Peter Berkowitz has lurched uncontrollably into the reality that whatever the participants call themselves the contours of American politics have changed tremendously over the last half century. Progressives aren’t liberals; they’re a sort of crabbed compromise among technocrats, left wing authoritarians, and crony capitalists:
Liberalism, most people would agree, stands for the state’s responsibility to actively improve the social, economic, and political quality of citizens’ lives. In a more fundamental sense liberalism also denotes certain qualities of mind and character, among them tolerance, generosity, the capacity to engage civilly competing opinions, and a determination to base politics on reason rather than physical force or arbitrary authority.
[…]
Foer appreciates that in recent decades liberalism has taken a wrong turn, but he does not accurately identify the nature of that turn.
“Over the last 25 years, liberalism has lost its good name and its sway over politics,” reads a 2006 statement by TNR editors, with which he introduces outstanding essays of the 2000s. “But it’s liberalism’s loss of imagination that is most disheartening.†More disheartening, actually, is the preaching of hatred under the guise of liberalism. More disheartening still is Foer’s decision to highlight TNR essays from the previous decade that do just that as if they carry forward liberalism’s noblest traditions.
It’s no accident that independents are the fast-growing segment of American politics.
Today’s conservatives aren’t the Barry Goldwater-style libertarian-tinged individualists, either, but a devil’s brew of corporate statism and social conservatism.
Yes, I think that’s exactly right.
It’s tempting to resort to the hackneyed “I’m conservative on economic issues, liberal on social issues” but that doesn’t really do it.
Both sides agree we are well off and civil enough to set up “safety nets” and “conduits to upward mobility.” Both would agree that certain functions can only be accomplished economically through the mechanism of government. Some of us would say, however, that the assistance and mechanisms are adequate but that the goal posts keep getting moved on what defines responsible and humane assistance or activities, that efforts go less and less to needy recipients and more to administrators in an amount exceeding the acceptable leakage and that we simply can no longer finance it all…..while being called miserly no good fuxxcks for observing that. The left might observe that the leakage is acceptable and after all, we finance worthless endeavors like a too large military or connected corporation, don’t we?
I could go on and on but this is just one example. At the end of the day it seems that what European countries and the US have done is, for some 50 years, steadily expand the role and control of government, and increase the draw on the resources of the private sector. Conservative and liberals alike have attempted to use the state to further their objectives. Yet all have struggling, over-leveraged economies struggling to generate general employment and wage growth, and service their liabilities. I don’t think it’s coincidence. It’s over reach.
What to do? I don’t know. A rules based ( like a fed with a price objective) system? Voting qualification rules? I do know this. I’m not generally prone to the conceit that we live in unique times when issues come to an existential head like the end of oil/too many people/global boiling/not enough food or the end of growth. As an empirical fact the dinghies ( eg. Greece) are running up on sand bars. The main event are the supertankers like the US, GB, France……
That was a thoughtfully written post, Drew. However, I must confess to personally self-describe as a mixture of conservative/libertarian political thinking — only a slight variation from what you said was inadequate to defer to by calling oneself a blended conservative/liberal.
But, in the current intense political climate both parties seem to have gone too far into their ideological corners to satisfy the comfort zones of many people. That’s probably why the new default point is simply to hang with the middle ground Independents, where one is more inclined to analyze policies of those running rather than be trapped in party loyalty, where slanderous rhetoric is most often used to captivate a politician’s voting flock
Ironically, though, while each side regularly demonizes their opponents, their own stump speeches seem preset on middle-of-the-road political tones. In fact, “Going to the middle” seems viewed as a tactical winner by both dems and republicans. But, once one or the other attains the objective of getting into office, the covers are instantly pulled, the middle ground fades in the rear view mirror of electioneering, and the party line is reinstalled and rigidly followed.
I really don’t see why more voters don’t catch on to this pre election game, looking more critically into voting records and/or the history of how successful a candidate’s philosophical stances actually was in making a final decision on who deserves their vote. Pat Quinn exemplifies the asking of this question, in wondering why people would vote for him again, considering how little he has done for Illinois in the last 6 years. It would seem like a no brainer to at least give the other guy a chance to apply his skills to turning that state around. If he too fails, then vote him out the next time around! After all different choices yield different results. The same choices give you the same-old, same-old.
Something is routinely getting lost in the translation from what people really want and believe into what is expressed in our media and by our politicians. Most of the liberals and conservatives I know are decent people who want our country to do well. They agree on stuff more than they disagree when you can get them to talk in person. (Sort of like Drew when he is being serious or when you can get Michael away from race.)
I don’t read far left blogs or literature, but I think it is probably true that tolerance is down. I do think the urge to improve social, economic and political quality remains, but it has gotten harder to do and I think there is a tendency to sell out to special interests to achieve those goals.
For conservatives I think most still have a genuine interest in fiscal responsibility. A desire to to accept only those changes which are necessary. However, I think they have also succumbed to special interests, especially the extremes of their own party.
I continue to think that the professional media and politicians have warped things beyond much repair in the short run. I don’t see how you can believe in much of what either party actively promotes, but you can try to guess which will be worse and oppose the weaker option.
