The Collapse of Liberalism: An Editorial By Robert L. Bartley (October 14, 1968)

OpinionJournal ^ | January 2, 2004 | Robert L. Bartley

[Dont Mention the War]

With both Republicans and a rightist third party running strong, many people are talking about a "swing to the right." We find it both more precise and more profound to talk about the collapse of the left.

For some 35 years New Deal liberalism has been the prevailing intellectual creed in this nation, embodied in the Democratic Party as the prevailing political force. Even allowing for some recovery by election day, that the Democratic nominee should fall to 29% in the Gallup poll suggests that important new tides are flowing not only in politics but in public thinking.

[farmfriend]

Short list.

[stylin_geek]

Bump

[Defiant]

This is from 1968. Liberalism sure dies hard.

[MEG33]

bttt

[RWR8189]

Im still waiting for that collapse.

If the new medicare entitlement is indicative of anything...well...never mind.

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

"Im still waiting for that collapse."

I think what he was saying was that the old style of liberalism - i.e. the JFK type - was then collapsing. And that's true.

Four years after this column was written, this collapse became very evident. And the new style of liberalism that replaced it - the McGovern style - completely failed in the 1972 election when Nixon took 49 states to McGovern's 1 state (Mass.)

But before it could be completely buried, Watergate gave it new life. Although American voters overwhelmingly rejected the new liberalism in 11/72, two Novembers later the voters decided that no matter what, the GOP must be punished for the sins of Nixon, even if it meant shooting themselves in the foot. And that they did, by putting into the House and Senate the most radically leftist freshman class this nation has ever seen - electing people whose radical views they had soundly rejected at the polls 2 years earlier - voting for them now simply because they were NOT members of the party that was responsible for Watergate. If ever you could accuse the American electorate of having a sadomasochistic streak, it was in Novenmber of 1974.

[RWR8189]

I wouldn't tout Nixon as your posterboy for conservatism.

I tend to agree with Milton Friedman when he says that Richard Nixon was probably the most socialist president we have ever had.

[truth_seeker]

"As material wants are filled, also, people will turn to other issues and other concerns."

Maslow's hiearchy revisited? Are voters now concerned more about various social issues, than national defense?

From both sides of the political horizon?

Abortion would be one example. Liberals will select a candidate weak on defense, so long as he/she supports abortion at will.

Others will spurn a viable candidate, strong for defense, if his/her pronouncement against abortion doesn't seem strong enough to them. Not vote at all, or for a non-viable 3rd party.

[ThePythonicCow]

Liberalism sure dies hard.

Indeed.

Three times since then, third party candidates have tilted the election scales - twice to the advantage of the Republicans (Wallace helped Nixon beat Humphrey, and Nader help Bush 43 beat Gore) and once to the advantage of the Democrats (Perot helped Clinton beat Bush 41)

Several elections were arguably lost by weak or "too far from center" candidates: Goldwater lost to Johnson in 1964, McGovern lost to Nixon in 1972, Carter lost to Reagan in 1980, Mondale lost to Reagan in 1984, Dukakis lost to Bush 41 in 1988, and Dole lost to Clinton in 1996.

In every election since 1964, except for the close election between Carter and Ford in 1976, one could argue that either a third party candidate, or a weak or non-centrist candidate, lost the election, for one side or the other.

Moral of this story: every election you need a strong, centrist candidate, who can hold the base from being siphoned off to a third party candidate.

Caution of this story: Hillary is running hard to the center, she is an aggressive and determined candidate, and she can hold her leftist base easily. And the Republicans do not yet have a strong candidate in 2008. Beware.

From a History web page at Columbia, I have distilled the following recent Presidential and related chronology:

1932-52

Democrats hold Presidency (FDR, Truman)

1952-60

Republican Eisenhower (Ike) President

1960

Jack Kennedy narrowly beats Nixon

1963

Jack Kennedy assassinated

1964

Johnson blows out Goldwater

1968

Johnson declares won't run again (March)

1968

Robert Kennedy assassinated (June)

1968

Nixon narrowly beats Humphrey (Wallace hurt Humphrey)

1972

Nixon blows out McGovern

1973

Agnew resigns, Ford VP

1974

Nixon resigns due to Watergate - Ford President

1976

Carter narrowly beats Ford

1980

Reagan solid victory over Carter

1984

Reagan blows out Mondale/Ferraro

1988

Bush 41 solid victory over Dukakis

1992

Clinton narrowly beats Bush 41 (Perot hurt Bush)

1994

Newt leads Republicans to gain House, Senate

1996

Clinton solid victory over Dole

2000

Bush 43 narrowly beats Gore (Nader hurt Gore)

2001

Senate 50-50 until Jeffords gives it to Democrats

2002

Republicans regain Senate

2004

Bush 43 blows out Dean (hopefully)

[ThePythonicCow]

centrist

Admittedly, Reagan was no centrist. But the opposition was never able to paint him as the dangerous conservative as they did to Goldwater, in part because Reagan's ability to remain calm and strong and persuasive, which didn't set off alarm bells in the minds of the great "moderate" middle.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

I keep reading articles about the collapse of Liberalism. Oh puhleeze, Liberalism hasn't collapsed, it's taken over the right! Today if you are a true right, you are somehow an "extremist," "minority," "kook."

[KeyWest]

Good analysis. Especially your point about HC. She is both a lightening rod to the right (as GW is to the left) as well as an astute politician (as is GW). She has a good chance of winning in 2008, if she gets by re-election to the Senate in 06. Right now she would probably lose if Rudy ran against her, but 06 is a long way away.

[ThePythonicCow]

if she gets by re-election to the Senate in 06. Right now she would probably lose if Rudy ran against her

Not sure I'd want to be in Rudy's shoes, knowing that I was perhaps the last man between Hitlery and the White House. A scary place to be.

[ThePythonicCow]

Or Hitlery could duck. Say she is diagnosed with breast cancer, sometime late 2005. So she decides not to run for her Senate seat again. By 2007, she is healthy again, and can devote full time to running for the Presidency.

If Rudy can take time off for cancer, why can't Hitlery?

[des]

EPA, CHINA

[Fearless Flyers]

I've been trying to remember what the effects were of the John Andersin Presidential Campaign. Didn't he recieve a higher percentage of votes running against Reagan in 1980 than Nader did in 2000?

I believe Anderson got 6 million votes, but that wasn't enough to effect Reagan's decisive victory. I wonder though if Anderson had held out to run again in 1988 how it would have effected the Bush vs. Dukakas election.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[foreverfree]

bump