When Did it Happen? (a radical shift in the American political mindset)

Dean's World ^ | August 24, 2002 | Dean Esmay

[Mr. Mulliner]

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.

[Balding_Eagle]

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.

[Pearls Before Swine]

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?

[still lurking]

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.

[M.K. Borders]

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.

[Mr. Mulliner]

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.

[Mike Darancette]

As a NEOCON I underdstand completely.

Nice post.

[Vidalia]

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?

[leprechaun9]

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!

[Mr. Mulliner]

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.

[Miss Marple]

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.

[tet68]

the brain washing centers for the politically correct!

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

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

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!

[Mr. Mulliner]

Oops, on #10, I meant the 5th one, not the 4th.

[LikeLight]

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!

[x]

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.

[leprechaun9]

In NJ, it is alive and well and is at the core of the new state standards!

[Mr. Mulliner]

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.

[Mr. Mulliner]

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.

[pgkdan]

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.