Using the word 'liberal' as an insult.

 

In my daily watching of the current American political shenanigans [mostly via YouTube] I find myself partly bemused, partly confused, by the frequent hurling of certain words from one side to the other [I won't say which side to which 'cos there's no need], not just in terms of deprecation, but in the expectation that the person to whom such address is made is going to feel utterly crushed by such an imprecation, something which we Brits - [at least the vast majority of us] would not feel in any way cowed by - and, to give credit to our American 'cousins' who are the targets of such, for the most part neither are they. 

There's a number of such terms being bandied about as though they were 'terms of abuse' and deemed by the attacking side as being sufficiently cutting enough to close down conversation, including, apart from the word 'liberal' itself, 'socialist', 'anti-capitalist', 'politically correct', 'tolerant', 'non-discriminatory' - and, hopelessly off the mark to genuinely apply to 99% of both British and American politicians, 'communist' [of all the terms!]. I, for one, and I'm sure all those of or close to, my persuasions would feel not only unfazed by but actually quite proud to be referred to in these terms - well, perhaps not 'communist' but only because anyone informed enough can see that it's manifestly wide of the mark. 

I bring the subject up because recently in our TV networks' reporting on the recent decisive election result [at least the 'President' part of it] and its needlessly drawn-out aftermath, a number of American politicians from both sides are being invited to give interviews here - and exclusively for the Republicans, their interviews almost invariably descend to 'accusing' the BBC or Channel Four [our most middle-of-the-road channel, some would claim slightly left-of-centre] of being - shock, horror! - a typically 'liberal' or even 'left wing' [!] medium, as though that alone invalidates all questions being asked, the interviewer being expected to deny such an egregious 'slur', which they never do, often while trying to hide the smile on their faces. This happens time and time again. 

To give the British Conservative Party its due, its members do not spit out these and similar words with the name-calling venom that some American Republicans do in accusatory tone. If they are used at all it's in the sense of being non-judgmentally factual. And I've also noticed, by the way, that when an American right-wing politician is suggested as being 'reactionary' or even a 'fascist-sympathiser' they rarely, if ever, wish to disassociate themselves from such words. Interesting.

 But those I'm talking about here, rather than answer a searching question they'll draw out the argument, usually because the answer is too difficult or they don't have one, by throwing in a time-wasting hostile deflection. Can't they just see that such faux-vituperations have zero effect? Exasperating! 

So, to all those to whom I'm referring, pray let me have just one more word..........

Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts Youth Choir - “We All Stand Together”.

Isn't this just MAH-vellously uplifting? For me it's now going to be the 'earwig song' for today and maybe longer, but that's okay. [I actually even liked the original, though right from its release it's been considered 'infra dig' to say so]. 

Happy, happy, HAPPY!!! 

Could TR*MPelthinskin really run again in four years' time?

 

Taking the current most likely Presidential election result as a 'given', I see that some of the current One-Term-President's supporters, that is the less out-and-out crazy ones, are saying that he'll be back to win in 2024 - when, incidentally, he'd be even older than Biden is now. But if he's not already by then in prison, or up to his neck and beyond in litigations, when was the last time an American President, having completed one four year term, lost an election yet remained as party leader [for whichever party], but then came back to win a second four year term? I can't recall it happening in my lifetime - and my memory goes right back to Eisenhower. Would a party want to retain a 'loser' as leader anyway? I only ask because so far I've heard of no one asking the question. Maybe it's premature to even posit such a situation? Just a-wundrin'.