Posted on 06/19/2007 3:39:34 AM PDT by rhema
With conservatives in disarray and floundering for leadership, the pendulum may be swinging back to liberalism. But liberalism today is different from that of its glory days in American politics, the era from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to Lyndon Baines Johnson's Great Society.
The old liberals believed in an activist government, one that rights society's wrongs, controls the economy, and rights the wrongs of other societies overseas. They waged wars against poverty. They regulated business and tried to tax and spend their way out of economic downturns. They also waged wars against communism.
The new liberals also believe in an activist domestic government, but they are more open to free market economics than their Keynesian forebears. They do want America to right the wrongs of other countries, but a large and influential faction is essentially pacifist when it comes to waging war.
The old liberals had their base in the American working class, with farmers and factory workers, union members and "the common man." The conservatives, by contrast, were the small business owners and big business owners, the prosperous middle class demonized by the old liberal rhetoric as "the rich."
But because the old liberals were grounded in the culture of "ordinary people," they tended to be culturally conservative, upholding traditional values, sometimes—as in what was then the solidly Democratic South—even reactionary values.
New liberals sometimes still employ "rich against poor" rhetoric, but there has been a huge socioeconomic shift. Today the typical American "working man" has prospered enough to join the middle class. Farmers and blue collar workers with traditional values have—thanks to Ronald Reagan and the Christian right—gone over to the Republicans.
The social base for the new liberals is the New Class knowledge workers. Whereas the old liberalism and the old conservatism grew out of an economy that built or owned tangible things, we now have an "information economy." The highly educated cogs in this machine—high-tech experts, internet entrepreneurs, manufacturers of information such as the news media and the entertainment networks—join with more traditional information conveyers, such as teachers, academics, and artists, to form a new liberal elite.
These new liberals make a lot of money and so support the free markets that make it possible. But they hold to "progressive" ideas, scorning tradition and wanting culture change. Their personal moral values are strongly libertarian, especially in regardsto sex. They are mostly OK with pre-marital sex, homosexuality, and abortion. And yet, they can be very moralistic when it comes to the environment, the war, and other social values.
The old liberalism has its holdovers. People with low incomes are still strongly Democratic. So are blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and recent immigrants. New liberals have a strong political interest in policies such as amnesty for illegal immigrants.
On my Cranach blog (cranach.worldmagblog.com), David of Norcal, a self-described liberal, made a telling comment: "New liberals are motivated less by ideology than by simply wanting the party closest to their ideology to win. [They] are practical and would almost sell their souls to win an election because having the right ideals but no power means all the wrong ideals get implemented." By contrast, he said, "'60s radicals were not practical at all" but "were idealists. . . . We are skeptics, cynical yet savvy."
Postmodernists reject all ideologies. Power is everything. Since truth is relative, there are no overarching truths to guide our actions. The only philosophy that remains is pragmatism. We can act in practical ways to get what we want.
The new liberalism still has remnants of ideology, but the next liberalism may turn politics into a struggle between those who have an ideology and those who have none. Or, worse, between different power seekers who have no beliefs at all.
If a politician has no ideology, no promises need be made or kept and so elections become popularity contests - sorta like it is now, only worse.
Interesting article. I don’t even know where the writer is coming from, but I suspect he is just a wee bit nostalgic for the idealistic liberalism of the New Deal, New Frontier, Great Society, etc.
He is close to the mark, however, about today’s liberals: it’s all about pragmatism and power.
For example, why are liberals so vehemently opposed to private ownership of guns? Obviously, because that many guns in the hands of that many citizens is a grave challenge to the power of the State. And liberals ultimately regard the State as the font of all that is good and beneficial.
Hmmm... for the rest of us, God fills that role.
Well done.
“The new liberalism still has remnants of ideology, but the next liberalism may turn politics into a struggle between those who have an ideology and those who have none. Or, worse, between different power seekers who have no beliefs at all.”
