Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Did it Happen? (a radical shift in the American political mindset)
Dean's World ^ | August 24, 2002 | Dean Esmay

Posted on 08/25/2002 7:01:02 PM PDT by Mr. Mulliner

August 24, 2002

When Did It Happen?

A remarkable transformation has occurred in American thought. It's one of those transformations that's imperceptible while it's happening, but seems breathtaking when looked upon in retrospect. I believe historians will almost certainly remark upon the 1990s as the linchpin decade that marked a radical shift in the American mindset.

Consider a 1950 book called Liberal Imagination: Essays on Literature and Society, by Lionel Trilling. In it, Trilling wrote:

In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that nowadays there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation. This does not mean, of course, that there is no impulse to conservatism...but [they] do not, with some isolated and some ecclesiastical exceptions, express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.

Trilling was concerned that, with such a dearth of intellectual challenge, liberalism would become soft, complacent, flabby. He went on to talk about John Stuart Mill, who encouraged liberals to get to know the thinking of Coleridge:

Mill, at odds with Coleridge all down the intellectual and political line, nevertheless urged all liberals to become acquainted with this powerful conservative mind. He said that the prayer of every true partisan of liberalism should be, "Lord, enlighten thou our enemies...; sharpen their wits, give acuteness to their perceptions and consecutiveness and clearness to their reasoning powers. We are in danger from their folly, not from their wisdom: their weakness is what fills us with apprehension, not their strength."

An important thing to keep in mind is that Trilling wasn't being sarcastic. This wasn't some barb he was throwing at his conservative opponents. He meant it. He didn't have any conservative opponents. He worried that, if liberalism is about open-minded truth-seeking, then a dearth of rigorous and logical dissent would lead to the decay of liberalism itself.

In The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order, historian Steven F. Hayward discusses this same intellectual trend, which carried on through the 1960s and 1970s. Conservatism was looked down upon with condescension, when it wasn't feared or demonized. Conservatives themselves tended to internalize this assumption of intellectual inferiority. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a famous liberal intellectual who worked in the Nixon White House, noted how the conservatives he worked with tended to be defensively thick about intellectual ideas. He characterized them as people who withdrew into a turtle-like shell, saying "Middle America is with us" when confronted with arguments they didn't like.

As anyone who remembers that era knows, it was simply considered axiomatic: conservatives were nonintellectual, not very well-educated, not very bright. Or they were dangerous. Not much else.

Yet, a bit over 50 years after Lionel Trilling wrote the words I quote above, one Charles Krauthammer, in the summer of 2002, wrote the following:

To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

The entire column is worth reading. But an important thing to keep in mind is that Krauthammer isn't being sarcastic. This isn't some barb he's throwing at his liberal opponents. He means it.

He's not the first to say it. In March of this year, David Galernter said, "I hate to put it in such bald terms. But right-wingers are just smarter than left-wingers. A lot of people didn't feel that they could say it. But since September, it has become slightly easier to admit that you have your doubts about some aspects of the liberal agenda."

Once again, an important thing to keep in mind is that Gelernter isn't being sarcastic. This isn't some barb he's throwing at his liberal opponents. He means it.

You can argue as to whether or not Galernter is right, but you can't argue with Krauthammer about what conservatives have come to believe. Nor is this a childish, "We're not stupid! You're stupid!" argument. Conservatives just plain believe this. Most would, I hazard to guess, consider it axiomatic. As one guy I know put it: Anyone who thinks tax cuts in the 1980s caused deficits, when you can go right to the U.S. Treasury's web site and see that it ain't so, is just plain dumber than dirt. How can you treat someone like that seriously?

It's also hard not to notice, when surveying the American political landscape at the moment, that there are no great Liberal intellectuals anymore. There are a few bright-minded self-described liberals; Robert Reich comes to mind, as does Susan Estrich. Camille Paglia has a truly original and interesting mind. But aside from a few rare exceptions, most "liberal" argumentation seems to come from one of four places:

1) People who disagree with me are racist.
2) People who disagree with me are warmongers who glory in violence.
3) People who disagree with me want the poor to starve and suffer.
4) People who disagree with me are blinded by corporate brainwashing.

I would have added "5) People who disagree with me want to oppress women," but that one seemed to fade away after Clinton's impeachment. (By the way, am I the first one to notice that?) In any case, the shorthand terms for all of the above are "right-winger" or "the radical right."

At times it's sad to watch. The mighty New York Times is now a laughingstock. Even people who share the New York Times worldview roll their eyes at it. Left-wing journals of opionion like The Nation and The New Republic tend to be humorless and, while they may be angry or resentful, are usually just plain boring.

Even in the blogosphere, it seems almost painfully obvious: there are few left-leaning blogs, and the ones that exist rarely rise above "Bush is a non-elected President!" and "Enron and Harken and Halliburton, Oh My!" The environment's still going to hell and corporations are still destroying us, according to the Left. But in terms of intellectual thought, serious and robust argumentation? Concrete proposals for change and innovation? The silence is deafening. There seems to be little but ad hominem attacks, seething resentment, and, well, let's face it: irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.

