Wednesday, November 08, 2006

The Unfortunate Demise of Liberal Lois

Election day is finally officially over. Everyone
knows who will control the House and who will control
the Senate and, yes, I was wrong and paranoidd about
the leadup. And I should feel happy. I mean I really
hate the Republicans and their power has been slightly
diminished. But I have been in the worst mood all
day. It could be that I committed the utterly
self-flagellating act of voting for Bob Casey last
night or it could be the knowledge that what this
election really signifies is the death of any chance
at Progressivism. If that sounds strange to you,
consider the fact that a huge number of these
"Democrats" would be Republicans in any other year.
Take Casey who is more conservative than my other
senator, Arlen Specter or take Webb who is a Reaganite
or take Heath Shuler, the former Redskins quarterback
who NPR seems to believe is anti-taxes, anti-gay,
anti-woman. In order to beat a ridiculously unpopular
Republican machine, the Democrats had to scour the
country for Republicans who were willing to call
themselves Democrats in order to become members of
Congress. Soon, the Democrats won't have anything to
offer. They won't protect women or gays or the poor
or anyone. They will just be Not-Republicans. Just
like the GOP in terms of values but with a squishy
unpleasant texture. This all brings me to the real
reason that I am sad. Somewhere around here is a
Congressional district (the 6th I think) where a woman
named Lois Murphy ran against a Republican incumbent
named Jim Gerlach. In 2004 she ran against him as
well and lost, by 2 points. All through the race, the
RNC has been running ads about her calling her Liberal
Lois. Clearly, this is meant to confuse the voting
public into forgetting they are angry about
prescription drug costs and the Iraq war with that
dirty L word. They put a cut-out graphic of her
slightly sideways and talk about Liberal Lois and her
dirty secrets (which turn out to be that she's
endorsed by Moveon.org) in front of graphics of evil
liberal organizations. These commercials of course
are attack ads but they endeared Liberal Lois to me
like a compassionate suburban mom folk hero. Here
comes Liberal Lois to save the day. I've even started
using "Liberal Lois" as a term of endearment.
Liberal Lois Murphy conceded this morning. She lost
by exactly the same margin that she did in 2004. Jim
Gerlach, a doughy faced white guy who looks like that
closeted pedophile wrestling coach you had in high
school, will return to the Congress. How is it that a
long well-funded campaign in a district that,
considering how close it was last time, should have
broken blue stayed red? Could it really be because
her first name is Lois and it alliterates very
smoothly with Liberal?
Of course it can be. Liberal is a more damaging word
than Nazi or Fascist these days. Well, maybe not
Nazi. But, seriously, I don't know anyone who calls
themselves a liberal anymore. My friends want to be
called leftists or progressives. Liberal means weak.
Liberal means you're a tax-raising, murder forgiving,
queer sap who... Well I don't even know. Liberal
Lois was an inspiration to me. Now she has fallen.
Let's just hope she'll come back and rescue us all.

1 Comments:

At 7:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I think it's good that liberal is being used as a dirty word. It is a dirty word and a deceptive one too. It evokes images of the civil rights movement, MLK writing letters from jail, marches on Washington, etc. But really, what does it mean? It means a commitment to free market democracy (under which there HAS to be poverty, economic strife, homelessness, etc.) It means a commitment to "religious tolerance," which is maybe the most condescending phrase in modern political discourse. It stands for "universal human rights," a term so overused, it's become essentially meaningless. That's what the liberals are, essentially
meaningless. They stand for nothing except, like you said, being anti-Bush, anti-Republican, and anti-any meaningful progress. The liberals will never exact any significant change (positive or negative) because they have no agenda and even if they did, no means for achieving it. They run on lofty enlightened-sounding ideals (free speech! gay marriage! women!), but have no plans to change the fundamentals of our society’s social and economic inequality- that is rich people profiting off poor people's wages and as such, promoting alienation. You never hear liberals talking about alienation because it's too real and wouldn't allow them to
wrap themselves in that self-congratulatory blanket of smugness that the Right has come to hate so much.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home