I think Hilly qualifies, she meets the no beliefs, only power criteria. Amen.
Thats who I was thinking of.
Wow - looks like it's not just the liberal immigration bill that's giving the finger to traditional democrats...it's their whole belief system.
The new "oh so cool" dem policies leave out blacks, Catholics, and Union members. Stunning. For their sake, I hope there's enough votes among their super-elites to elect a dog catcher every now and then. We do need two parties.
Pure Psycho-babble. Liberal word games. Nothing has changed.
One good part: “These new liberals make a lot of money and so support the free markets that make it possible. But they hold to “progressive” ideas, scorning tradition and wanting culture change. Their personal moral values are strongly libertarian, especially in regardsto sex. They are mostly OK with pre-marital sex, homosexuality, and abortion. And yet, they can be very moralistic when it comes to the environment, the war, and other social values.”
The new liberals don’t really support free markets, though: only those which favor their own business. In an instant they will turn against the market if it conflicts with their “feelings.”
Notice that their moralism deals primarily with what other people should think or do, and very little with individual restraints and virtues.
There is another aspect not discussed here, but which I find quite interesting. Most motivated liberals I know are angry, and they seem to be unhappy people. A goodly proportion of the conservatives among my friends are stable, friendly, and resilient even in the face of tragedy, I don’t think that I am imagining this, but it seems that the liberal lifestyle is not leading to contentment.
A movement like modern liberalism, in which there is a strong “puritanical” streak, can be very dangerous in power. In fact, they already are, if one considers the public schools as an example of their works.
“The only philosophy that remains is pragmatism. We can act in practical ways to get what we want.”
“He is close to the mark, however, about today’s liberals: it’s all about pragmatism and power.”
There is a large mass of self-described “conservatives” who match this description too. That’s how we get “conservative” office holders who ran on a platform of “limited government” and “conservative values”, and then use their ability to buy votes with tax dollars and special favors for big contributors in order to stay in office despite their betrayal of the policies they claimed to be supporting. Then their supporters, who berate consistent conservatives for not supporting the “lesser evil” wonder why the Federal budget continues to grow, and federal power continues to invade their lives at every turn.
You could'nt ask for better road map to a dead end if you tried. These people are embracing cultural and then national suicide, which makes them more dangerous than the jihadi wackos.
Good point.
Maybe this conference should have been entitled, “The Decline in the Number of True Conservatives Holding Elective Office and Acting on Their Beliefs”.
The enemies of America are all about ideology. How will an empty, post-modern, pragmatic approach to governance fare in such an environment?
I will not. It will only make our enemies job easier.
This could have been Hitler, it could have been Stalin, or Mao, or Castro. If people like this are put in charge of our government it's time to think seriously about what are choices for removing them are.
I think he’s trying to say that the new liberal is a fundamentalist pagan who worships the state and oak trees.
That was tried once in fascist Germany and didn’t turn out well in the end.
And this new group hates guns. When one day it decides to violently confront its “enemies” here in America, they’ll be doing a lot bleeding.
I’m sure it feels good for these people to claim that they are ideology free, but a set of beliefs on issues always ends up constituting an ideology. Feels people like this out on certain issues: guns, crime, foreign policy - and you’ll see what I mean.
I think the use of the word “libertarian” to describe liberals’ values is wrong. I would describe it as “libertine.” A libertarian believes that you should be LEGALLY permitted to do as you will, as long as you do not violate the rights of others. A libertine believes in doing whatever one wants to do, no matter whom it hurts, and, of course, to make others pay for the results. I think that accurately describes liberals’ values. They believe, for example, that you may have all the sex you want, and to make the resulting baby pay for it, or the taxpayers, if you don’t kill the baby.
Stuck in ideological PC lockstep, I think it is funny they see conservative disarray where I see a healthy debate and competition in the arena of ideas. There is no reason why we should be lined up like Penguins during primary season.
Good point.
To all on this thread—nailed it. Nothing more to add.
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.