Repeatedly, we have read how "liberals" [or "dippies" or whatever] oppose the path taken by Bush* and company in respect to any number of things, especially the basic rule of law and simple republican (small 'r') values.
Thus, I was told how "liberals" second guess the President etc. I read that only "Ginsburg" sorts would worry about evidence obtained by torture. Others would surely find a way around it. And, so forth. We know the image of "liberal" put out there. It is not the classic "liberal" ideas that one thinks should guide us all. They are not regular moms who write things like this. Surely not.
Enough! In the book Kingdom Coming, Michelle Goldberg suggests "liberals" should forthrightly demand to be heard. To remind people of the values we believe in as Americans. As an urban secular Jew, one shouldn't be surprised. She is one of "them" after all. But, "liberal" can no longer (if it ever could be) so easily stereotyped.
The first link is written by a conservative leaning law professor. The "rule of law" used to be a conservative value, right? Thus, Goldberg (and John Dean in his new book) points to Goldwater Republicans who are concerned with the current order. When Dover, PA decided to teach "intelligent design," it was a Goldwater Republican on the board who was among the dissenters. Goldwater as some might know supported abortion and gay rights. No wonder Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater gal!
Ongoing now along with the torture matter is Bush/Cheney's attempt to formalize their lawless eavesdropping program. Among those testifying against such a move was Bruce Fein -- a Reagan Administration official. He knows separation of powers is a basic constitutional demand. Darn liberal.
In fact, a telling moment in the panel testimony came after Fein made clear the importance of judicial review of warrants. An executive official took umbrage. He was a career official -- how dare Fein suggest they would break the law! The classic liberal was suspicious of power, knowing the imperfection of man. Only God was all good.
[On that subject ... see here.]
Ambition needed to check ambition. Rule of law and republicanism requires an independent judiciary. But, people in Congress want to ignore the 4th Amendment and at best let Congress oversee things. We all know how good they have been doing that lately. [Only "liberals" read that as sarcasm.] But, only a "liberal" would be upset. It is after all "war time." As John Yoo says, the executive's power rises then. "Compromises" have to be made.
No liberal he. And, that is not a good thing, given how the word is now defined. The fight is not just liberal/conservative, but over basic principles. As Keith Olberman notes "I don't think [on] these issues that [the opponents of the administration are] liberal; I think that [they are] American." But, the twist on the "l" word will continue.
[btw talking of "l" words, "lie" is also verboten these days ... the media cannot admit officials lie. they just have a different version of the truth. Objectivity has gone to the wayside. Sounds like some leftist academic's dream.]
---
* We also are told that we cannot put it all on Bush, since this personalizes the whole thing. The fact he is the leader of the party and the head of state overall is elided over. The buck stops where?