Anatomy of a Liberal

No actually I don't consider myself a liberal, though in some camps non-compliance to core beliefs can get you that label. No I would consider myself a progressive that respects conservative values but appreciates many "liberal" goals... though not all. I called it "anatomy of a liberal" to point out why I have become disillusioned with some of the conservative pundits and think-tanks.

I used to be quite enamored with the conservative view. My family has been long-time Republicans. I had many good friends, including a former pastor, who were staunchly conservative. I voted for Nixon mostly out of family tradition, then for Jimmy Carter due him being a Christian, and then for Reagan. Then in 1988 I became active for Pat Robertson and even went to the county convention. I guess that is a mixed record, but I always considered myself a conservative with a liberal heart.

In the 90's there were multiple things going on. My sister was married in 1991 to a man who was a very wealthy and a committed environmentalist. As a result, I started to look at environmental concerns more closely. Secondly I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh and cheering in the Republican revolution. It was a little surreal that I become a government contractor about the time that Newt et al were decrying government contractors, but hey the overall ideas sounded good. Contract for America seemed to bring promise of fiscal conservatism and good sense. Nonetheless the die was cast to ask too many questions.

I began to look into the easy pronouncements of my once heroes at the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. It really started with some of the overstatements and positions on environmental affairs. I began to question the easy answers that I heard on Rush Limbaugh and in the encyclicals of these two groups.

As an example I read recently an article from AEI that took issue with raising efficiency standards for appliances. The article was written in 2006, yet is still gave an example of report on problems with front loader washers from 1999. I had just bought one, so I knew that there problems at first, but they had significantly improved. It seemed to be a false condemnation to use outdated issues to condemn a mainstream technology. It is even more pertinent to point out that no one was suggesting making front loaders a standard, but simply raising the minimum as even top loaders are so much more efficient these days. The point is that they simply opposed any government appliance-efficiency standards on philosophical grounds and were using any possible argument to stop them.

The most recent example of excess came as I began to wonder about poverty in the US. I know that there are many very poor nations, and than in general we are very blessed in the US. That does not mean that there are no serious problems.

As I searched the net for good articles, I ran across "The Extent of Material Hardship and Poverty in the United States" http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm187.cfm. If you read it, you will find that they argue that poverty has been eliminated in the US. They come to this conclusion by defining poverty as the issues that we see in the poorest nations. So everything is just fine and any problems are the people's own fault.

The thing that struck me is that the article never conceded any points on the other side. I have read articles from other sources that point out that the US does not fare well in comparison to other wealthy nations. See "Poor People in Rich Nations: the United States in comparative perspective" http://www-cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/faculty/smeeding/pdf/JEP%20V5_2006.pdf. So are these other articles all liars? Are they just deceived liberals? I don't think so.

What I have noticed about many of the publications of these conservative think-tanks is that they take no prisoners. They act like lawyers who present only the positive evidence for their client. So their "client" seems to be their philosophical conclusions and opposition to government programs. The assumption seems to be that the other side is lying or at least twisting the truth. So if "we exaggerate a little bit, we are just trying to balance out the liberal majority".

The problem is that people in conservative circles believe these conclusions word-for-word. It is not a balance. For them, these are the facts and the right perspective. Do "liberals" and mainstream media do that? Of course! However, my observation is that there is a greater sense of fairness in the mainstream media or "liberal media" as these conservative groups label all outlets but their own.

Now don't get me wrong. I love to listen to programs where representatives from these conservative think-tanks discuss issues along side of equally well versed experts from a "liberal" or "moderate" perspective. They keep each other honest, at least with a forum designed for that purpose. Here I am speaking of NPR, for example, versus say Fox or CNN where one expert tries to shout the other one down. It is not perfect, but it is harder to exaggerate when an equally knowledgeable person can catch you on it.

I also enjoy reading the more analytical articles. You can tell the earmarks. The best articles state their perspective, then list the relevant facts on each side, and then summarizes. If it is possible to argue for the other side based on the facts, presented, I feel like it is probably fair. I also give them high marks if they active concede points against them. With complex issues, it is rarely simple. So to summarize, I want to highlight how one-sided the conservative think tanks are in their analysis, which at minimum means they are a not a reliable summary of the issue. They are one side of the issue and wrong if not read after reading the other points of view. Tragically many well-meaning people take this as THE truth. Personally I would prefer that they at least attempt to be unbiased. I think I am bothered that they don't seem to even try. It is "winner take all" but frankly they lost me.