I, apparently, am a "Liberocrat". This is a term coined by my frequent critic, Stephen Rowland, of Columbia.
Mr. Rowland is probably the most articulate critic of my editorials. His responses generally flow well and lull me with their clever word choices. He is clearly a talented writer.
He is also staunchly Republican. Mr. Rowland and I have corresponded a few times and I have found him to be more articulate in stating his positions than others who email me. I disagree with those positions, of course.
But it's interesting that I am now the leader of an alleged movement in Columbia - a movement of Liberocrats. I am not, as those of you who know me can attest. I am, in fact, a liberal Democrat, and I wear both labels with pride. I know my history very well, and I know that most of the things we value, the liberals gave us. Forty-hour work week: liberals. Children going to school instead of the factory: liberals. Social Security: conservatives (just kidding) Liberals. Food inspectors: liberals. Environmental protection agency: liberals. I could go on, and I will at some point in the future. But for now, please know that I am not a Liberocrat as Mr. Rowland suggests. I am only a married father of four who is trying to follow the teachings of Jesus to the best of my ability, and holding accountable others who claim to do the same.
Here is Mr. Rowland's response to my recent editorials.
'Liberocrats' seek grail but Grasp Only Straws
Sometimes I'm a little slow to "catch-on," but I think I've finally awakened to a new reality - there's a new political party in town. They haven't really identified themselves by name yet, so I thought I would offer a tentative moniker - "Liberocrats." This term combines the traditional "liberal" label with the word "theocrat" - a proponent of a "theocracy" (a government run by religious leaders based on religious law). Perhaps the Democratic Party has already secretly mailed "join-up" invitations to its members, following the lead of former newspaper editors who apparently spearhead this movement as card-carrying members.
Traditional liberals have always been a non-judgmental, all-inclusive, "everyone's 75 percent right" political group that abhorred absolute standards. Religion is seen as divisive, and de-emphasized especially in regard to civil government. Prayers and displays of religious tenets such as the 10 Commandments are to be kept out of public schools; legislators are to refrain from enacting any law with a religious "flavor" to it; candidates for public office should attempt to keep religion out of public debate.
There has now been a stunning reversal of that philosophy regarding public debate - the liberals have suddenly "gotten religion" in a public way. Sen. John Kerry mentions his "strong faith" often, and the Rev. Brenda Peterson was hired as a "senior religion advisor" to the Democratic National Committee. She was fired after two weeks on the job for supporting atheist Michael Newdow's efforts to ban the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Her "join-up" invitation to the newly founded Liberocratic Party must have gotten lost in the mail.
Locally, former newspaper editor Chris Broussard has claimed that the Republican Party has "values that are completely antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ" and that the Democratic Party adheres more closely to the "teachings of Jesus" in pursuing world peace.
The newly formed "Liberocrats" are playing the "religion card" out of desperation. They are correct in their perception that the Republican Party has galvanized Americans of conservative faith into supporting President Bush, and recent polls show Kerry dropping further behind.
Reeling from being called liberals unfriendly to conservative Christians (conservatives never feel conflicted in calling themselves conservative), they have put on a new happy "religion-friendly" face. Unfortunately the reality is that most people, whether conservative or liberal, have already made-up their minds who they are voting for. It's that small "middle-slice" of the undecided electorate that is being pursued. These folks, being of an independent mind to start with, are taking an inquiring and more critical view of the issues and two candidates, and are unlikely to be swayed by increasing levels of emotional rhetoric.
The more sharply the Liberocrats turn toward distancing themselves from their relativistic moorings and claim to be the "correct Party of God," the more that false veneer becomes noticeable, and the more "right" that undecided minority will turn.
I'm not complaining, rather I'm simply enjoying the poll trends. Let the Liberocrats have-at-it in the holier-than-thou public relations department, but in the end the party left standing will be the one that has remained firmly rooted in its beliefs and positions. It's the position-shifters that run the risk of being blown-away in the winds of public perception.
