wish that the State would either admit they are liberals, or, if they aren’t, start letting us hear both sides instead of just the left-wing propaganda.
Nathan & Lee,
To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen vs. Dan Quayle…
I am a liberal. I know progressivism. Liberal Democratic positions are “a friend of mine.” The State newspaper, (take it from me) it is no Liberal Newspaper.
Seems like I remember a certain endorsement for president last November. Remember that, Nathan and Lee? And isn’t staying the course in Iraq what you want? Seems like that’s Brad’s position. Not sure you guys would ever be happy. You must be hopping mad about Miers.
And…”carpetbaggers”??? wow, I didn’t know people still used that word.
Lee and Nathan: Y’all are kidding, right? I mean, you heard that Don Adams and Nipsey Russell died, and you figured there was a national comedy gap that needed filling, right?
Either that, or your concept of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are pretty strange.
But don’t feel all alone. The country is full of people who are confused about those terms. Including Phillip (although I do appreciate his sticking up for me).
What I mean by that is that we’ve got people who support the war calling themselves "conservatives," and alleged "liberals" opposing it, when there is nothing at all conservative about invading Iraq. It’s the biggest throw of the dice since Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, and the boldest action in favor of liberal principles since Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for the war. But I don’t delude myself into thinking there’s anything "conservative" about that. REAL conservatives, like Pat Buchanan, are against it.
By the same token, the anti-government, libertarian types call themselves "conservative," but there’s nothing conservative about many of their ideas — or even most of their ideas. And yet, alleged "liberals" would agree with them on that definition. Few in this country get it right. The Economist, which calls itself a "liberal newspaper," does (even though it is actually a magazine — oh, well, at least they get the modifier right). That excellent publication — which makes no bones about its political leanings, with editorials (or "leaders," in the British jargon) running on the pages before the news — is consistently opposed to increased government spending in general, staunchly free-market-oriented, and loves to sneer at the socialistic governments on the continent.
So now that you’ve decided that I’m playing word games with you (which I’m not; I just believe in precision in the use of language), let’s consider where we are by your definitions. Let’s see, I’m pro-life (although our editorial board as group is divided on that point), I think equating gender and sexual-orientation issues with the civil rights movement of the 1960s is absurd, I’d like to see a return to the draft (for males only), I want strict constructionists on all of our courts, I distrust labor unions, and I think it’s outrageous that we have to keep fighting lawsuits to defend "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Under my leadership, this editorial board was tied for first in calling for Bill Clinton’s resignation (I think The Orlando Sentinel did so the same day), and we were easily the most vocal critics that Gov. Jim Hodges had in this state. We also endorsed George W. Bush for president (twice, although we might not have the second time if we’d had a better alternative), and enthusiastically endorsed Mark Sanford — back when he seemed like more of a government-restructuring guy than a radical libertarian. (What we’ll do next year is an open question. Folks who’ve read our pages recently may assume we won’t endorse him again. They’re forgetting a significant factor — it will all depend upon the alternative.)
By the way, I could come up with an equally long list to back up the idea that we are "liberal" by the currently popular misapplication of that word. But that’s not the argument before me at the moment. The bottom line is, I say a pox on both your ideologies. They are both internally inconsistent, and have more to do with a sort of political tribalism than with any intellectually defensible schools of thought.
Oh, and Phillip — Lee’s right. I DO get accused of being a carpetbagger quite regularly. That’s pretty weird for a Bennettsville native. The least they could do is call me a "scalawag."
Brad, you’ve made the point a number of times now about some of us using the terms “liberal” and “conservative” inaccurately, and I haven’t answered that directly yet. Well, I plead guilty to intellectual laziness on that score, using “liberal” and “progressive” interchangeably…My childhood memories are of the rebellion against the pro-war Dems, the ’68 nomination fight, and George McGovern in ’72. But you’re absolutely right that, historically speaking, it was liberalism of the pre-Eugene McCarthy kind that gave us Vietnam. That reminder about Kennedy and Johnson did serve as a punch to the gut, strong enough that I henceforth will renounce calling myself liberal. It’s “progressive” from now on. These labels are always crude at best anyway. But I found this definition of progressivism pretty palatable:
http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/23706
Brad, you’ve made the point a number of times now about some of us using the terms “liberal” and “conservative” inaccurately, and I haven’t answered that directly yet. Well, I plead guilty to intellectual laziness on that score, using “liberal” and “progressive” interchangeably…My childhood memories are of the rebellion against the pro-war Dems, the ’68 nomination fight, and George McGovern in ’72. But you’re absolutely right that, historically speaking, it was liberalism of the pre-Eugene McCarthy kind that gave us Vietnam. That reminder about Kennedy and Johnson did serve as a punch to the solar plexus, strong enough that I henceforth will renounce calling myself liberal. It’s “progressive” from now on. These labels are always crude at best anyway. But I found this definition of progressivism pretty palatable:
http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/23706
Brad, I read Cindi’s eloquent rationale about how the liberal media is really a myth. She used the recent example of Judith Miller voluntarily spending 85 days in a NY jail so as to “protect” a Cheney protege, Scooter Libby. Word is coming out that now Judith just signed a $12 million book deal with Simon and Schuster, or a deal worth about $15,000 per day of jail. I would like to find a gig like that. If she has signed that book deal, for a book very few would ever read, Cindi owes a front page apology to all of us subscribers. We shall know soon.