Somewhere, somewhen, there was a sea change in the American mind. The Left is now generally viewed as being dominated by the desire for coercion and control, while the Right has grabbed "individualism and free choice" as its war cries. And, increasingly, people associate "liberal" with being just plain dumb. Fair or not, that is the ascendant view of the moment.

It's remarkable. Where did it start? I can't quite say. Where does it all lead? The mind boggles. Without question, there is arrogance in this view. Is it entirely without merit? I don't know. But I do know this:

If conservatives want to stay on the intellectual high ground, they might want to start praying: "Lord, enlighten thou our enemies. Sharpen their wits, give acuteness to their perceptions, logic and clarity to their reasoning. We are in danger from their folly, not from their wisdom."



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: conservative; liberal; newright
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last
I read this last night and have been thinking all day about whether I should post this. I think it's very worthy of discussion, but the way things are going at FR, not sure how much discussion this will actually get. Anyway, for what it's worth, here's an excerpt from another blogger, Charles Austin whose blog can be found here (emphasis added).
Progressivism Is The Real Problem

I believe what happened is that sometime in the 1960s, liberalism coalesced with a different force -- progressivism, e.g., the type of folks that not only read Mother Jones or the Utne Reader, but believe everything in those fine journals. Hey, I used to read those magazines, just like I used to read TNR (until the publisher accused me of not being a serious person for not voting for Al Gore), and still read the Guardian and the Washington Post. As Liberalism became confused with Progressivism, Liberals could never accept that they had won, by and large. Because they had become Progressives in addition to being Liberals, they began to feel as though they had to keep fighting the dominant paradigm, even if the "the man" or "the suits" or "the establishment" more or less agreed with them.

I'm not exactly sure why postmodernism and deconstructionism became the preferred routes of lunacy the new look Liberals took, but it has led them down some strange paths. Many Liberals these days keep longing for some version of utopia and predicate all their arguments and actions on achieving it, generally through coercive action. Political Correctness is but the most obvious example of the ends justifying the means approach that self-proclaimed Liberals today use to achieve their goals of a perfect society. They are willing to sacrifice what they used to believe was important, e.g., free speech, to achieve other goals that are clearly utopian in nature. This is why I have taken to calling them Illiberals rather than Liberals, and more generally Illiberal Utopian Statists, since they generally seek to use political power to force someone to bend to their will, rather than trying to win the battle of hearts and minds in the free marketplace of ideas. Just pick up almost any blog any day of the week and you'll find a fine example of some Illiberal Utopian Statist trying to impose his or her will through force on someone with whom he or she disagrees, rather to trying to convince anyone of the virtue of his argument.


1 posted on 08/25/2002 7:01:03 PM PDT by Mr. Mulliner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mulliner
If conservatives want to stay on the intellectual high ground, they might want to start praying: "Lord, enlighten thou our enemies. Sharpen their wits, give acuteness to their perceptions, logic and clarity to their reasoning

I pray "Lord, DESTROY my enemies". With extreme prejudice.

2 posted on 08/25/2002 7:06:58 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mulliner
There are a few bright-minded self-described liberals; Robert Reich comes to mind, as does Susan Estrich.

Susan Estrich???? That's being a bit generous with the short list. Who's the next entry after Susan--Eleanor Clift?

3 posted on 08/25/2002 7:08:05 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mulliner
people associate "liberal" with being just plain dumb

Mr. M....I think the liberals that have had almost total control of our universities will take exception.

4 posted on 08/25/2002 7:09:06 PM PDT by still lurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mulliner
Just pick up almost any blog any day of the week and you'll find a fine example of some Illiberal Utopian Statist trying to impose his or her will through force on someone with whom he or she disagrees, rather to trying to convince anyone of the virtue of his argument.

That sir, is the sum total of our current politcal process.

5 posted on 08/25/2002 7:13:49 PM PDT by M.K. Borders
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
I've heard at least some freepers here say that Susan Estrich is one liberal that they can have some respect for. She's hard to listen to and not much to look at, but not nearly in the class of an Eleanor Clift on either count. Sean Hannity, anyway, seems to count her as a friend or someone he likes to spar with.
6 posted on 08/25/2002 7:14:10 PM PDT by Mr. Mulliner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mulliner
As a NEOCON I underdstand completely.

Nice post.

7 posted on 08/25/2002 7:17:21 PM PDT by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mulliner
Except for most of the drool, these are outstanding,

1) People who disagree with me are racist.
2) People who disagree with me are warmongers who glory in violence.
3) People who disagree with me want the poor to starve and suffer.
4) People who disagree with me are blinded by corporate brainwashing.