Mr. Rowland is probably the most articulate critic of my editorials. His responses generally flow well and lull me with their clever word choices. He is clearly a talented writer.
He is also staunchly Republican. Mr. Rowland and I have corresponded a few times and I have found him to be more articulate in stating his positions than others who email me. I disagree with those positions, of course.
But it's interesting that I am now the leader of an alleged movement in Columbia - a movement of Liberocrats. I am not, as those of you who know me can attest. I am, in fact, a liberal Democrat, and I wear both labels with pride. I know my history very well, and I know that most of the things we value, the liberals gave us. Forty-hour work week: liberals. Children going to school instead of the factory: liberals. Social Security: conservatives (just kidding) Liberals. Food inspectors: liberals. Environmental protection agency: liberals. I could go on, and I will at some point in the future. But for now, please know that I am not a Liberocrat as Mr. Rowland suggests. I am only a married father of four who is trying to follow the teachings of Jesus to the best of my ability, and holding accountable others who claim to do the same.
Here is Mr. Rowland's response to my recent editorials.
'Liberocrats' seek grail but Grasp Only Straws
Sometimes I'm a little slow to "catch-on," but I think I've finally awakened to a new reality - there's a new political party in town. They haven't really identified themselves by name yet, so I thought I would offer a tentative moniker - "Liberocrats." This term combines the traditional "liberal" label with the word "theocrat" - a proponent of a "theocracy" (a government run by religious leaders based on religious law). Perhaps the Democratic Party has already secretly mailed "join-up" invitations to its members, following the lead of former newspaper editors who apparently spearhead this movement as card-carrying members.
Traditional liberals have always been a non-judgmental, all-inclusive, "everyone's 75 percent right" political group that abhorred absolute standards. Religion is seen as divisive, and de-emphasized especially in regard to civil government. Prayers and displays of religious tenets such as the 10 Commandments are to be kept out of public schools; legislators are to refrain from enacting any law with a religious "flavor" to it; candidates for public office should attempt to keep religion out of public debate.
There has now been a stunning reversal of that philosophy regarding public debate - the liberals have suddenly "gotten religion" in a public way. Sen. John Kerry mentions his "strong faith" often, and the Rev. Brenda Peterson was hired as a "senior religion advisor" to the Democratic National Committee. She was fired after two weeks on the job for supporting atheist Michael Newdow's efforts to ban the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Her "join-up" invitation to the newly founded Liberocratic Party must have gotten lost in the mail.
Locally, former newspaper editor Chris Broussard has claimed that the Republican Party has "values that are completely antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ" and that the Democratic Party adheres more closely to the "teachings of Jesus" in pursuing world peace.
The newly formed "Liberocrats" are playing the "religion card" out of desperation. They are correct in their perception that the Republican Party has galvanized Americans of conservative faith into supporting President Bush, and recent polls show Kerry dropping further behind.
Reeling from being called liberals unfriendly to conservative Christians (conservatives never feel conflicted in calling themselves conservative), they have put on a new happy "religion-friendly" face. Unfortunately the reality is that most people, whether conservative or liberal, have already made-up their minds who they are voting for. It's that small "middle-slice" of the undecided electorate that is being pursued. These folks, being of an independent mind to start with, are taking an inquiring and more critical view of the issues and two candidates, and are unlikely to be swayed by increasing levels of emotional rhetoric.
The more sharply the Liberocrats turn toward distancing themselves from their relativistic moorings and claim to be the "correct Party of God," the more that false veneer becomes noticeable, and the more "right" that undecided minority will turn.
I'm not complaining, rather I'm simply enjoying the poll trends. Let the Liberocrats have-at-it in the holier-than-thou public relations department, but in the end the party left standing will be the one that has remained firmly rooted in its beliefs and positions. It's the position-shifters that run the risk of being blown-away in the winds of public perception.
Comments