Is Liberalism Dead?

[IrateCitizen]

The following is a rather lengthy, but very interesting interview with Adam Werbach, the author of the November 3rd Theses that many of us read here. It raises some very interesting issues with regards to "where do we go from here".

Is Liberalism Dead?

By Lakshmi Chaudhry, AlterNet. Posted December 8, 2004.

Adam Werbach argues that the moral and intellectual framework underpinning Democratic politics has become irrelevant. It's time to craft a new progressive vision of fulfillment.


Adam Werbach is used to making a splash. He was a mere 23-year old when he became the president of the Sierra Club, one of the biggest environmental groups in the country. He went on to found the Apollo Alliance, an organization that offers a bold, innovative plan to energy independence: strategic investments in fuel-efficient technologies that will create jobs, reduce consumption, decrease oil imports, and therefore reorient U.S. foreign policy. Yes, Werbach is a man of Big Ideas.

So it's hardly surprising that within days of the 2004 elections, Werbach was calling for a dramatic transformation of progressive politics. He circulated a short but powerful pamphlet titled, "November 3rd Theses," calling for "a new progressive politics for the new century." It soon became a clarion call to arms for the many progressives angry and disillusioned with the Democratic Party.

But Werbach is not done. Tonight, he will deliver a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco titled, "The Death of Environmentalism." But it's not just the environmental movement in Werbach's crosshairs. According to him, the entire liberal project has simply run out of gas. To succeed, progressives must first, to use his words, kick the dead body out of the car, before they can begin to create something new.

He spoke to AlterNet from his home in San Francisco.

Why do you think the Democrats lost to Bush?

The first point is that they lost, and lost big. I don’t want to minimize that point because many of our compatriots are still in denial.

You mean the stolen election stuff.

Do the Republicans cheat? Yes. If we focus solely on that do we miss the point? Yes. What we’re seeing right now is denial from the leaders who are saying some combination of the following three things. First, they’re saying we won (laughs). Even though the election results turned out poorly, everything we did was right. That’s delusional. So there’s a lack of accountability there. Second, they’re saying it was a mechanics problem, so we almost won. If we just tried a little hard or had been a little more organized. So it’s a matter of just a little bit of tweaking, around the edges. And then third, they’re saying it's money. This is the first election in my lifetime where we had a comparable amount of money to the Republicans, so I think it’s specious to say that.

So the first thing is to understand that the Democrats are now a minority party. To understand that we’ve been losing for a long time. We haven’t won the majority popular vote since Carter. Most importantly, we need to accept that the underlying moral intellectual framework of the Democratic Party – liberalism – is dead.

I’m talking here of the Depression-era, New Deal project, which Democrats championed, and that was liberalism. And it has been incredible. The liberal project created minimum wage, the 40-hour workweek, Social Security. It was muscular militarily and ended fascism. It led toward civil rights. That’s our heritage. But in my mind, it was betrayed in the late '70’s and early '80’s, and at this point is a ghost. It’s exhausted. So that is the point of the election. And that is, in fact, more frightening.

The theory was that if we took all the Democratic interest groups and turned them out, if we took all the people who agreed with us on the issues, we would win. We turned out all those people and the interest groups – we still lost.

READ THE REST HERE: http://www.alternet.org/election04/20689/

[shoelace414]

1. this annyos me

The first point is that they lost, and lost big. I don’t want to minimize that point because many of our compatriots are still in denial.

100K votes the oter way.. Kerry would be pres.. how is that lost big?

[MostlyLurks]

10. Macro and Micro

I have to disagree. I think he's right on.

Yes, it's true that 100K votes would have given our side the Presidency. But that would be an electoral majority, not a one-person-one-vote majority. So at the least, the right could claim liberals were not the majority party in the US, and the vote would bear that claim out (we used the same situation, in reverse, re: 2000).

I'll concede the argument that 100K votes would be a difference maker for President. That's solely at the "macropolitical" level. Look at the layers underneath the Presidency: we lost House seats, we lost Senate seats, (I think) we lost Governorships, (I think) we lost more state legislatures than we picked up AND a signifigant policy level debate, "defense of marriage", was defeated in every state where it was balloted and each defeat was of the landslide variety. We lost to people like Jim Bunning, clearly an poor and potentially dangerous choice and that crazy ass fool in Oklahoma.

Did we pick up anything really meaningful? I think we got a few new Dems in the statehouse in Montana, and a few more in Minnesota and Wisconsin. That's about it, I think. Let me know if not.

Personally, I find the "micropolitical" losses far more telling than the Presidential race. And I find it hard to discount those.

Mostly.

[Angelique]

18. It is sad to have to admit to myself but He is right on target

Come on folks, we have to fudge when offering our issues to get them past the rightwingnuts, to get enough votes in any general election to get a state wide office let alone National. That is because the new majority no longer embraces liberalism the way it is now being described.. We don't have a better and strong enough argument to persuade the masses anymore.. IMHO, Dean was much more an authentic liberal, thus had a stronger message, and would never have become mushy in the home stretch of the election. Sorry, but that is my take.

[homerjaysimpson]

22. Its big

Its a big loss because even with an a-hole as an incumbent the democrats couldnt pull off an electoral win, a popular win, a win on any level of government. Nothing wrong with a little self analysis once in a while.....had it happened before the election we'd probably be waiting for the Democratic inaugaration.

[IrateCitizen]

27. There WERE significant wins -- on the state level

The election was an unmitigated disaster at the national level, that's for certain. It's apparent that the Republicans have a hold on the old Confederacy that will not likely be dislodged anytime soon. However, there WERE gains made in the Mountain West -- particularly in CO, where we elected a Democratic Senator and gained Democratic seats in the House.

But when the campaigns drop below the level of the strategists, pollsters and other hangers-on, a strange thing happened -- Democrats actually WON. We picked up 13 seats in the MN state legislature. We took over the state house in OR. We won the governorship and picked up state legislature seats in seemingly "red" Montana.

IMHO, the first thing we should really examine is how Democrats won these races. I would bet that it had something to do with abandoning "focus groups" and actually spending some time LISTENING to what the main concerns of constitutents are, then going about addressing those concerns.

[Indiana_Dem]

2. This is BS!

The only reason it appears as if we have been going downhill is only because ever since the Reagan era we've lost most of the labor union support that was the backbone of the Dem party! No unions = less support. No further reason for those white Protestant men to vote Dem especially if they're Christian fundamentalists.

Another reason is the rise of Christian fundamentalism and all of it's propaganda within and supporting the Republican party.

The third most important reason is the media oligargy. Slanted media bias towards the right who predominantly own more and more of the pie.

Think about it, since Carter, the labor unions have decreased significantly.

[IrateCitizen]

15. Well then, how do we get the unions back?

Furthermore, how do the Democrats sell policies and ideas that increase union membership when a large segment of the population has been conditioned to think that unions are somehow bad? One thing that is clear is that the "old strategies" aren't working too well right now.

Of course, that's what Werbach is talking about. Changing our approach, not our core values. It is completely possible to tie our core values to the concept of fulfillment, which Werbach sees as a better strategy.

You spoke of the rise in Christian fundamentalism. Do you know why people join religious organizations? It's for a desire for fulfillment, that's why. It's because economic success usually doesn't make people happy -- they're looking for a spirit of community. And since the old spirit of community -- simply being civic-minded and interacting with your neighbors and the people in your town -- isn't what it used to be, they look to other organizations.

Hell, this is why my wife and I joined a UU fellowship. I looked around where I live, saw a culture of money and materialism, and wanted to be in an organization with others who were looking for something deeper than this.

Once again, it comes back to ideas about fulfillment.

