I have written a number of posts critical of liberal positions (and will probably write more in the future). Why pick on liberals instead of conservatives?
After all, conservatives are worse. (Just ask anyone.)
I attack the liberals instead because we need liberals. And it's gotten urgent. We need them to do their job, which is opposing the Republican party.
I don't want one party rule. I want to see checks and balances keeping things in order. And that can't happen as long as the liberals are defending a broken ideology, relying entirely on the cry "well the Republicans are worse!"
That isn't good enough. That almost got Gore elected, almost got Kerry elected - but almost doesn't count.
The burden is on those who would change things for the better, to come up with what "better" is - what it might look like - how it might work. And it needs to be something that works. Not something that looked like it might work thirty years ago.
Right now the Democratic party's activist class does not seem to 'get' that if the liberal does not like the way people behave, the burden is on the liberal not only to suggest that change would be good, but to provide a workable vision of what we could have instead. The liberal must have faith in democracy: if we like the vision, we'll fight for it. But the vision Democrats have offered has been roundly rejected. It was fresh and new in 1967 but it isn't fresh or new now. The problem is not that we are dumb. The problem is that the liberal is not listening.
And nowhere is that more true than in this election where Democratic identity politics are what has brought the party down low. We have seen race pitted against gender and we have seen that Democrats have serious work to do on both counts.
Whatever support affirmative action might have still enjoyed has disappeared with Obama's cheap "vote for me or else you are racist" tactics. We had already grown pretty tired of that approach anyway. We know that affirmative action does not end poverty, and while most people do want to end discrimination - we want a better way to do it. Not "discrimination is bad therefore you will put up with whatever total crap we throw at you, in the name of ending discrimination". Come up with better.
We have seen that the rejection of feminism is tied up with feminism defining 'choice' as the only issue that really defines which women are 'good' vs. which ones are the enemy. And most of us are going to side against the feminists on this one, because 'choice' comes with social problems and double standards - we like the idea of sexual freedom, but it has to be sexual freedom for all of us (yes, including the boys), not sexual freedom for the one who controls the body and sexual submission for the men who get NO say in their own reproduction, but who cares about them because men = patriarchy = evil. This imbalance has poisoned the gender debate in ways that need to be recognized. The majority of women in the USA have voted with their feet and have made it very clear that we don't want to be at war with the guys. We want to work things out with them and come up with something fair.
And we want our sexual freedom to be healthy and real, not riddled with social dysfunction.
Those who would overthrow the patriarchy must now start considering the reality that the patriarchy is stronger than ever. The reason is probably because when times are harsh and survival is at stake, patriarchy is the strongest and most stable form of social organization - offering benefits to not only men but also women. The idea that women would be better off if we detached ourselves from kinship groups and go it alone may have proved a grand success for women with access to Ivy League educations, but to those of us on the wrong end of the income divide, it's a recipe for isolation and poverty.
Those of us who don't have trust funds cannot afford to sneer at "tribalism". Our tribes are what feed and nurture us - because God knows trusting in liberals won't get you anything to eat. It will just get you an argument about how if only people would behave the way they ought instead of the way they do, if only if only, then there would be funds and then you'd get a free hot meal, but (it's all the Republicans' fault!) even though we promised you shelter when we wanted to manipulate your behavior, there isn't actually any shelter, so go be homeless somewhere else and by the way, it's all the Republicans' fault.
(Not good enough anymore. Offer us something or get used to the fact that we're not voting for you and your crummy candidate, and we're not donating any money, either.)
So I put these things critical of the liberal positions on my blog - and will surely continue to do so - because I want liberals to come up with better. I want to vote for Democrats, but not until they don't suck so bad. Get your house together so that you can do your job and take on the Republicans.
And you might want to start by evaluating Science (the capital-S religion, not the method itself), as per my last few posts. I'm pretty sure that toxic behavior on the part of our scientific elite and their supporters is what really fuels the drive toward Christianity - which most people recognize as imperfect, but better than the alternative.
When people honestly think fundamentalist Christianity is better than the alternative, it's time to improve what you've got on offer, folks.