Okay Brad, you caught me on my laziness in use of terminology, so let me say this. You did support Bush for President, but as you mentioned, it was half-hearted at best and your editorial board had to know that Bush would take SC no matter what. I guess that my issue is much more on fiscal conservatism. I think David makes a good point about Judith Miller and her book deal. It is absurd and dishonest to imply that she went to prison to protect the Bush Administration. She went for principle and book deal money. Let’s get past that though. You like to use terms like anti-government and anti-education. Can you fathom the amount of waste we have in government? I have had a job, that I won’t describe in anymore detail here, that gave me a unique perspective of some of government’s actions. I looked first hand at the waste within the system. I watched the “poor” school districts throw away money. I watched people who sub-contracted thier job, at the cost of the taxpayers, but still got a paycheck for just showing up. I have seen misappropriation of assets all over the place, like it was a game. Do you know who pays for that? You, and me. Guess who is held accountable? Nobody. Anyone who hints at holding accountable the schools and other areas of government is labeled by you as anti-something. The genius of PPIC was that it put money where less would be wasted. I can assure you, for profit groups and non-profits with limited funds hold themselves accountable for every penny they spend. I don’t like No Child Left Behind. It imposes too many burdensome rules. We don’t need national standards for “improvement”. We need good teachers, and I think most are. If the admistrators would stop wasting the book money maybe they could do thier job.
Let me make a proposal. I’d love to write about this for the “real” paper if you want. We need a SC GAO. We need someone to look at the way money is spent for something other than to determine if the waste is properly classified. That is what auditors do, and it is all they can do. We need a group to check behind these schools. Watch the money. Review the processes.
Lastly, let me say that I have previously interacted with you at a time when I called you a liberal. You didn’t like it then and I know you don’t like it now. You may be conservative. In fact, I have little doubt that your personal views are in that direction. But, your opinion page has become the home of liberal sydicated columnists like Dowd and the fired Michael Kinsley. Few conservative voices come through in the letters to the editor. I agree with you on most issues, likely, but I agree with Bob McAlister that this paper is moving to the left, and quick.
Nathan, regarding that last point (or nearly last point), about "the fired Michael Kinsley": Go back and read the last column of his that we ran (which may have been his last as editor), and then think again about applying facile labels to people. (And while you’re at it, peruse this piece
from Kathleen Parker. By the way, I agreed with both pieces — the one from the "liberal" defending the Bush administration, and the one from the "conservative" criticizing it.)
And that’s my point. I don’t want to be called a "conservative" any more than I want to be called a "liberal." (Neither does Kathleen Parker, by the way. I’ve never discussed the subject with Michael Kinsley.) Why? Because if I accept one of those labels, then people feel free to ascribe to me all sorts of opinions that I not only don’t share, but with which I disagree vehemently. (There’s something wrong grammatically with that sentence, but I don’t want to go back and sort it out.) Call me a liberal, and you lump me in with people who never saw an abortion they couldn’t celebrate, and advocates of same-sex "marriage." Not to mention war opponents, even though I continue to maintain that’s not, logically speaking, a liberal position. Call me a conservative and suddenly I’m in bed with people who don’t give a damn about the environment (even though — and here’s that definition problem again — conservatives should be the very first in line on conservation, if language is to mean anything), neo-Confederates and people who keep spreading the lie that our public schools are no good. None of that would be fair to me, which is why I refuse to sit still for it.
Now I need to address the many problems with this passage:
Ahem. You are at this moment being addressed by one of this state’s premiere advocates of the system of accountability that Republicans and businessmen imposed upon our public schools in 1998 (a system which they said at the time, quite realistically, would have to be applied for about 12 years without getting knocked off the tracks by some other educational fad in order to show the desired results). In fact, it is even possible that without our strong advocacy, EAA might not have passed. I don’t know, but some have suggested that.
I don’t know how many times I have to explain this rather obvious fact: We are the defenders of accountability, and advocates of PPIC are the ones who want to dismantle it.
