AN ARGUMENT FOR A NEW LIBERALISM - A Fighting Faith

The New Republic ^ | December 2, 2004 | Peter Beinart

[jdege]

Two elections, and two defeats, into the September 11 era, American liberalism still has not had its meeting at the Willard Hotel. And the hour is getting late.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

In 4 years, maybe eight, the Democrat Party will have a new name, more representative of who it really is. It will probably be hyphenated, with the words 'green" or "children and families" as a part of it.

[Yardstick]

*Bump*

[srm913]

I almost feel wistful when reflecting upon just what has happened to the Democratic party, one of our nation's erstwhile great political parties. (The key word here is ALMOST.) The party of Harry Truman, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, JFK, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Scoop Jackson has become the party of Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Helen Thomas, Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, Janet Reno, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton.
This transformation is simultaneously humorous and sickening.

[siunevada]

For liberals to make such arguments effectively, they must first take back their movement from the softs. We will know such an effort has begun when dissension breaks out within America's key liberal institutions.

Oh man, a thinking liberal who can make a realistic assessment. He's a member of an endangered species.

This will be interesting to watch play out. They've been stumbling for decades now. 'We Hate Pubbies' is obviously not a winning strategy for them, but can they shake all that off and get a grip on reality?

[jdege]

but can they shake all that off and get a grip on reality?

They did in 1947 - after a GOP landslide unmatched in history.

But they didn't in 1994 - are they too late?

[Squawk 8888]

Oh man, a thinking liberal who can make a realistic assessment.

There was a time when "thinking liberal" was not an oxymoron. The values held by today's liberals do not bear even the remotest resemblance to the principles of classical liberalism. The Republican party was founded by liberals and the Liberal Party of Canada began as a populist movement that called for the protection of property rights and government accountability.

[expatpat]

It won't have that meeting. The grass roots are fringe leftists who will continue to insist on their nominee being one, too. Clinton was only able to overcome this by a lack of interest in running against GWHB on the part of key potential candidates and his 'wonderful' talent for BS -- he conned the 'rats.

[ljswisc]

In 4 years, maybe eight, the Democrat Party will have a new name, more representative of who it really is. It will probably be hyphenated, with the words 'green" or "children and families" as a part of it.

I was wondering what would happen to our elections if we/they eliminated the Democratic party altogether? Two republican candidates would run against each other.. and what differences would they show in their campaigns?
Would one would have a more "progressive" (of course it would have a different name)yet republican plan than the other?

Is it possible for them to disguise themselves with the "if you can't beat em, join em" clothing?

[Sam the Sham]

Looking at Michael Moore's performance on Leno the other night where he was shaven in a suit and tie and would have nothing to do with the "election was stolen" types, one can see glimmers of this perception beginning to take hold.

But looking at the DU thread on this, no one supported him. They were all in denial, insisting it was part of a master plot to fool the "Rethugs" in "Jesusland".

This will come to nothing because the liberal base has turned psychotic. To change you have to accept that you are failing. They won't and will probably live forever in a John Birchish fantasy world of rigged voting machines. After all if the grapes are sour and the elections are rigged you can just feel sorry for yourself and shield yourself from the pain of failure by never trying (the sodomites on that board are trying to keep themselves pumped up and hopeful instead of sinking into crank and partying.)

[MWS]

An interesting article. What the author fails to see and note, however, is that "hard" liberals do exist. For the most part, the Democratic Party began pushing them out building up to and during the tenure of President Clinton. They went to the Republican Party and, in large part, are labelled "conservative kooks" by a party that fails to realize that they are insulting the very same people that once made them respectable.

[SilentServiceCPOWife]

A very interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

[iconoclast]

I almost feel wistful when reflecting upon just what has happened to the Democratic party

IMHO, both parties have become warped and unrecognizable.

[jdege]

IMHO, both parties have become warped and unrecognizable.

Yep. The Democrats have turned into radical loons, and the Republicans are no longer "me too" Democrats.

[x]

This is actually a good read for the historical interest, whatever one thinks of the thesis. As for that, "liberals" or "progressives" are usually a small tribe or sect or cult, very different from other Americans. They tend to come from similar privileged backgrounds, to go to the same schools (graduate, undergrad, and even high school), to read the same magazines, and parrot the same lines, all the while thinking themselves smarter or more educated than their countrymen. "Liberalism" is a little more like a club or a church that people get satisfaction from belonging to, than a competitive political movement that can win elections and make changes in government.

And yet, the Democrats are still a viable political party and will probably win again, if not in 2008, then in 2012. The Democrats will be back. the question is whether they'll come back roaring with liberals clearly in the saddle, as in 1912 or 1932, or whether they'll stumble their way back into office, a little dazed and almost surprised that they won, as in 1976 or 1992 (of course such characterizations have more to do with what actually happened later than with the mood on election night).

