« Still think liberalism is viable political philosophy in the USA in 2008? | hoonoo's Blog | Still think liberalism is politically viable in the USA in 2008? »
Still think liberalism is politically viable in the USA in 2008?
Reconsider.
Point: The Democratic candidate for president has voted to legitimize warrantless phone taps on Americans against whom there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
Point: Said presidential candidate's most formidable rival sponsored a bill in such clear violation of free political speech that it caused unity between the ACLU and Antonin Scalia.
Point: If said presidential candidate loses the election, it is likely to be at least somewhat the result of the color of skin.
Point: The Republican candidate for president revitalized his campaign by selecting a corrupt, totally unqualified running mate whose qualifications seem to be that she is a member of an ultra-right Christian cult.
Point: Said vice-presidential candidate is picking up votes from women who formerly supported the Democratic runner-up for the presidential nomination.
Point: In any country where liberalism were viable, this election would have already been a clear runaway in every demographic in every state. It would would make the 1972 and 1988 elections look like photo finishes, but with the other horse in the lead.
Point: The Republican Party is still advancing its causes and candidates by misleading the electorate about Democrats' intentions to raise taxes on the middle class even as the middle class shrinks, wages drop, and services disappear.
Point: The Republican Party is still advancing its causes and candidates by stressing right-wing "values," even when their candidates repeatedly and obviously demonstrate that they hold such values in contempt in their private lives.
Point: If the Republican Party loses the election in 2008, it may very well be because a significant block of its voters defected to an even more radically conservative candidate.
Point: The Democrats managed a take-over of both houses of congress in 2006 mostly by nominating young Democratic conservatives to face unpopular Republican conservatives. One of the Senators the Democrats installed in 2006 was actually a member of the administration of Ronald Reagan.
Point: On this supposedly liberal blog, a number of the more prolific reader/bloggers habitually rail against liberals. One blog recently referred to the "liberal media" twice, the "liberal press" twice, and generic liberals twice. These references were not challenged. A very prolific commenter referred to Washington, DC as "yidland" in a thread authored by TPM Cafe's most iconic Jewish blogger. That commenter's reference was also unchallenged, then mildly and briefly challenged.
Point: The second-most disastrous president in American history, dead for several years now, is still referred to in hallowed terms by Republicans, Democrats and independents.
Point: The most disastrous president in American history keeps his Democratic congressional opposition cowed and keeps them busy financing his imperial and authoritarian wet dreams by allowing them to believe they are pandering to the electorate even when surveys show the public supports the Democrats. Even, in fact, when it is clear the opposition congresspersons were sent to Washington specificly to thwart said imperial and authoritarian wet dreams.
Some think the pendulum is swinging back toward the liberal side of the political trajectory, but the evidence would seem to indicate that the pendulum has fallen from its pivot and is permanently stuck in the ground far to the right of its inflection point.
Advertisement





Hoonoo,
This is an excellent post. I agree with all your points.
The fact is (and I leave it to you whether you find it as sad as I do) is that Democrats aren't as liberal as they used to be... The debates here on the FAA proved that. We now have a pragmatic mindset that has moved away from the liberal bright line positions (such as 4th Amendment and 1st Amendment vigilance). People are more results oriented now, operating on a "virtuous government" hypothesis. That belief allows a Patriot Act or a MCA or a FAA as permissible because virtuous governments will not misuse them.
Old style liberalism having learned the lessons of the past, was forced to take absolutist, "child-proofing" type positions. We couldn't count on virtuous governments forever so had to make the system resistant to tyrannical abuses. "No law means no law", thundered Hugo Black and that type position was acceptable in those days.
Now we are more accomodationist, less classically liberal, and what I would say as more centrist. TPM is only reflecting the philosophy of our frontrunner who is attempting to update liberalism for the twenty first century. I enthusiastically support him, but for myself remain in the liberalism as it existed 1932-1968.
September 9, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreement though doesn't extend to that part of your essay that spoke of other posters. Since I haven't read those, I can't say whether I agree or not. I am surprised a "yidland" reference (unless obviously sarcastic reference to rightwingers usage, etc) wouldn't generate a storm of condemnation.
There are a few moderate-conservatives here so the liberalism they rail against may be the Reagan type straw men "liberalism".
September 9, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
One last remark:
“We must scrupulously guard the civil rights and civil liberties of all our citizens, whatever their background. We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred, is a wedge designed to attack our civilization.”
This is to me near the very heart of liberalism.
I leave the origin of the quote as a homework exercise.
September 9, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink