My Letter to LiveLiberal.com

LiveLiberal seeks to demonstrate that "liberal" is not a dirty word, and tries to do it in a way that leaves behind much of the vitriol.

But it takes more than refraining from calling Republicans Nazis to make genuine political progress. And I'm not sure they are quite there yet. But, I admire the goal, and I'm certainly for a more rational dialog between political opponents, so I'd like to help them along.

So, I wrote LiveLiberal.com a thoughtful and I hope constructive email, which I reprint here, with a few additions, with the portions of their site that I was responding to added quoted to provide context (something I did not do in the original email).

As a former liberal (and now rock-ribbed conservative, alas), I've got to say, I admire what you are doing. The vitriol and intolerance of much more "pure" liberals in my personal sphere as a young collegiate liberal were the catalyst for my personal conversion. Not that I'm not glad for it--I learned a great deal during the course of my journey from one end of the political spectrum to the other--but I also believe that a healthy dialog, sincere disagreement and loyal opposition helps make our country a better place to live, and our people better citizens. It's my sincere hope that you have a positive influence on both the right and the left. It's good for there to be a dialog that doesn't descend into insults and anger.

That being said, as a conservative, I'd like to make some hopefully constructive comments, although I'm approaching it from the point of view of trying to appeal to right-of-center folks, and that may not really be your goal.

...in the 19th century ... liberals in Congress initiated and passed the Morrill Land Grant Act. This Act granted land in virtually every state to build a university for higher learning. Shortly thereafter, public universities placed higher education within the reach of most Americans at about the same time that universal public education, a liberal idea, became the norm.

In your historical summary, I think it would be worth noting that (though it may be obvious) historical liberals and conservatives are not the same folks, and do not argue always for the same things, as they did in the past. Many of the liberals who initiated and passed the Morrill Land Grant Act would be considered staunch (even somewhat oppressive) conservatives today, fully considered. Just Morrill, who initiated the act, was a Whig and a Republican (and, having left school at age 15, was something a self-made man, in the classic, conservative bootstrapping mold). The act was signed by Abraham Lincoln, also a Republican. Although Republicans of the day may have been different in many ways than Republicans now, I think you'd have a hard time finding a present day conservative who thinks the Morrill Act was a bad idea.

Which is not to say the Republicans of that day were conservatives--in many ways, Lincoln was a radical president, but then so were the folks in the Confederacy, as secession from the Union and war with the North can't exactly be called "conservative".

As a former liberal who changed through reading, research, and extended contemplation, I think you do your cause a disservice when you don't provide the context, even just briefly, that many of the "liberals" who advocated universal education (and even a slow-to-change, antique-hording conservative, now or then, could see the value in establishing colleges "in engineering, agriculture and military science" for the long term prosperity and security of the United States) were Republicans. That many were religious and acted out of a religious conviction and were fine with the role religion played in the process (a modern, if weaker, analog might be Bush's faith-based initiatives).

And, unlike progressive efforts of reforms proposed by contemporary Republicans, there was not huge conservative opposition to the Morrill Land Act.

Speaking of conservative efforts towards radical reform, they certainly do exist. One example would be Social Security Reform. Like it or loathe it, is a fairly radical attempt to change the status quo, and, like many conservative initiatives, does not fit well with the idea that conservatives abhor change. It would probably be more accurate to say that both conservatives and liberals clean out their attics, but they simply choose to clean out different things, based on sincere and well-intentioned beliefs about what should stay and what should go.

At the turn of the century, the liberals in Congress initiated and funded sewer and water systems, food safety laws, and founded the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health. During this same time, truth in advertising laws and product labeling were put into effect by liberals over the anguished protests of conservatives who insisted it would be too expensive and a burden to business.

In regards to such things as funding sewage and water systems . . . well, again, I admire your goal and I appreciate the softness of your tone, but the implication still seems to be that, at least back in the day, conservatives didn't want running water! That conservatives wanted outhouses and slop jars and human waste in the streets! While there may have been certain individuals who, without particular respect to ideology, felt that if disease and pestilence was good enough for their pappies and grandpappies, then it was good enough for them, I don't think it's honest argument to try and suggest that that is, or ever was, a "conservative" position.

Early in the 1920's, liberals in Congress and throughout the States gave women the right to vote.

In regards to giving women the right to vote, I think it's tough to argue that this was a strictly liberal vs. conservative issue. Certainly, modern conservatives worship Margaret Thatcher and are hoping for President Condaleeza Rice, so to suggest there is any analogy between contemporary conservatives and objectors to women's suffrage is disingenuous.

But, more to the point, two-thirds of each house had to concur to make the 19th amendment, and two-thirds of all state legislatures had to concur to ratify it. And they did. Do you really think it's fair to characterize something that, when it came down to it, over 2/3rds of our political leaders supported and voted for, not just in DC but in states all across the nation, both liberal Republican and conservative Democrat, as "liberal"? Do you think only liberals should get credit for something that clearly crossed political and ideological lines, by any yardstick you choose to measure it by? I don't. But then I've never seen conservatism as misogynist or racist, either.

