America is Great now. Only an idiot Liberal would think that Socialism and PR would result in anything other than woe and misery.
This guy is on MSNBC a lot and FNC some. He has a space between his teeth you could drive a truck through.
The word liberal being applied to todays Democrat Party is actually incorrect. I for one would really like to see the day when they are called exactly what they are...SOCIALISTS. It would clear alot of things up for many people who don't really understand where they belong. Alot of people, such as my parents, still think the Democrat Party is the party of the little guy. BULL
That's a pretty tortuous article to follow. Basically, a group of "liberals" want to Conservative Democrats to be in the van against the Republican Party while jettisoning their "progressive" loony elements but holding on to he word "liberal."
Was that clear?
''whatever its failings, the right at least knows that America's enemies need to be fought.''
Says it all.
liberal -- not ''progressive'' = moderate democrat, RINO, or BIG givernment republican, like Bush.. All those terms are on a sliding scale, depends on the day..
Anti-Totalitarianism is the great Liberal Canard:
Socialism; Communism, GOOD. Capitalism;capitalists, BAD. North Vietnam, GOOD. South Vietnam, BAD. UN, GOOD. America, BAD.
That's why this dirty little fink rejects "Progressivism, it's too American. Fighting Bob LaFollette would have kicked his butt.
The Democratic party fought the war within, and the marxists won. There are only a handful of social welfare/pro-Americans left--Lieberman, Ed Koch, and Zell Miller are the only ones that come to mind. The rest have gone the way of the dinosaur. There is no Sam Nunn wing of the party anymore, nor could one be resurrected, because the core beliefs of the party would not permit it. A Democrat that spouted the belief in American power to effect pro-American policies in the War on Terror would just be lying to the nation. The party would bring the boys home pronto, and it would be another Vietnam 1975 moment.
Now, if you can find a group of anti-Muslim christians to bomb from above until they submit to UN peacekeepers, the Dems would be all over it. Maybe the Poles this time.
Or to look at things more positively, one generation's winners may actually fix some real problems, so the next generation is more confident to try new things, even if they aren't likely to work out. It's all part of the duality of the universe.
Beinart has a point about the value of "Cold War" liberalism. If you have two parties that alternate in power, it won't do to have one of them so pacifist or opposed to the national interest that they're a danger to the rest of the country.
Cold war liberals came up with some good ideas -- even some essential ones -- and they gave an attractive shine abroad to American policies. Truman pretty much set down the policies that we'd follow for the next forty years (with deviations and waverings along the way. And say what you will about JFK, he did make the US more popular abroad.
So there certainly was something to Cold War liberalism, but it looks a lot like they were the B-team. They weren't usually the ones who did the heavy lifting, carried through, and cleaned up the messes along the way. Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan followed through on the policies that Truman outlined, without falling into the traps that Johnson and Carter did.
One real problem is the arrogance of Schlesinger and his kind. Whether they were New Dealers or One Worlders in the 40s or Stevensonians in the 50s or enthusiasts for Kennedy and the New Frontier in the 60s, supporters and architects of Vietnam or increasingly radicalized opponents of that war, hawks in youth, or doves as time went on, there was a real snobbery and condecension among that class or caste or set.
And they didn't always show the kind of consistency and dedication necessary to get things done. That is a fault of intellectuals -- they get carried away by an idea and lose interest a little later. Sometimes they even develop an enthusiasm for the opposite notion, if it looks new and sexy enough.
Although the neocons were fierce enemies of Schlesinger's sort in the 1970s and 1980s they are also heirs to Cold War liberalism and to its elitism and indifference to the the concerns of those outside the ruling circles. In general, the "workhorses" of diplomacy are to be prefered to Kennedyesque "showhorses" who don't have the resolve or stamina to see their policies through to a successful conclusion.
So, sure, one cheer for Cold War liberalism and maybe even for Peter Beinart now, but not the full three cheers. That would encourage people who are already too hungry for power too much.
What was called a liberal then is not the same as now. Back then, thirty to forty years ago, everyone shared the same social culture and Dems were as big of anti-communists as Republicans. Truman sent troops to Korea to contain the communist invasion of the south. It was Kennedy and Johnson who set up Vietnam. Kennedy was responsible for the Bay of Pigs. Most pols on either side of the political border supported them. Now the ultra left has taken over the Donkey Party. Now Dems and lefties seriously think that Bush is a bigger evil than Castro or Islamo-fascists. Unbelievable.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")