Being a liberal shouldn’t mean being a chump. Yet that’s how many on the right choose to paint liberals, and infinitely worse, that’s how some latter-day liberals choose to lead their lives.

I’ve been a liberal a loooong time. In my lifetime, I’ve stood (and worked) for, among other things, civil rights, union’s rights, women’s rights and gay rights. But part of working for rights is having enough sense to tell rights apart from wrongs.

Some people like to say, “I haven’t changed; everybody else has.” That sounds good, but it can’t possibly be true. Some change is inevitable. I like to think that I still adhere to the core principles that shaped me as a young person, while I continue to keep an open mind. That differentiates me from a lot of today’s self-proclaimed liberals, who are willing to jump on the bandwagon for any and every crackpot notion that comes down the pike. This makes them as solid and dependable as … oh, I don’t know, registered independents.

The old saying goes that when zealots form a firing squad, they assemble in a circle. This is certainly as true on the left as it is on the right. Put a bunch of righties together in a room, and Michelle Bachmann emerges, talking about how the Founding Fathers fought against slavery. (Yes, she really said that! And she’s in Congress.)

Meanwhile, if you get a bunch of soft-headed neo-liberals together and tell the first one that there are kids currently occupying United States soil who were brought here illegally by their parents, you’ll have someone saying, “Well, we should give all of them college scholarships,” by the time you get to the end of the circle.

It’s no wonder people like Glenn Beck pop up out of nowhere.

I’ve been generally pleased with the feedback that I’ve received after last week’s column in which I stated that the DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act should offer the children of illegal immigrants the choice of military service or domestic national service (and not college attendance) as a means to get on the path to U.S. citizenship. I believe that equating military service with going to college isn’t just apples and oranges; it’s apples and Volkswagens.

I heard from several people who think this is a common-sense approach that might just put the Obama administration out in front on the issue, and it would be a good thing for those kids and the country as well.

Of course, I also heard from whiners who all started their screeds with, “You call yourself a liberal?!”

Let’s get it straight, once and for all: Liberals should want to help make people’s lives better, not easier. Show me somebody who has had an easy life, and I’ll show you Lindsay Lohan. Or Paris Hilton. Or George W. Bush. They don’t get it because they’ve never had to go get it.

I feel for the kids who are hoping to get a version of the DREAM Act passed sometime soon. But that doesn’t mean that I think they should just be handed something. That wouldn’t be right, and it wouldn’t be fair. They don’t deserve something for nothing, because nobody deserves something for nothing.

Advocacy groups and some media folks are constantly trying to guilt people. There was a column in the Arizona Daily Star a few weeks back about this 19-year-old guy who got popped for being in this country illegally (through no fault of his own). He had bounced around a bunch of charter schools and still didn’t have a diploma, and he’s now hoping to marry his 16-year-old girlfriend in an effort to stay in this country. I guess I was supposed to feel bad for him, but I’m sorry: If you’re 19 years old, and you can’t even graduate from a charter school, you kinda suck.

And if your idea of sticking it to The Man involves marrying a 16-year-old girl, then … well, you know, you kinda suck.

I’m not one of those “Let’s send ’em all back!” kind of people. I understand how they got here, and I appreciate that they want to stay here. I just don’t think it’s fair that they get a free pass. National service seems much fairer than letting everybody go to college. (Plus, there’s the real possibility that a lot of these young people don’t want to go to college and could end up being successful without ever having done so.)

One responder wrote, “The years between the Vietnam War and Kuwait were years that no soldier was in harm’s way.” (Tell that to the 240 who died in the Beirut bombing.) “College and soldiering were at the same level. Going to college and getting a degree will improve America by producing a person (who) will contribute to the economy much more than a soldier (who) is costing the taxpayer money.”

Yeah, except for the fact that having these kids go into the military puts the country first and then benefits the individual later on down the road, while going to college puts the individual first and then maybe benefits the country in the long run.

Life shouldn’t work that way. America shouldn’t work that way.

This article appears in Mar 3-9, 2011.

9 replies on “Danehy”

  1. Wow Danehy! Finally you are coming to your senses – an article that makes sense! Some people just don’t understand military service – especially one that has not served – it is not like the movies or the extreme liberals protray.
    I am a Vietnam / Cold war Vet and saw an awful lot, but used my military training (I was an aircraft mechanic) to better myself by becoming responsible and using the GI bill to earn my Engineering degree. If it wasn’t for the military I would have never have gotten where I am because I came from a poor family.

  4. This is one of the best opinion pieces to come out of the Tucson Weekly. I am pretty conservative on my views on illegal alien problem. I support putting military along the border as a support role to help our Border Patrol. I know all 200,000 servicemen that are in the Middle East rather be in the Arizona desert actually protecting our own borders than dealing with chaos of the Middle East.

    However, I do have a heart and completely agree that in this country we do not punish children because of their parents deeds. I would agree any child that came into this country illegally by the age of 13, should be allowed U.S. citizen based on your ideas. Military service or domestic service are great ways to show allegiance to your new country. If an illegal alien child did serve the US, he would be more of an American than most children born here.