I don't have statistics, but I do know that many of the suffrage groups leading up to the 1920s amendment had the word "Republican" in their name, and many these Republican Women's groups still exist, often populated by the daughters and granddaughters of the classical feminists who fought for women's right to vote. And, rightly or wrongly, they don't see the sort of gap between the Republicans of the 1920s and the Republicans of the 1980s that perhaps you do.

Additionally, there are many Democrat organizations whose historical resentments go back, largely unabated, to the times when Republicans were the "evil and corrupt" party of abolition, then women's suffrage, then (with some dissent amongst the growing ranks of southern Republicans) civil rights. Yet even as the Democrats ceased to call themselves "The White Man's Party" and even as they took up the mantle of issues pioneered by classically liberal Republicans, the vitriol directed at their nominal enemies never seemed to change.

Shortly thereafter, public universities placed higher education within the reach of most Americans at about the same time that universal public education, a liberal idea, became the norm.

I would also argue, as a conservative, that universal public education is an American idea that transcends the sorts of ideological boundaries you seem to believe confine it. What sort of person is opposed to education? How do you have a prosperous economy and successful businesses and all sort of inspiring entrepreneurs, not to mention a trained and effective military, or domestic police force, without at least a basic public education? And wouldn't a comprehensive education be that much better, for everybody? Great inventions, ideas, and private businesses don't come from an illiterate workforce that can't add or subtract. While I'm not saying that you can't find someone who opposes universal public education, to argue that to support universal public education is "liberal" while to oppose it is "conservative" is, in my opinion, sophistry. I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think that sort of picture of conservatives is accurate, or reflects due consideration to the people and opinions you are trying to characterize.

During this same time, truth in advertising laws and product labeling were put into effect by liberals over the anguished protests of conservatives who insisted it would be too expensive and a burden to business.

I believe you are generally accurate in regards to food labeling and truth in advertising, although, again, some prominent liberal Democrats have fought (sometimes successfully) both food labeling and truth in advertising legislation, based on the concerns of businesses in their constituencies. The fact that, to this day, so-called "nutricueticals", herbal remedies, and other forms of contemporary snake-oil aren't FDA approved or regulated and do not have to actually prove any of their claims is the result of bi-partisan efforts from folks who have been, on other issues, reliably conservative or reliably liberal.

And, as a conservative (as I did when I was a liberal), I favor truth in advertising laws and food labeling. These are useful things that, while they do add cost and burden, is not onerous compared to their benefit (airbags I'm not so sure about; seatbelts, I am, and, even today, would we have shoulder straps without government regulation?).

During these periods, liberals gave us labor laws and workplace safety laws and rural electrification and Social Security and the TVA and the National Weather Service and the interstate highway system and the GI Bill and the Peace Corp and the space program and the FDIC and public broadcasting and the civil rights movement and the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the internet and the Family and Medical Leave Act to give a few examples.

To suggest the GI Bill, the space program, the FDIC, rural electrification and the FDIC and even public broadcasting are inherently 100% liberal is disingenuous, as all of those things did, to some degree or another, transcend party and ideological lines (and, in some cases, so did opposition). What is conservative about opposing rural electrification? Especially given that the bill was sponsored by a Republican and a Democrat? They were both liberals? And that the legislation got bipartisan votes for and against? And why wouldn't conservatives, many of them hearty, Midwestern and deep southern farm folk, support rural electrification? They are ideological and political conservatives. They are not Amish. Public broadcasting has both potential educational and military value. Even if conservatives disagree with what passes for "public interest" programming today, there is nothing inherently liberal, or non-conservative, in public broadcasting. The GI bill rewarded the hardworking men of our military when a college education, so that they could leverage both the leadership of their military experience with the knowledge gleaned through higher education . . . what, exactly, did "conservatives" oppose about the GI Bill? Was it rewarding our military men for fighting for their country? Or was it for making sure the best qualified, finest folks our country has produced got a solid education that they could apply to the business world?

And the space program, well under way during the administration of moderate Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, really exploded under the largely conservative, tax-cutting, military-spending, two-fisted Communist-fighting hawk, John F. Kennedy (who was, if abolition and suffrage era Republicans were liberal, undeniably conservative). Then continued under the very liberal LBJ and the just as liberal Richard Milhouse Nixon. Making it a cross-ideological effort. Even now, who wants us to go back to the moon and conduct a manned mission to Mars? George W. Bush. How does that square with the idea of space exploration as being exclusively liberal?

And, I add here (this did not go in the original email, as it somehow slipped by me) that it's quite a blanket assertion to say that the Internet is the result of liberals! What has transcended ideological boundaries more than the history of the Internet? From it's early incarnation as a military network to it's later existence as a network connecting college information resources to it's currently splendid diversity, both conservatives and liberals have contributed immeasurably to the creation, the development, and the diversity of the Internet and it's many technologies and innovations. And the fact that conservatives, who supposedly abhor change, took to these new technologies like ducks to water poses something of a conundrum for the liberals and their treasured conservative stereotypes.

But perhaps that's all just a difference of opinion. However, the progress made since 1980 on all fronts is not.

