General

It is an amazing phenomenon, but apparently there no longer is a left side of the political spectrum. For that matter "liberal" has seemingly vanished as well.

They - those who line up opposite right-of-center conservatives - have stricken "left" and "liberal" from the dictionary. They all still very much exist; they just prefer to be known as "moderate" or "mainstream," or perhaps even "centrist." The most fascinating part of this fantasy is that the more left and liberal they are, the more incensed they become by any reference to being exactly that they are by there very own choice: left-of-center liberals.

I submit as evidence the following exchange between myself and Rocky Mountain News columnist and CU law professor, Paul Campos.

Campos, in his May 29 column, was infuriated at the huge majority of Congress, including dozens of card carrying Democrats, who voted in favor of funding for the troops (the War Supplemental) without deadlines for withdrawal. "The only reason we're still in Iraq is because the American elites have almost no personal investment in this war," he fumed. In his expert opinion, Campos said that President Bush has "the emotional sensitivity of a serial killer" and he's getting back up from "cowardly Congress, many of whose members are willing to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers in return for slightly increasing their already astronomical odds of re-election."

That's an interesting perspective, but most analysts acknowledged that the single biggest reason for the Democrats winning the majority in both chambers of Congress was the public's dissatisfaction with the war and the President who was running it, and they took out their animosity on members perceived to be Bush supporters.

So, I wrote back. And the RMN was kind enough to print my piece. I explained that any President - not just this one - must take very personally the awesome responsibility of sending troops into battle while knowing some will make the ultimate sacrifice. I also objected to his claim that members of Congress were somehow insulated from this war. Many members have sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, cousins, and family friends in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the globe. A great many members, maybe even a majority by now, have been to Iraq and/or Afghanistan to see first hand what the war is like. Many have had to comfort parents whose son or daughter was killed in the war. In addition, members certainly hear from their constituents with all of the raw emotion that is on both sides of the on-going debate.

To suggest that there is no real threat, no real enemy and that the only real reason we are at war is some kind of irrational blood-lust is an irresponsible, unconscionable argument that is proffered by those on the left side of the political spectrum. Of that, there can be little doubt.

But in Campos's reply to my rebuttal, he clearly is most outraged by my assertion that he is a left-of-center liberal. Since polls apparently support him in his opposition to the war - and by convenient extension, he assumes every other foreign policy opinion he might have or attitude about the President or members of Congress - Campos concludes he must surely be mainstream. "Regular readers of this column will recognize that I'm a radical leftist in the same sense that Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid are radical leftists."

Well then, I'll take that as "guilty as charged" admission from Campos. Here's why:

Experienced observers of Capitol Hill generally look to the annual vote rankings by National Journal for a sense of where members of the Senate and House fall along the political spectrum in the broad categories of economic, social, and foreign policy. You can access these rankings online here. From their rather extensive analysis, National Journal develops a ranking for all members from the most extreme on one end of the Liberal-Conservative spectrum to the other. If Mr. Campos were to look, here's what he'd find out about his "mainstream" kindred spirits.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid voted more liberal than 78.2% percent of the entire Senate in 2006. Reid's cumulative record was more liberal than Chuck Schumer (74.5%), Robert Byrd (70.5%), Hillary Clinton (70.2%), and Colorado’s Ken Salazar (67.2%). Not surprisingly, Wayne Allard was ranked the ninth most Conservative member of the Senate with a 13.8% "liberal" rating, meaning he voted more conservative than 86.2% than the other Senators.

Nancy Pelosi may not be the best alliance for Campos to validate his mainstream, moderate position either. According to the 2006 National Journal ranking, the new Speaker voted more liberal than 92.3% of all the other members of the House. That takes some doing especially when you consider she beat out Maxine Waters (91.2%), Barney Frank (88.8%), as well as Colorado's own liberal icon Diana DeGette (87.8%).

Only 19 other members of the 435 member House accumulated a more liberal voting record than Pelosi. Just 22 Senators were more liberal than Reid. Campos says he's right there with them but objects strenuously to being called a leftist. Well, Paul, which side of 50% are they on if not the left side?

If Pelosi is suddenly mainstream then the left must have completely disappeared and all that remains is the right and the center. They might like it that way, but it could create some problems:

• Baseball stadiums would need to be redesigned with only right and center field, which is probably going to put a lot of left fielders out of a job.
• People like me that have a favorite pew on the left side in church are going to have to get accustomed to having only right and center pews.
• Fashion takes a hit too, as left shoes, left gloves, left sleeves, and left pockets are cut out.
• The auto industry will have to redesign cars. Steering wheels and the driver's seat can't be on the left because there isn't a left.
• God might need to get in the act, too, with a kindly assist from Mother Nature. All kinds of creatures with left ears, eyes, elbows, shoulders, lungs, or kidneys are going to need some serious re-engineering!
• And, I have no idea what to do about left handed people. Signing a check could be a tricky proposition.

It really does amaze me that people who apparently embrace their own personal political principals voluntarily are so offended when someone calls them what they freely have chosen to be - liberals on the left side of center of the political spectrum. For years, they've tried to come up with a different identifier. For instance, "progressive" seems pretty popular right now. They all love to be "moderates." Mark Udall is typically referred to by the adoring media as "moderate" yet his voting record is more liberal than 3 out of 4 members of the House. How liberal do you have to be before you can be safely called one?

Those like Campos and certain members of the media understand that the general public often reacts negatively to the L-word. It is no small wonder then that they don't like being referred to as such, but at the same time nobody forced them to be liberal.

A pigeon might wish it were an eagle. It may even call itself one. But wishing and pretending won't make him any less of a pigeon, nor more of an eagle.

A final observation - I don't recall ever offending someone by acknowledging that they are obviously a right-of-center conservative. In fact, most are flattered to be recognized for principles they hold dear. Curious, I think.

In case you were wondering about my own National Journal vote ranking, in 2006 I voted more conservative than 87.5% of the House - proudly.