    It would truly show they are Americans and after their service, be welcome in our country with open arms.

  5. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you have stated yours. It’s just that when it comes to stating the facts, you are sorely lacking. The statement you made regarding Michelle Bachmann is not true. Either you didn’t listen to her speech and are just repeating what other talking heads like Chris Mathews have claimed was in her speech, or you are just lying. Michelle Bachmann Did not say our Founding Fathers fought against slavery. She stated a fact, which even liberals cannot argue is not true, so you and others merely change what was actually said to support a preconceived agenda. She said our fore-bearers fought against slavery, and this is a fact. By printing this erroneous statement diminishes your credibility with everyone that actually listened to Michelle Bachmann’s speech, except those soft-headed liberals you mentioned

  6. I have lived and worked right on the border for over 20 years. I know families in this predicament. Tom, they have already been through hell, they are not here living the easy life and now junior gets a free pass. And what aggregious sin did their parents even commit? Yes, their parents came to the US illegally to escape grinding poverty in Mexico most of us can’t even imagine. Yes, the Mexican government has a responsiblity to offer more to their own people. And sorry, but yes, in a global economy, we have had both a positive and negative influence on Mexico (to mention one country), so we have some responsibility here.

    We have encouraged workers to come over illegally and turned a blind eye when the economy was strong, now they are the enemy. This manic relationship with the poor of Mexico has a long history here. (Personally I think it might be a good idea for ALL youth to have to do community/national service–like many countries who require military service.) And then it could be a path to citizenship for those who were brought over as children to the US. I don’t think the military needs to have to deal with a glut of young people who might not want to be there. The poor have always been our cannon fodder–they enlist out of a combination of patriotism and the idea that they will have opportunity they couldn’t have otherwise–if they don’t get blown to bits in the interim, that is.
    I agree with you some of the time, but not this time–and cut the name calling, will ya? I don’t need to denigrate your opinion by declassifying you from liberalism. I am not a soft, idiot, jump on the bandwagon of everything liberal. I just don’t agree with you.

  7. Adios, Senor Danehy. I have been threatening to unsubscribe from your ultra-liberal weekly production for some time. Your present article just made me do it. You guys, especially you, are WAY too liberal for me. I am basically a conservative, but occasionally see something credit-worty in a liberal; you guys NEVER recipricate that feeling. You remind me of old Obama brain-washed hippy who never got past your 20’s.
    ADIOS.

  8. If you are of rational mind, how can you not agree with Danehy on this one as written? Now being the liberal that I am, I do have a bias but I did actually read all ensuing comments and can appreciate those of differing opinion. However, I will take issue with “Chuck’s” infatuation with the wacko from Minnesota. Michelle’s exact words were: “the “founding fathers fought slavery until it was abolished”­. Research it, I did! The problem with youe argument, Chuck, is where you want to draw the line on who were the founding fathers. Are we extending this time line to include Lincoln and the Civil War, or Johnson and the Civil Rights Acts? Most would agree that it ended with the actual “founding” of this nation. I suppose you could include the Presidencies of Washington and Adams, maybe even Jefferson as they were in on the ground floor. But to extend it much farther than this really does not jive with the accepted history books. Now back to truth vs. myth, Chuck; if you research the Founding Fathers, the Continental Congress, the meetings in Boston and Philly among others, the names of Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Hale, and Henry all are prominent players. Couple that group of allstars along with EVERY single Southern Delegate to the Continental Congress and you will find that they all had one thing in common. That commonality was that THEY ALL OWNED SLAVES! Surprise, surprise! The abolition of slavery WAS NOT a high priority to these folks. So to you Chuck, and Michelle, and others of the same stripe: When you stop telling lies, we’ll stop telling the truth.

  9. If you are of rational mind, how can you not agree with Danehy on this one as written? Now being the liberal that I am, I do have a bias but I did actually read all ensuing comments and can appreciate those of differing opinion. However, I will take issue with “Chuck’s” infatuation with the wacko from Minnesota. Michelle’s exact words were: “the “founding fathers fought slavery until it was abolished”­. Research it, I did! The problem with youe argument, Chuck, is where you want to draw the line on who were the founding fathers. Are we extending this time line to include Lincoln and the Civil War, or Johnson and the Civil Rights Acts? Most would agree that it ended with the actual “founding” of this nation. I suppose you could include the Presidencies of Washington and Adams, maybe even Jefferson as they were in on the ground floor. But to extend it much farther than this really does not jive with the accepted history books. Now back to truth vs. myth, Chuck; if you research the Founding Fathers, the Continental Congress, the meetings in Boston and Philly among others, the names of Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Hale, and Henry all are prominent players. Couple that group of allstars along with EVERY single Southern Delegate to the Continental Congress and you will find that they all had one thing in common. That commonality was that THEY ALL OWNED SLAVES! Surprise, surprise! The abolition of slavery WAS NOT a high priority to these folks. So to you Chuck, and Michelle, and others of the same stripe: When you stop telling lies, we’ll stop telling the truth.

Comments are closed.