OMED: Walter Cronkite was the most watched, most respected national media figure during the decades of the Vietnam War.  We said then that he was a flaming liberal, and feeding the public leftist pap. (David Brinkley was the one who set us straight.) Nobody would listen.  We said then that he was going to see to it that the people of Vietnam would end up in slavery, and that the domino theory he rejected was absolutely correct.  For the younger members of our readership, that proposed that if Vietnam fell to the communistsl, all of SE Asia would fall with it.  And, that is precisely what happened.  Now to Cronkite's letter to Kerry, with our comments in italics.

In the interests of your campaign and your party's desire to unseat George W. Bush, you have some explaining to do. During the primary campaign, your  Democratic opponents accused you of flip-flopping on several important issues, such as your vote in  favor of the Iraq War resolution.

Certainly your sensitivity to nuance, your ability to see shades of gray where George Bush sees only black and white, explains some of your difficulty.  Shades of gray don't do well in political campaigns,  where primary colors are the rule. And your long and distinguished service in the Senate has no doubt led to genuine changes in some positions. But the denial  that you are a liberal is almost impossible to reconcile.

Long and distinguished service in the Senate?  John Kerry?  He has voted for every tax increase, every flabby government welfare program, against every attempt to secure our borders, for ever more costly and useless restrictions on business.  He thinks the constitutional proscription against an official government church requires the removal of religion from all public places.  He thinks it's okay to execute unborn American citizens innocent of any crime, but opposes the execution of American citizens convicted of multiple murder.  Worst of all, he lives in Massachusetts, which after Oregon is the worst liberal snake pit in America

When the National Journal said your Senate record makes you one of the most liberal members of the Senate, you called that "a laughable characterization" and "the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my  life." Wow! Liberals, who make up a substantial portion of the Democratic Party and a significant portion of the independent vote, are entitled to ask, "What gives?"

Liberals give, Walter.  They take money from people who work for it and give it to people who don't. 

It isn't just the National Journal that has branded you as a liberal. So has the liberal lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action. Senator, check your own website. It says you are for rolling back tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, for tax credits to both save and create jobs, for real investment in our schools. You've voted, in the words of your own  campaign, for "every major piece of civil rights legislation to come before Congress since 1985, as well as the Equal Rights Amendment." You count yourself (and are considered by others) a leader on environmental protection issues.

Actually, Walter, there's a problem with crediting a Democrat with civil rights progress.  They walked out of congress when the Republicans demanded the end of slavery.  They created Jim Crow after the war.  They filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  They opposed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Just recently, they blocked the nomination of one Hispanic and one Black to high judicial seats.  They call Colin Powell an uncle tom.  They trash Condoleeza Rice.  They invented and daily use the new term "neocon," which is an anti-Semitic euphemism.

You are committed to saving Medicare and Social Security, and you are an internationalist in foreign policy.  What are you ashamed of?

Liberals don't want to save Medicare and Social Security, Walter.  They had the congress for sixty years, and the White House for the majority of that time, and didn't do anything to fix the problem. 
 
Are you afflicted with the Dukakis syndrome - that loss of nerve that has allowed conservatives both to define and to demonize liberalism for the past decade and more? You remember, of course, that it was during the1988 presidential campaign that George Bush I attacked Democrat Michael Dukakis both for opposing the Vietnam War and for stating he was a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Both proved, Bush said, that Dukakis was a liberal. Dukakis responded to that as an attack on his patriotism. He defended neither liberalism nor the ACLU.

Liberalism is just another word for socialism, Walter.  It is not possible to defend that ideology.  Everywhere in the world it has gained control, one of two things has happened.  Taxes go to 90% and government sticks it nose in every aspect of every life, or within a few decades they become militarist states and collapse under their own weight.  How many Gulags and junk healthcare systems do you need to see before you get it?

Dukakis might have responded by saying: "I am surprised, Mr. Bush, that you are not a member of  the ACLU. We do not have to agree on all the positions that the ACLU may take on this issue or that, but we should applaud its effort to protect the rights of Americans, even those charged with heinous crimes." Dukakis might have defended liberalism as the legacy of FDR and Harry Truman and John F.Kennedy - none of whom were anything like 100 percent liberals but all of whom advanced the cause of a truly liberal democracy.

There is no such thing as a "liberal democracy," Walter.  Liberals create minority control of government and culture.  The word "democracy" means majority control.  "Liberal democracy" is an oxymoron  And I am sorry to have to tell you this, but JFK called for a massive tax cut to revive a stagnant economy, just like Bush did.  It worked.

But by ducking the issue, Dukakis opened the way for the far right to make "L" for liberal a scarlet letter with which to brand all who oppose them. In the course of that 1988 exchange, Bush offered a telling observation, saying, in effect, that liberals don't like being called liberal. You seem to have reaffirmed that analysis.

Kerry is right, Walter.  So was Dukakis.  Did you notice what happened to Hillary Clinton's socialized medicine plan in the early 90's?  It raised such ire in the American public mind that the Republicans took congress and except for a two year theft by the Democrats and Jumping Jim Jeffords, it has been in Republican hands ever since.  Can you say polling results, Walter?  In the poll that matters, votes in elections, what you believe is rejected by the American people.  You're out of touch. 

If 1988 taught us anything, it is that a candidate who lacks the courage of his convictions cannot hope to convince the nation that he should be given its leadership. So, senator, some detailed explanations are in order if you hope to have any chance of defeating even a wounded George II in November.  You cannot let the Bush league define you or the issues. You have to do that yourself. Take my advice and lay it all out, before it's too late.

Please do that, Senator Kerry.  Take Walter's advice to heart and proudly stump the nation spouting the liberal line.  This conservative will donate to your campaign if you will do it, for that is exactly what needs to happen so we can send you all right down the tubes to a 3rd party status, where you belong.

© 2004 Oregon Magazine