PPIC is the very antithesis of accountability. It says, oh, here’s some money; we don’t care where the hell you spend it, or what kind of results you get, just as long as you’re satisfied. (That last bit refers to one of the most laughable bits about PPIC — they call satisfaction on the part of the parents who get the tax breaks "accountability." Give me a freaking break.)
And maybe you and I have been exposed to different non-profits and for-profits. Now I’m here to tell you that the outfit I work for is extremely accountable for every dollar we spend, but that is not universal. Whenever I find myself in the fancy boardroom of a bank or big law firm, and compare it to the halls of government that I have frequented, the contrast is stunning. And as one who has been a board member of non-profits, I can tell you that they can waste money with the best of them — and they’re not always easy to bring back into line. They mean well, but people who go into that line of work are seldom wizards at handling money. They can be, but it’s by no means a prerequsite.
Brad, I cannot say that PPIC is the optimal program but any sane person has to agree that the present system is not achieving acceptable results. What would be wrong with trying PPIC in a pilot area of the state and monitor the results? The one basic premise I think you are wrong about is in the ownership of the money. You stated that the government will “give” the parents some money….etc… How can one give someone something that they own. This is the parent’s money in the first place. The government only takes money. Anyway, that is my thinking.
Perhaps we all can gain an insight into Brad’s thinking from this book: Meditations of a Militant Moderate. Unlike most books on Amazon, this one is offered at full list, no discount. Here’s an excerpt courtesy of the Blogfather about the military recruitment on college campuses issue:
Looks like a good read when you want to think. But when I’m stressed, I like to read books like this to lighten up.
Brad,
It’s pointless to argue “liberal” vs. ‘conservative”-they’re both based on ideas from the Enlightenment. The problem, however, is that too many Enlightenment ideas are antiquated by today’s standards. Unfortunately, neo liberalism, neo conservatism and corporatism have filled the void where classic liberalism has failed. When we insist on arguing points from the liberal vs. conservative perspective, we Locke ourselves within a doomed ideology. We’ll never be successful when using archaic ideas concerning cognitions and capitalism.
“Liberal” vs. “Conservative”: context matters.conserve the vision the founders had for our nation when they wrote that text.
Let us study the word stems (as my daughter’s sixth grade class is doing).
Liberal – liber (Latin) – free. “Liberty” has the same stem.
Conserve – (Latin) conservare, from com- + servare to keep, guard, observe
In the context of Iraq, many would say that we hope to see Iraq become a “liberal democracy”. This doesn’t mean we want an Iraqi Ted Kennedy running the place. It means that we hope that the Iraqi people will be free to choose their own course. The Taliban and the radical Islamists are trying to conserve the ways of 11th century Islam.
In the context of government spending, “liberal” would refer to spending money freely to achieve the government’s aims, rather than to conserve the funds. George W. Bush has so far been hugely liberal here.
In the context of government involvement in our daily lives, some want the government to liberally use its influence to correct ills such as poverty, disease, etc. Others want the government to conserve its efforts, or to hold back and let people try to find their own best solutions.
In the context of society and social mores, liberals want people to be as free as possible to do as they please, while conservatives would rather we all adhere to long standing traditions.
In the context of the courts, some want the judges to be free to
Where do I stand?
Iraq – liberal democracy all the way. Oh no, I’m a liberal!
Government spending – Enough already! Tie the purse strings! Oh no, I’m a conservative!
Government involvement in our lives – The private sector is much more efficient at getting things done than the government. I don’t mind if the government provides incentives, but it shouldn’t run the show.
Society – I want to live my life as I see fit, and try to stay out of your way while you are living yours as you see fit. I choose to raise my children in a traditional family setting. I highly value being free to choose to raise my children conservatively. Where does that put me? The freedom is key, so I guess I’m, oh no! Liberal!
Courts – Stick to the original meaning and text, please. If we don’t like what it says, there is a process in place to change it. That power does not belong in the mind of a judge, but in the hands and votes of our federal and state representatives, like the Constitution says. Oh no, conservative!
So, if you ask whether I am liberal or conservative, please provide the context so I can give a meaningful answer.
Mark –
“[W]e Locke ourselves within a doomed ideology.”
Groan!
To Hume were you addressing those reMarx? I Kant believe you wrote that.
Casting puns when expounding to bloggers is sometimes like putting Descartes before the whores: Such elegance rarely befits the audience.
Labeling the hodge podge of notions which Brad Warthen, Scoppe and the rest of The State editors as “liberal” is the best shorthand available.
Real liberals have put thought into their belief system, and they are for small government and individual freedom and responsibility.
Modern “liberals” like Brad Warthen have no coherent philosophy, so they have to evaluate each proposal of others as it comes to him, mostly on personal experience and emotion.
That is why The State is an obstacle to tax reform, honest elections, tax cuts, etc. They have no big picture view of the world, no concept of how things fit together.