As for the media problem, it's a common bitch on these boards. But complaining about it doesn't do squat to try and address the issue of actually winning elections and rolling back the RW. It's just excuses. I'd rather not waste time with excuses, when there's actually work to be done.

[Indiana_Dem]

17. I used to be in a labor union from 1984-1990

However, it was when the unions began breaking due to many of the policies those of the Reagan era pushed through. It was when companies would declare bankruptsy, file Chapter 11, close, sell or merge, reopen non-union. This was the beginning. Since then, many companies have just closed up and gone out of country, too. At the point in time I was in the union, even the union members had a bad impression of the union because the unions became just another business and appeared to do nothing but collect your union dues. All the laws being passed disabling union power made the unions powerless but yet seeming to take all your money. It was like a business unto itself. It wasn't supposed to be like that. Reagan just killed the unions.

I just don't think there will be anything we can do about the unions anymore. It'll take awhile before the cycle for worker's rights comes around again.

I don't know if it will air again but I saw an interesting show on the History Channel called Wild West and one program lastnight had the story of the Ludlow Massacre in Colorado. It was about union vs. company and how Rockefeller pulled in the National Guardsmen and the military to a shooting standoff where they killed men women and children because the workers tried to form a union to obtain better working conditions. It's going to have to be mighty oppressive again like that before any Americans will go that far. The military is alot stronger now, too.

It's an old battle but I would fear this day in age the media would spin it to make the union look like the bad guys.

The media slant is not an excuse. It's just a fact. All we can do is continually donate to our causes and become actively involved. I can't buy a TV or radio station but collectively we might be able to if someone comes up and initiates it. It's going to take more than just one TV or radio station, though.

Everything cycles in time. The young people will come up and help. They are encouraging. The babyboomers should also step up to the plate as they begin to retire and need healthcare and retirement. Healthcare, pensions, Social Security will become a VERY important issue in a few years. The growing Latino population should also be of help. It's just going to take some time.

[IrateCitizen]

20. Ludlow massacre... I'm very familiar with this.

Howard Zinn devotes a great deal of space to both this and the Homestead Steel Works strike against Andrew Carnegie. Both show the lengths that big business will go to in order to supress unions.

I'm not a member of a union now, but I will be once I get my teaching certificate. Personally, I think that unions have largely grown stale over time, and are also in need of re-assessing their strategies. It seems that the AFL-CIO just acts as a fundraiser for the Democrats over and over again, and still the Dems support "free" trade policies and Taft-Hartley. Meanwhile, organizing strategies are diminished and aspects of the union leadership have ensconsced themselves in cushy positions at the expense of the rank-and-file.

I like some of the things I'm hearing from some of the up-and-coming leaders, though. The current head of the SEIU (I can't remember his name) is looking to challenge for head of the AFL-CIO. He essentially wants to cut way back on political contributions and instead focus hard on organizing. I also like the idea I've heard of allowing individual workers to choose whether or not to join the union as opposed to workplace votes on all-or-nothing membership. There's also (finally!) drives going on to take unions global -- to join forces with the workers in countries to which many of the manufacturing jobs are currently moving, in order to raise the bar for workers everywhere.

WRT the media, I think you need to look at something that Werbach said in the article. He decried the "interest politics" in the Democratic Party, because it prevented large coalitions from all galvanizing around an important issue. For instance, the right's assault on public education is perhaps the most important issue of the day. But the Sierra Club (of which Werbach was president at 23) doesn't even mention this fight, instead focusing its energies on ANWR. This is quite different from the approach of RW groups such as the NRA, which have no problem crossing over "issue lines" in order to help get their candidates elected.

I also think that we need to develop ideas by which to circumvent the media, if it's working against us. The conservative movement of the mid-1960's can provide many keys for this, as their views weren't exactly welcomed during that time period.

In short, it's most important that we just begin talking about these things right now, daring to think outside of the box. I think that's what Werbach is trying to spur here too. It's apparent from this thread that some people are more than willing to do so, but some are still stuck in the thinking of the past in spite of present realities that make such old strategies largely obsolete.

