If anything, this semester has presented three challenges to American liberals that we must resolve. On campus, in our State capitol and across the country, liberals are divided in three ongoing wars:

1)

Gay rights

In the midst of the furor over a state law to define marriage between a man and a woman, some observers provided a different framework for defending the rights of homosexuals. It is one argument every proponent of Bush’s war on terrorism would do well to consider and every liberal must begin utilizing.

According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon has discharged 37 homosexual linguists from the Defense Language Institute over the past two years because they violated the reprehensible “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. Unfortunately, more than half worked in Arabic, Korean and Farsi languages. The Pentagon did this knowing that there has been a shortage of experts in those languages to fight in the war against terrorism. The next time W. asks you to join him in the fight against terrorism, make sure you are sleeping with someone of the opposite sex. After all, you’re either with us or against us.

This is a symptom of a larger cultural problem. As a country, we fail to realize that gays should be treated with the same respect as everyone else. What they do with their partners is their business — not that of the government. So many people on both sides of the political aisle run around preaching the tenets of freedom and democracy, but when confronted with the political firestorm surrounding gay rights, they run for cover.

And we liberals must call them out, especially hypocritical Democrats. Many state Assembly Democrats crossed over during the initial passage of the state’s archaic marriage law to vote with conservative Republicans. Fortunately, enough stayed true to their beliefs such that the override fell one vote short. Liberals should find it alarming that with one more Assembly seat, Conservatives could continue the systemic oppression of gays in Wisconsin.

2)

Gore, Dean and the Dem Primary

The funny part about American politics is that some of the cruelest rivalries exist within the parties, rather than between them. When Gore endorsed Dean, I can only imagine how Lieberman felt — especially after he waited to declare his candidacy before Gore made his final decision on whether to run. That consideration was obviously not returned. During an interview with “Today,” Lieberman said, “I’m not going to talk about Al Gore’s sense of loyalty this morning.” Like the party or not, this kind of thing is not good for it.

One source close to prominent local democrats speaks with a kind of rhetoric that I find alarming. He speaks of certain “types” of Democrats. In essence, the multifaceted beliefs of many are serving to splinter the party’s overall mission nationally. He said, “Who is our leader? Who can I point to as the counter to Bush? I can’t. We’ve had that problem since Clinton left office.” And we blew it in the midterms, thanks to Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle.

This primary is about a war for the future of the Party, and Gore’s endorsement of Dean is yet another shining example of a bitter ex-politician trying to regain the spotlight. I had found Dean an energetic, stylized leader with precisely the kind of fresh approach toward campaigning we need as student-citizens. His decision to visit campus early in the campaign should be applauded. But am I supposed to jump on board because Gore says so? Kerry is right to say that “This election is about the future, not the past.” Winning the presidency entails sitting in the oval office. Thus, Gore lost. We need to get over it and in the words of one group, “move on.”

3)

Defining diversity

Ask a university administrator, a campus group or your resident political science professor and they’ll all give you a different answer. And, in light of ongoing discussion on the quality of campus climate, our lack of complete understanding on what constitutes the diversity necessary to a good university education should concern liberals.

Let me offer an opinion to consider. Diversity should be defined as the degree to which a university is a hotbed of intellectual, political, social and cultural debate. And race plays a role in creating that diversity. But there are additional means for creating an environment in which students are constantly learning and experiencing new things, and I’d like to think that readers of this opinion page have come across an opinion or two this semester that compelled them to take action.

John Stuart Mill once said that liberty is defined as the absolute freedom of opinion on all subjects. I believe that when we fail to use our freedoms, as too many of us do, we relinquish them. We give in to what seems to be consensus when the majority is actually silent, apathetic or both.

Students, especially the “liberal majority” at the UW, could use a kick in pants. I spent my first two years walking around campus with the kind of knee-jerk liberalism that allowed morons like Bush to take office. And why? Because I never took the time to seek out a serious competitor to those beliefs. As the editor of this page, I have been lucky to read great conservative columnists that challenged and strengthened my political viewpoints. We liberals would do well to engage in more political debate with strong opponents.

This semester was just the start. We’ve got some work to do if we want to improve the rights of our fellow citizens, improve the campus experience and, most importantly, get W. out of office. Here’s to the future.

Paul Temple ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and philosophy.