Aren't leaflets with these tenets already passed out in every Gubamint union socialist school?
8 posted on 08/25/2002 7:17:59 PM PDT by Vidalia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mulliner
I believe the principal center of this liberal thought for the past 50+ years (post WWII)was based in the school system.

The standards of individual excellence have dimished continually over that period of time to a system today that is based on group teaching and self esteem (if it makes you feel good, then do it).

The daily brainwashing in the school system followed very closely the politicians who practice the politics of FEAR, DIVISION, and HATRED.

It is not an accident that so many young people hold a view that all companies are greedy, don't care about people, destroy the environment, etc.

After decades of instilling these views into young students, we now have a situation where many of those minds of mush are now in decision making positions, many of them in elected offices.

So I believe that this situation will not change until a serious effort in mounted to take back our school system and put a stop to the brain washing centers for the politically correct!
9 posted on 08/25/2002 7:19:21 PM PDT by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vidalia
I like the 4th one he commented on and think that he's right. Clinton undermined the feminists on that, divided them so they are not such a force as they used to be on the sexist issue.
10 posted on 08/25/2002 7:21:13 PM PDT by Mr. Mulliner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mulliner
I think this coincides with a book called The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe.

The website for this book can be found here:

The Fourth Turning

This book was published 4 years ago. This explanation is on their web site:

Just after the millennium, America will enter a new era that will culminate with a crisis comparable to the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Great Depression, and World War II. The survival of the nation will almost certainly be at stake.

Part of their theory is that as generations come into adulthood, they are shaped by the events in which they live. According to their predictions, we are entering a time in which civic duty, honor, self-sacrifice, and patriotism will be valued. Those who cling to the ideas of the past 30 years will be marginalized.

I highly recommend this book. It is fascinating.

11 posted on 08/25/2002 7:21:28 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leprechaun9
the brain washing centers for the politically correct!

They stopped that and don't do it any more.............now they just teach Islam.

12 posted on 08/25/2002 7:24:44 PM PDT by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mulliner
The problem with this is that we are not in a battle of wits in America. We are in a monumental spiritual battle between good and evil. The evidence is overwhelming. Evil is winning in this country. The left defends the worst depravity and wickedness ever seen in America. That should be the main clue. In recent years, we are told bad is good and good is bad. Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, perjury, general dishonesty, laziness, ignorance and fraud are all now to be tolerated. This paints righteousness into a corner as if doing what is right is now wrong.

We are way beyond intellectual discussion and now into a pit of Satanic madness where evil is deceiving the majority that IT is good!

13 posted on 08/25/2002 7:26:19 PM PDT by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vidalia
Oops, on #10, I meant the 5th one, not the 4th.
14 posted on 08/25/2002 7:27:16 PM PDT by Mr. Mulliner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mulliner
Appreciative bump. Excellent article. It helps me begin to fathom why so many obviously far-left liberals perceive themselves to be "middle-of-the-road" or "mainstream". They can't see their own bias because they came of age in a time (before my time) when liberalism was so dominant. Fascinating stuff!
15 posted on 08/25/2002 7:27:55 PM PDT by LikeLight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mulliner
Nice article. The thing is, though, that when Trilling was writing liberalism and democracy in their nineteenth century senses had been in the ascendency for a century and a half or more. The presumption was that socialism or the new, bureaucratic, egalitarian, managerial or therapeutic liberalism was the next stage on that upward curve. It turns out not to be true, as both socialism and twentieth century liberalism have had practical problems and have been regarded as oppressive and restrictive. We have seen a half-century or more of modern liberal problems and failures. But the older 19th century ideals of liberty or liberalism or individualism and democracy or republicanism still play a large role today. What we call it, liberalism or conservatism or something else, doesn't change that ascendency. And somehow, it doesn't look like socialists or bureaucratic, egalitarian, managerial, therapeutic, "progressive" liberals will disappear.
16 posted on 08/25/2002 7:27:56 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tet68
In NJ, it is alive and well and is at the core of the new state standards!
17 posted on 08/25/2002 7:28:07 PM PDT by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I will look for that book, Miss Marple. I have heard about it, but kind of forgot it was something I wanted to read.

By the way, I just ordered Slander for $12 from ABE Books and am awaiting its arrival. I actually am very backlogged on books to read as I didn't get a chance to read many while in Singapore.

18 posted on 08/25/2002 7:30:11 PM PDT by Mr. Mulliner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LikeLight
My brother-in-law is an old-time Southern Democrat. He is extremely loyal and works hard to elect Democrats and knows many of the area Democratic politicians. He is not liberal and he's a bright guy, but he never considers voting for a Republican or any other party. If he had his eyes opened to just what kind of rabble he's linked with, I think he'd do something about it, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
19 posted on 08/25/2002 7:33:35 PM PDT by Mr. Mulliner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: still lurking
Mr. M....I think the liberals that have had almost total control of our universities will take exception.

They may indeed...but that doesn't change the fact that alot of people think they're just plain dumb.

20 posted on 08/25/2002 7:35:48 PM PDT by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson