Skip to main content
Updated date:

Original Short Fiction: "Graveyard Whistler’s Political Poem Find, 'Liberal Mud with Commentary'"

Original short literary fiction, including satire, remains one of the writing genres in my literary toolkit. I do enjoy creating characters!

Graveyard Whistler

Graveyard Whistler

A Pre-Foreword from the Graveyard Whistler

Hey, Folks, the Graveyard Whistler here again!

Most of my followers are aware that I place my original research articles on my literary website. A reader-friend suggested I join a site called Fulcrum Letters, whose curators promise to allow only the best informative articles from any area of interest—plus to pay writers for their work. She thought I might make a few extra dollars for my research pieces. I had my reservation but decided to give it try.

I discovered that the curators of Fulcrum Letters operate under an obvious, political bias—they lean the opposite direction from me, though I’m not all that political and don’t write many articles in that area; I remain mostly interested in literature and literary research. Another relevant discovery was that those curators seem unable to distinguish between fiction vs non-fiction and personal vs expository writings. Every piece that I submitted containing or even implying a refutation to their political bias garnered a "red-spot," indicating that they would keep the article up (it receives considerable ad clicks), but they red-spotted them, warning me to rework the "tone" and to provide a more "acceptable standard of logic."

The "red-spotting" appeared not only on expository pieces with an obvious political slant, but also on literary fiction, including satire—pieces that might have a character whose dialog revealed his leaning toward one side of the political debate. In "Fulcrum Talks," where their writers go to share info, I asked other writers if their work had been "red-spotted," based on political bias, and many said yes, and some said that they actually had articles deleted, even satire—reminiscent of so-called "fact checkers" who "fact check" satire!

I finally had enough of this thought-control and decided to pull my work off Fulcrum Letters. On the one hand, I felt I was betraying the effort to work for writers’ freedom of expression for allowing myself to self-censor, but on the other hand, I could not with conscience intact allow my work to be used by those biased curators for their own financial gain, while allowing writers just a pittance for their work.

Censorship is an abomination, but political bias in and of itself is not the problematic issue. The problem is when editors allow their bias to unfairly judge and censor their opposition. Without information from all sides of the issues, citizens are stifled when it comes to making choices.

My article offered here—"Graveyard Whistler’s Political Poem Find, 'Liberal Mud with Commentary'"'—exemplifies the unacceptable "tone" and "substandard logic" abhorrent to the Fulcrum Letters curators. Fortunately, I don’t have to self-censor here!

Foreword from the Graveyard Whistler

Let me make it clear right away: I despise politics. National politics, hate it. Local politics, hate it. Office politics, hate it the worst. So I rarely delve into issues that might lead me to the necessity of discussing politics. However, as I have so often touted the treasure trove from my old, late buddy Stoney’s Stone Gulch Literary Arts, I feel the need to address some political issues that Stoney addressed.

At first my inclination was to simply avoid all of his political scribblings, but then after I actually read this offering, I realized I had actually learned something, which has changed my view about political issues. You will notice that it’s not just a poem—actually, it’s a piece of doggerel, as Stoney called it— but it has a commentary that is well researched with sources. I’m still not allowing myself to become immersed in those issues, but I don’t feel that avoiding them completely does me or anyone else any good.

You see, I’ve always considered myself "liberal"—that is opposed to stuffy conservative thought that disavows all progress, including science and minority rights—and until encountering this piece called "Liberal Mud," I did not realize the difference between "classical liberal" and "modern liberal." To me, liberal was liberal which was a good thing, always. Full stop.

As usual, Stoney has not made it clear that he wrote this piece; it just kind of popped up at the bottom of clipping of Stoney delivering a speech to a college assembly. How I would love to include that image of Stoney speaking—but alas! when he gifted me with his site-full of writings, he insisted he remain anonymous, so any image or even Stoney’s real name will never appear in my writings.

Without further ado, I present the piece of doggerel—and that’s what Stoney called it—for what it’s worth:

"Liberal Mud with Commentary"

This piece of doggerel titled, "Liberal Mud," is brazenly political; it focuses on the nature of the much abused term, "liberalism," which denotes freedom from the overreach of governmental restraints.

The term, "liberal," has been much abused. For example, in contemporary American politics, the party that claims the label of liberal is the party whose policies are formulated to control every aspect of life of the citizens of the United States from healthcare to business practices to what each American is allowed to think. That party even seeks to quash freedom of religion, which was a major impetus leading to the founding the country.

Under the guise of "liberalism," that party claims large swaths of the citizenry who have fallen for the corrupt concept of "identity politics." For example, the party claims huge numbers of African Americans, women, gays, and young voters. The party appeals to many of the uninformed/misinformed in those "groups" simply by offering them government largesse and claiming to represent their interests.

A common misconception is that the Democratic and Republican parties switched policies a few decades ago. That lie has been perpetuated by Democrat vote seekers because history reveals that the Republican Party has always been the party of freedom; it was, in fact, President Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, who issued the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves during the American Civil War.

As Rev. Wayne Perryman has averred: "Many believed the Democrats had a change of heart and fell in love with blacks. To the contrary, history reveals the Democrats didn't fall in love with black folks, they fell in love with the black vote knowing this would be their ticket to the White House." As they have experienced the result of luring the votes of black folks, Democrat politicians have worked the same old lie to get the votes of the other identity groups: women, gays, young voters.

Originally, the term, "liberal," indicated the positive quality of allowing freedom from government overreach, and generally those who wish to unleash themselves from harsh constraints on behavior that harms no one are, in fact, liberal. The American Founding Fathers were the liberals of that period of history. Those colonists who wished to remain tied to England, instead of seeking independence, were the conservatives. In current, common parlance, there is a distinction between "classical liberal" and "modern liberal."

Whether an ideology is liberal or conservative depends entirely upon the status quo of the era. If a nation's government status quo functions as a socialist/totalitarian structure and a group of citizens works to convert it to a republic, then that group would be the liberals, as was the case at the founding of the democratic republic of the United States of America. However, if a country's governing status quo structure functions as a democratic republic, and a group of citizens struggles to change it into a socialist/totalitarian structure — a la Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or any other current member of the Democratic Party — then that group would be the liberals, however, mistakenly that term would be when applied to such a stance.

Conservatism is the desire to maintain the status quo despite the nature of that status quo, but then again it is necessary to delineate what that status quo is. If the status quo allows freedom, then it should be conserved; if it does not, it should be liberalized. It is unfortunate that those terms have become so flabby, but then that is the nature of political speak: the side that has the lesser argument will always seek to convert language, instead of converting their feckless policies.

This piece hails forth in the current acceptance of a liberalism that is anything but liberal: modern liberalism vs classical liberalism. The piece (doggerel) might well be titled "Totalitarian Mud." But part of the point is to report the denatured use of the term, "liberal," as it decries the effects of that denatured term.

Liberal Mud

Every soldier takes to battle
His duty for survival
Marching against the rival.

The enemy muscles the air
Against all that is fair
Against putrid politics.

Liberal dust smothering light,
Converts gloom against the fight
To save freedom from the sand.

Liberal breath pollutes the way
Through politics that betray
Their fellows natural rights.

Liberal thieves convert the vote
To steal the sacred note
As enemies rise from hell.

Licking their wounds, their paws,
Leaving the press no answer
Save all the fake men of straws.

No hypocrite gives more haste
Than a mind without a compass.
It remains a terrible waste

To slime the brain’s red blood
In the bog pond of liberal mud.

Stoney, or the reader of his choice, reading "Liberal Mud"

Commentary

The fight for freedom never ends. True liberal thought that leads to fairness must continually be pursued to avoid its opposite, tyranny.

First Tercet: Fight for Freedom

Every soldier takes to battle
His duty for survival
Marching against the rival.

These particular soldiers represent the fight for what is right, correct, that which gives the most freedom to the most people. Modern-day liberals would take away these soldiers, the fight, and the freedom and replace them with goose-stepping thugs who would enforce totalitarian rule. One need only observe examples of the Democratic party such as the Clintons, and how they mistreated the military to understand the verity of this observation.

Lt. Col. Robert Patterson reports in his book, Dereliction of Duty: Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security, that Clinton's kick-the-can attitude toward taking out Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's nuclear facility convinced Patterson that Clinton was the "greatest security risk to the United States."

In Ronald Kessler's book, The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents, Kessler recounts how a simple greeting of "Good Morning, ma'am" to the First Lady Hillary Clinton would provoke a reply of "F*ck off!" from that future failed Democratic presidential hopeful.

The Obama White House managed to behave no better toward the men and women in uniform, as President Obama continued to downsize both the troop strength and the pay and pension of each troop.

Second Tercet: Vanity Leads to Loss

The enemy muscles the air
Against all that is fair
Against putrid politics.

The great example of this claim is the winning of the War in Iraq by President George W. Bush, only to be squandered and lost under the vain, tepid, backward responses of President Barack H. Obama.

Thomas Sowell has summarized the situation accurately stating:

Despite the mistakes that were made in Iraq, it was still a viable country until Barack Obama made the headstrong decision to pull out all the troops, ignoring his own military advisers, just so he could claim to have restored "peace," when in fact he invited chaos and defeat.

Third Tercet: The Glass Eye of Dictatorship

Liberal dust smothering light,
Converts gloom against the fight
To save freedom from the sand.

The dust of liberal thinking covers all the furniture of a republic. Gouging out the eyeballs of freedom, replacing them with the glass eye of dictatorship. Suspending industry, encouraging the sex-crazed lazy to spend tax dollars on abortifacients.

Fourth Tercet: Lies, Deception, Obfuscation

Liberal breath pollutes the way
Through politics that betray
Their fellows natural rights.

But somehow the putrid politics of the Democratic Party breathe on, polluting the environment with lies, deceptions, obfuscations that kill and maim as society turns violent in the wake of lawlessness.

Observe Democratic Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake offering looters "space to destroy" by commanding law enforcement to stand down. Of course, after making such a ludicrous remark, she then lies and says she didn't say that.

Fifth Tercet: Leading from Behind Is not Leading

Licking their wounds, their paws,
Leaving the press no answer
Save each fake man of straws.

The Obamaniacs' "lead from behind"— the likes of fake purple heart winner turned Secretary of State John Kerry accepts a deal with a terror sponsoring nation that will lead to the obliteration of a neighboring democracy and encourage other dictatorships to go nuclear.

Sixth Tercet: The Birth of Fake News

Licking their wounds, their paws,
Leaving the press no answer
Save each fake man of straws.

Everyone suffers the abominations, and the corrupt liberal press continues to fail to hold to account those who are steering their country into a poverty stricken mess, too weak to defend itself, too dependent on government to know how to earn its own living.

Seventh Tercet: Mindless, Rudderless, Moral Mess

No hypocrite gives more haste
Than a mind without a compass.
It remains a terrible waste

The moral compass of the country has been hacked into a pile of unworkable fragments.

Final Couplet: Lack of Moral Clarity

To slime the brain’s red blood
In the bog pond of liberal mud.

The final two movements echo the adage: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste.” And the minds of so many young folks have been wasted in the dumpster of fake "liberal" ideology.

Applying the Lessons of History

Poetry and politics are uneasy bedfellows. They struggle to fall asleep, often simply through mistrust, but often because the nature of beauty remains deeply personal, and politics, by its nature, must look outward.

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, depending upon how one looks at it, all that can be done about "politics" — identity and otherwise — is to continue to debate the merits of each policy that presents itself. One would also continue to hope that those debaters know their history and have some skill in applying the lessons of that history as they analyze and scrutinize each policy.

Sources

  1. Mark W. David. "Where Art Thou, Liberals?" US News and World Report.
  2. Dan O’Donnell. "The Myth of the Republican-Democrat 'Switch'." NewsTalk 1130 WISN.
  3. Jose Nino. "Classical Liberalism vs. Modern Liberalism: What’s the Difference?" Libertas Bella.
  4. Doug Schmitz. "Remembering 9/11: Bill Clinton’s Ultimate Legacy." MichNews: International Military Forums.
  5. Hank Berrien. "A Secret Service Agent Once Said ‘Good Morning’ To Hillary. What She Replied Will Stun You." Daily Wire.
  6. Rowan Scarborough. "U.S. military decimated under Obama, only ‘marginally able’ to defend nation." Washington Times.
  7. Rev. Wayne Perryman. "Unfounded Loyalty: Blacks and Democrats." C-Span.
  8. Thomas Sowell. "Who Lost Iraq?" Creators.
  9. Tom McCarthy. "Baltimore mayor under pressure after 'space to destroy' remark." The Guardian.
  10. James Jay Carafano. "Obama's 'lead from behind' strategy has US in full retreat." The Heritage Foundation.
  11. Deborah Orin. "Medal Muddle – Vets Say Kerry Got Fake Injury." New York Post.
  12. Andrew McCarthy. "Obama’s Iran Deal Is a Fraud on the American People." National Review.

Afterword from the Graveyard Whistler

I know this entry must have seemed like a bunch of mud to slog through, and I promise I will not be engaging in this kind of rhetoric very often—I’m not swearing off entirely because Stoney does have a few other pieces that I think might help light up the political landscape.

Anyway, I do hope you can find some benefit from following such a piece. Stoney has an interesting mind, an expansive mind, so I feel it would not be fair to him if I just leave out whole swaths of his views. Plus his writing ability remains unique in the annals of the world of literary studies. While I do believe that poetry and politics make strange if not impossible bedfellows, sometimes it is necessary to give both their due.

Until next time, I remain

Literarily yours,
Belmonte Segwic
aka The Graveyard Whistler

Some good whistlin' goin' on!! Enjoy!

© 2021 Linda Sue Grimes

Related Articles