Steve
I don’t think that’s new, steve. I just think it’s more pervasive than it used to be.
For as long as I can recall, there has been a cadre of Democrats who were absolutely convinced that Republicans were Evil. Not mistaken, misguided, or misinformed. Evil.
Similarly, there has been a core group of Republicans who believed that all Democrats were either stupid or criminal.
Nothing could dissuade either of these groups from those beliefs. They were articles of faith.
What’s different now is that it really seems to me that most of each party has been absorbed into what used to be extreme views of the other party.
@Dave Schuler
Similarly, there has been a core group of Republicans who believed that all Democrats were either stupid or criminal.
Or Communists.
I believe that they are a bunch of filthy hippies, and unlike a Snark, you cannot charm them with smiles and soap.
I’ll just post Brink Lindsay’s 2009 essay once more. The money quote:
I think partisanship is worse because of the changed media environment – people consume the media that confirms their own biases and there is always a ready “answer” for any challenge from the the other side (the endless cycle of white lies, skewed analysis and debunkings).
The Democrats have released an ad saying Republicans are responsible for the Ebola crises due to budget cuts. Now seriously, what are you supposed to do when that kind of stuff is going on? It’s hopeless.
…and those budget cuts arose from sequestration, a policy created by the Obama Administration. But, it’s not the facts that are important here, it’s how the vitriol will spark emotional fear and/outrage to effect the upcoming election — “Republican cuts kill.” It does sound wicked! The same marketing person produced the now infamous ad of a Paul Ryan look-alike pushing grandma over the cliff, which was a great success for dems.
Similar allegations were made by dems attempting to place blame on republican cuts for the shoddy security noted in Benghazi. However, Charlene Lamb, a state dept official, debunked the claim by saying none of those cuts effected security, only reined back funding for social functions etc.
Jan
I obviously know that the stock answer is that such ads are red meat to get out the base. It makes one wonder about the base.
However I’m unaware of “political opponent as murderer/starver/poisoner of children” etc ads being put out by Republicans. Corrupt? Yes. Financially childlike? Yes. Wrong headed promoter of dependency? Yes. But wanton ax murderer? Not in my experience.
Andy
I attempt to watch commentators on, say, MSNBC but there is only so much sophomoric ‘guffaw, guffaw can you believe how stupid those Neanderthals are’ you can take. Might as well have some fun jousting with Reynolds.
PS
MSNBC ran a commentator with Republicans as Ebola-philes.
You have a dead black man. You have Jesse Jackson shouting racism. Do the math folks. Republicans should know what is coming next.
Drew,
I can’t watch more than a few minutes of the “news” channels anymore – they are just so bad. Once nice thing about spending five months in Africa is that we had France24 and Al Jazeera English – two 24 news networks that actually do decent news. They are kind of like what CNN used to be in its heydey or what CNN international was 10-15 years ago.
It makes one wonder about the base.
I often wonder the same thing, Drew.
Even though both political sides do it, from my own experience, it seems that the rhetoric and accusations of the liberal left are far more egregious, flamboyant, insensitive and akin to yellow journalistic tactics than what the far right generates. There is also less factual content applied to smearing republican opponents — it’s whatever they think they can get away with.
The latest Ebola ad was such a swipe, that it’s progressive creator only doubled-down on when she was called on to back up it’s claims. After all, disproving a lie or an exaggeration becomes a frequently unheard epilogue when attempts are made to refute a sensationally incorrect statement. The damage already being done — fait accompli…..!
Jan and Drew see this because the right has aggregators that look for extreme statements by some whackjobs on the left and then showcase them. Drudge does this . Yes, they exist. And, if you want to base your arguments upon the worst case in your opposition then you will always feel righteous in your anger. However, you really do have the same nut jobs on the right, you just don’t see them. For some reason Drudge doesn’t highlight them for you. So you never see this…..
The coming midterm elections – just weeks away – may yet prove to be the most important in the history of the United States, and of the world.
There is a chance – it cannot yet be put any higher than that – that the GOP may recapture control of the Senate. The future of civilization itself may depend upon its succeeding. No one should underestimate just how much the United States is respected, admired and even loved worldwide as an example and a beacon of freedom. But if the “Democrats†get their way, the flickering torch carried by the Statue of Liberty may yet be snuffed out forever, together with the nation of which it has long been the symbol.
…
By little and little, the “Democrats†have become the implacable enemies of everything for which the Founding Fathers so nobly and so successfully strove. Their increasingly close ideological links with international anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, anti-libertarian Marxism and its sinister bedfellow, pietistic environmental extremism, have become an existential threat to the very survival of the United States as an independent nation. The threat is real – so real that even to vote “Democrat†comes close to being treason.
Or this….
In his keynote speech at the National Organization for Marriage’s March for Marriage gala last week, Dr. Ben Carson explained how Marxists are using LGBT rights to destroy American unity and impose the “New World Order.”
or…. well, you know.
Steve
Yeah, my eyes generally glaze over after a couple of sentences when I read stuff like that.
I’m sorry, we’re you saying something?