A column in my paper this morning. Liberalism dead? Not hardly. Not until the paradigms underlying it can be rooted out, which is like trying to pull up dandelions by the roots.

BEYOND Sen. Paul Wellstone's death being a tragedy, the one thing everyone seems to agree on is that as a "true liberal," Wellstone was an uncommon man. But this casting only proves how dramatically the terms of debate in American politics have shifted to the right.



Let's look at what Wellstone actually stood for when he died:

HEALTH CARE. Wellstone thought it was wrong that 41 million Americans were uninsured. He believed they should be guaranteed a benefit package equal to that enjoyed by members of Congress. I defy any conservative in Congress to explain why this notion is "outside the mainstream."

WAGES. Wellstone believed it was wrong that the federal minimum wage, at $5.15 an hour, was worth less now, adjusted for inflation, than it was in the 1970s. He thought full-time work should enable a decent life.

EDUCATION. Wellstone fought for well-funded after-school programs, which Arnold Schwarzenegger is championing via a ballot measure in California, and smart people think it may get Schwarzenegger the GOP nod for governor in four years. Wellstone thought it was wrong that the Head Start preschool program serves only half of eligible children, that Pell grants for disadvantaged college students are worth less than they were two decades ago even as tuition has soared, and that crumbling schools need $100 billion in repairs. He therefore thought it sensible to put off further tax cuts for people who earn more than $300,000 to address this.

If that's "too liberal," then why are conservatives afraid to defend the merits of their tax cut for the top versus Wellstone's uses for the same money?

Paul Wellstone wasn't "embarrassingly liberal," as the attacks against him charged. It's that the rest of the country has become "shamefully conservative." The vital task is to understand why.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan quips that no Democrat today would stand behind Richard Nixon's proposals for universal health coverage and a guaranteed minimum income for poor workers. Too liberal. What happened?

The right's great strategic achievement in the last 25 years -- from the aggressive conservative think tanks to Newt Gingrich's artful demagoguery on "Clintoncare" to the "compassionate conservative" hoax now on display -- has been to confuse the press and the public about how reasonable goals like Paul Wellstone's actually are.



The one thing all of Wellstone's "reasonable goals" have in common is that they come out of someone else's hide. And they would need a lot of hide. Like I've said more times than I can count, anyone can be the "compassionate" soul of generosity when they're using someone else's wallet.

...why are conservatives afraid to defend the merits of their tax cut for the top versus Wellstone's uses for the same money?

Because most conservatives have unconsciously bought into the same paradigm as the liberals: that if someone has too much money (i.e. more than you've got), they no longer have a moral right to it. The liberal believes that it is morally right to take it from them by force and use it for "better purposes," (i.e. whatever the liberal thinks needs doing). Damn few of these purposes fall under the category of legitimate government functions.

Miller subscribes to a collectivist philosophy that is reflected in liberalism at its mildest, and Marxism at its worst: the idea that people and their wealth are the property of the State* to be disposed of as their rulers see fit.

Just once I'd like to see someone stand up and say, "You know why I should get a tax cut? Because it's MY money. I earned it. I busted my ass for it. I gave up years of my life for it. And who the hell are you to tell me I have no right to it? You want to do great things, use YOUR money. God knows there are enough rich liberals out there. Name the last one that, to paraphrase Jesus, "sold all he had and gave the money to the poor." Oh, they give to charity all right, but are damn careful not to put too big a dent in the piggybank. Send some homeless to camp on Barbra Streisand's estate and see what happens to them. People like Wellstone are big doers on my nickel.

Most of my taxes are going not to government services and defense, but straight into the pockets of my fellow citizens to buy votes, and I'm sick to death of it!

Now you'll say that I am selfish. That I am mean-spirited for resenting being smacked on the back of the head with a blackjack, having my unconcious body rolled for my wallet, and people like Wellstone throwing my money around to the fawning mob and basking in their warmth. 'Oh, sir, what a GENEROUS man you are!'

If this is selfishness, than make the most of it."

Paul Wellstone wasn't "embarrassingly liberal," as the attacks against him charged. It's that the rest of the country has become "shamefully conservative." The vital task is to understand why.

It's because people may be starting to realize that the liberal "hole of need" has no bottom. It can't be filled. Over a trillion dollars a year is not filling it. When one need is apparently satisfied, two more new ones take its place. Most of us are paying tax rates that would have caused our ancestors in the age of President Jefferson to march on Washington, hang every politician in sight, burn the city to the ground, and plow the ashes under. Do you realize they threw tea into the harbor for a tax of two pence to the pound?

Feh.

Will the above convince anyone? Nah. I'm just ranting, and most of you will recognize this as one of my recurring rants. Heck, Bowser even has a standard cut-and-paste he posts in response. I probably won't even bother to send this to the paper. Learning the truth has to be done one person at a time, and only when that person finally figures it out on his own.

But liberalism dead? I wish.

*Oh, they may use the term "society," but we know who collects the taxes.