Conversely, if we just look at the years of 1980-1993 and 2000 to the present, years of conservative ascendancy, we see a steady growth in income inequality, a drop in savings, a rise in personal debt, the increasing need for two family incomes, an increase in poverty, a decrease in charitable giving among the rich (but an increase among the poor), the largest national debt ever, seeing the USA move from the greatest creditor nation in the world to the greatest debtor nation in the world, a severely weakened US dollar, and the largest foreign investment in and ownership of our businesses and industries.

First, to try and create a correlation between the "years of conservative ascendancy" and any number of bad things that happened simultaneously, real or imagined, is rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Correlation does not prove causation; in fact, correlation often doesn't prove anything. But, if that's the direction you choose to go, that particular sword cuts both ways:

While we see a steady growth in income inequality, we also see a steady growth in income across the board. While the rich got richer, the poor also got richer, and so did the middle class, and by every measurement: inflation adjusted income, capital holdings (including stock), and purchasing power. While personal debt has also gone up, it's gone up with people on all sides of the political spectrum who are using this debt to finance a higher standard of living than, strictly speaking, they really need.

Savings are up, not down, if you included something other than classical savings accounts, checking accounts, and certificates of deposit. More people own stock in this country than ever before. More people have equity in real estate, and much of the added debt burden has been used to finance home purchases, because more people are home owners than ever before. More people have money tied up in questionable investments, from coins to collectibles, than ever before. While this may not be wise, and may not be the best form of savings, it's not like that money evaporated, or was stolen in the middle of the night by greedy Republicans.

As far as charitable giving, I have to believe that your take is intentionally disingenuous. First, charitable giving is up, in terms of inflation adjusted dollars, across the board, over the time period you say it was down. The only way to presume charitable giving was down would be to calculate by the percentage of overall wealth given to charity by the super-rich, rather than real dollars, or by the overall percentage of GDP, neither of which are particularly good yardsticks to judge actual charitable donations, or their real impact.

Americans gave $241 billion to charity in 2003. It was a 2.8% growth in charitable given since 2000. Since 1998, charitable giving has been 2 percent or more of GDP, after two decade below that mark. To put that in the political timeline, that means that after four years of Republican control the house, and well after the election of George W. Bush, charitable donations rose to levels higher, in real dollars and as a percentage of GDP, than they were during the Clinton administration, and during the previous decade of almost monolithic liberal Democrat control over the house and senate.

There is plenty of material out there to controvert your assertions regarding charitable giving (except that charitable contributions from the poor and middle class being up--that's true).

Start here: http://www.aafrc.org/press_releases/trustreleases/americansgive.html

But that doesn't even begin to touch it. Minority home ownership is now higher than it's ever been, growing more during the "conservative ascendancy" than in any period before. The same goes with minority owned businesses, and George Bush (who is, admittedly, not always the ideal conservative) has advanced a program to radically increase Small Business Loans to minority owned businesses, even though, as I just noted, minority owned businesses are already at an all time high. The stock market is actually in pretty good shape again, although, the Dow is admittedly doing better than the NASDAQ. Government spending is way up, and the simply crazy "prescription drugs for every senior" plan is costly boondoggle that should never have happened, but it's also not a particularly conservative idea. And frankly, most liberals have been complaining that we aren't spending enough. If there is an ideology of fiscal responsibility out there, and I'm not sure there really is, I don't think it’s liberal.

Sure, they may want to raise taxes to pay for all their social spending. But the problem is, tax receipts are up. Tax revenues are up, not down. Bush's "costly" tax cuts, in fact, seemed to have generated more tax revenue than ever before. At the very least, that can't be said to have "cost" anything, but tax revenues are up, well in excess of what they were during the Clinton years. We would, in fact, be well on our way to a balanced budget, if both the president and the congress weren't so darn spendy.

All of that is not to give conservatives sole or even majority credit, or to ding liberals for "not doing enough" or not desiring these same positive outcomes.

What I am trying to say is that I do think there is much to value, and much progress that has been made, due to liberals and progressive causes, and, frankly, some of the best advances have been made when issues largely crossed ideological lines, such as women's suffrage or civil rights (and sometimes we've gone in the wrong direction--prohibition was also a bi-partisan initiative that crossed ideological lines, and it turned out not to be such a hot idea). But whether I'm liberal or conservative, I am not served by trying to create false association, to imply causation where none exists, or deny credit where credit is due.

That is, I think we should work together when we can. Oppose each other, but loyally, when we must (that means liberals stop suggesting that conservatives want a return to slavery and like the idea of dirty water, dirty air, and child labor; in return, conservative should not agitate for presidential impeachments over 20 year old land deals and so on), but acknowledge that we both want positive outcomes. And that sometimes that viewpoint we argue against turns out to be pretty effective. Conservative and (oh, on occasion) liberal. ;)

As time constrains me, I'll stop here. But I hope to offer a few other comments in regards to the material on the site, and I hope you take it in the spirit that it's meant: as constructive commentary, from a conservative who admittedly disagrees with the idea that liberalism is "the best and predominant hope for the world today", but desires a more rational, reasoned, and less vitriolic dialog on the issues that divide us than is normally available these days.

Best of luck,
Kevin S. Willis