Redefining Liberals

Leonard Pitts in his latest column argues that our country is more liberal than many give it credit for. He tries to dispel the notion of a conservative nation at heart. Compared to that time 40 or 50 years ago, we are indeed more liberal.

In some ways, I agree with Leonard Pitts that liberalism these days is looked upon less favorably than it was 40 or 50 years ago. Back then, liberals stood for noble things such as civil rights and fairness for all. Nowadays in our polarized environment, too many (not ALL, but too many) otherwise reasonable and intelligent liberals have been afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) and allow it to cloud their opinions.

"Affirmative Action? If Bush and Limbaugh are against it, I'm for it."

"Fairness Doctrine? As long as it shuts up those morons on the right, great!"

No wonder liberalism is not as popular as it once was. Did I mention Michael Moore?

However, Pitts' arguments are flawed (you knew I wasn't going to let him off the hook).

Media Matters and the Campaign For America's Future, a liberal activist group, have helpfully assembled said facts in a report released earlier this month, ''The Progressive Majority: Why A Conservative America Is A Myth.'' The report analyzes years of public opinion surveys from such respected and nonpartisan organizations as Gallup and the Pew Research Center. On issue after issue, those surveys present a picture starkly at odds with the conservative stereotype.

• Abortion? Sixty-two percent of us oppose overturning Roe v. Wade.

• Stem cells? Sixty-one percent of us support using them for research.

• Guns? Sixty percent of us would like to see more government restriction.

These are not exactly conservative positions. To the contrary, they bespeak a fairly liberal electorate. So how is it we've come to think of ''liberal'' as a bad word?

Let's take it from the top. Abortion? As long as states keep their rights to set their own abortion laws, you're not going to hear too much massive complaining about Roe v Wade. After all, states rights is a largely conservative value.

Stem Cells? Pitts is broad-brushing a bit here. The issue isn't as much stem cells in general as it is the TYPE of stem cells used (a lot of conservatives are in favor of using adult stem cells). Besides, many conservatives, including Sen. Bill Frist, support greater stem cell research.

Guns? There's a big difference between more government restriction and outright elimination of the Second Amendment, which virtually all conservatives are strongly against.

So yes, Pitts really isn't wrong, per se, but he's not telling us the whole story. There's a vast middle ground out there where most of us reside. That middle ground has gotten more liberal over the last several decades, but by no means has it crossed the line to the left of center.

The problem I have with Pitts is that he fails to identify the real reason why the term liberal is often met with scorn. I already mentioned the BDS component of this earlier, but this quote from the column offers more perspective:

An anecdote by way of answer: In teaching on college campuses, I've noticed that my young female students tend to reject being called ''feminists.'' They happily accept the rights feminists have won for them, not least of which is the right to be college students. But the ''F-word'' itself repels them.

Why do you think the "F-word" is so repulsive, Mr. Pitts? Could it be because mainstream feminist groups such as NOW have hijacked a noble intention and have taken it to the extreme? Could it be because many groups that call themselves liberal have advocated for the elimination of public displays of Christian religious symbols under the guise of "separation of church and state"?

Therein lies the real issue. Conservatives, many moderates on both sides of the fence, and traditional liberals have seen what used to be fringe and radical elements of the left become more and more accepted in mainstream liberal culture, with the largely liberal MSM leading the charge. And we don't like it.

Far-right loonies are routinely hammered by the MSM, and rightly so. Why, then, isn't fidel-lover Medea Benjamin roasted over the coals for her blatant ignorance of human rights violations in Cuba? Why is someone like Rosie O'Donnell not heavily criticized by MSM outlets (save FOX) for her ridiculous anti-U.S. comments on national TV?

The bottom line: why do too many mainstream liberals allow this kind of crap to take place without serious indignation? Is it because they would rather see these people stick it to Public Enemy #1 (Bush, not Osama) rather than consider their insane views based on their merits, or lack thereof?

As long as this continues, the L-word will continue to carry a negative connotation among some. And conservative talk show hosts will continue to rule the radio waves while Air America falls flat on its face.

At least until the Dems take over in '09 and the Fairness Doctrine is implemented.