The reason is that no party can stay in power or maintain its hold on the national imagination forever. Scandals and mistakes build up, and people start to think about giving the other side a try if they seem to have gotten their act together -- it helps if there's a third party or a bitter split in the incumbent party, too. Any ruling party or faction starts to get arrogant and careless, and starts to look cultic or sectlike if it's in power long enough, even the Republicans. Once a particular set of threats or challenges has been dealt with by one party, people lose interest in them or perceive dangers coming from other direction, that the other party seems better equipped to handle.

Hard vs. soft liberalism? Well, there's everything to be said for Harry Truman rather than Henry Wallace or William O. Douglas or for Lieberman against Dean or Kucinic, but "hard" liberals did bring us Vietnam. If "hard" means practical and realistic and "soft" means utopian or weak or wishy-washy or soft-headed, "hard" is preferable, but it can deteriorate into a cult of toughness for its own sake. That's okay when one is cleaning up messes left behind by others, but it can make a lot of trouble by pushing a government into untenable positions for the sake of not looking weak.

Generally speaking, it's the realists who win the victories, but any election win is a sign to the dreamers and theorists to come out of hibernation, and then it's up to the realists to keep them under control, using their energies while denying them real power. That's a tough act to keep up, though.

[jdege]

"hard" liberals did bring us Vietnam

And Korea - and for all of the bitterness associated with both, we'd be living in a much less pleasant world if we'd not become involved in either.

[Ditto]

"...but it can make a lot of trouble by pushing a government into untenable positions for the sake of not looking weak."

Exactly the premise of this book by H.R. McMaster.

LBJ was so afrade of "looking weak" in the 64 election, he allowed Vietnam to spin out of control. Irony is, he didn't need to do it in order to beat any Republican that year, especially Goldwater. But LBJ was both manic-depresive and paranoid. He was very politically gifted but was the only clinically "crazy" president we have ever had. (Albeit, several were very 'strange' units.)

[Billthedrill]

An interesting historical analogy. I would have wished that the author had continued into the 1960's and 70's to extend it, because the reason that the Democratic party is in the fix that it is, is due largely to the resurgence of the Wallace wing in the guise of the antiwar movement. It is largely that movement that is here termed "soft" liberal but in fact shows a didactic ideologism and a dedication to party over principle that is more characteristic of its hard-line communist antecedents. It is for that reason that it allies itself with such as the Taliban and its feminist components remain tactfully silent about the matter.

But its biggest weakness is its assumption that ground gained is won forever; that by arrogating the "progressive" label to itself it has somehow prevented its opponents from espousing progressive ideas under penalty of having the "hypocrite" label shouted at them. In fact, Bush's foreign policy is intensely progressive and its opponents trapped into reaction. It might even be properly termed "radical" - it is by definition revolutionary and as such constitutes a grand vision that the left has always assumed was its own. They were the visionaries, their opponents crabbed, small-minded, and conservative. And they still believe it - look, for example, at the nearly universal condemnation of Bush voters as "stupid."

But it is fairly clear that both vision and accomplishment are very much on the side of the current administration, and whatever demonization as "incompetent" may be applied to the current Iraq intervention, they aren't simply standing there, they're doing something, a thing that the Moore and Move-On wing cannot claim. That has to be fixed, but there is precious little sign of that happening.

[Ditto]

'We Hate Pubbies' is obviously not a winning strategy for them, but can they shake all that off and get a grip on reality?

Good question. I doubt it. Unlike 1947 with today's front-loaded primaries and formally trivial events like the Iowa caucuses assuming King maker roles, it seems that the democrat party is firmly in the grip of it's smallest but most active and vocal radical faction. The old hands and wise heads in smoke-filled rooms are of no importance today. They have been replaced by self-serving lunatics like Michael Moore. With the current party rules, Harry Truman would have never won the Democrat nomination in 48. Wallace would have had it and Dewey would have been president.

I see a total split before I see a repeat of the 40s purges.

[usurper]

I think this guy is right in a lot of ways and I would like to see the dems start acting like the support America. However, if they took this approach it would just be window dressing and more lies.

At their core they simply do not believe in this country or the values it stand for (if they even know them). Thanks to their own medalling in education, most have no understanding of the foundations of democracy, liberty of even liberalism. They can’t defend this country because don’t value its culture. Many openly despise it.

The only way for this to work would be for the Democratic Party to begin reeducation camps for their members. It could work, if Afghanis can learn in only a few years perhaps, just perhaps liberals can to.