[ElectroPrincess]

28. We can't presently learn by the Right Wing's tactics. No way!

The thought of Liberals working as "a team" and even, at times, sucking-up our criticisms and marching "lock step" with other Progressives is NOW literally impossible.

Liberals (I'm included) are far too intellectually curious and independent for our own good. We only come together when the circumstances are one step above hopeless.

We will compromise our purism (myself include) ONLY when it hurts and hurts real bad (we actually lose our income and civil liberties).

Then, like we have in the past, will discipline ourselves, set aside our minor differences and "truly unite" for the working and middle class people of the USA.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

3. I think he's full of shit.

If you don't feel oppressed by big business, you are either not paying attention or doing the oppressing. How about all the middle-class people about to lose their retirements, about to be screwed by the credit card loan sharks, losing their benefits or just their jobs, getting burdened with paying for a bankrupt government while the rich feast? This asswipe has been too comfortable for too long. Yo, dickhead, I have a desk job, a college degree, speak four languages, have no credit card debt and I did 26 days last month with NO MONEY-NOT A CENT. A lot more people will be telling that story soon and we'll se whether lunch-pail liberalism is dead or not. But, then again, this numbnuts is probably cashing Karl's checks...

[IrateCitizen]

13. What a tirade! Too bad it's hardly grounded in reality.

Did you even read the article? Did you read Werbach's Nov. 3rd Theses, which I linked? Do you even know who Adam Werbach is?

Cling to the comfort of the past while history passes you by, if that makes you feel comfortable. The knee-jerk reaction some on the left have to challenges to old-school, New Deal era liberalism reminds me a lot to the way that right wingers cling to their fantasy of the 1950's perfect society as the standard to go back to.

[homerjaysimpson]

24. I found one

Ahh. Im new here and have seen a lot of the same thing. I was starting to wonder if I was crazy. That my idea of a Democrat was way off but I see there some other people here who think its a bad idea to have any knee-jerk partisan reaction. Whether its for or against your side.

[ElectroPrincess]

29. there's a lot to be said for knee-jerk, basal, strategies ...

It's the hallmark of propaganda. While we Liberal pick apart every damn element of Labor vs. Corporate Power, the Right Wing publishes it's talking points with Rush, Hannity etc.

This is no time to be petty and pissy with each other. We need to put forth SIMPLE strategies that will appeal to the sheeple. If that is beneath one's purism of political moral standards, then kindly just stay out of our (Dean et. al.) way.

What destroys liberals even more than the RW propagandists is the natty little turf battles we must have to boost our own egos.

If Dean lands the DLC leadership, EVERYTHING that basically makes sense is "manna from heaven" to me. Further I'll repeat the simplistic talking points like it's gospel as well as march "lock step" according to his guidance and leadership.

There's a lot to be said for the KISS principle. :-)

You want to win an election? = Climb on board the mobilization of the Liberal Noise Machine. If you want to lose? Remain within an intellectual bubble - completely divorced from communications for the USA (and World) sheeple.

[IrateCitizen]

30. We're not talking about the same "knee-jerk" here...

I was referring to knee-jerk defenses of New Deal era liberalism, accompanied by the complete refusal to even consider changing tactics. That is a stance that is prevalent among many folks on the left and center-left, as evidenced by this thread.

I completely agree with you that we need to find "lowest common denominator" strategies. Not because people are inherently stupid -- they're not -- but because we need to appeal to people on the level that they are most receptive, and that is an emotional level.

You're absolutely right on the "talking points" meme. It's what the right has done, and it's highly effective. We need to do the same. Personally, I love George Lakoff's suggestion to term Bush's tax cuts as a "baby tax", because it will be up to the children of today to pay down the enormous national debt that Bush is amassing to line the pockets of his rich friends. That's just one example.

[ElectroPrincess]

32. Thank you for clarifying ...

And please know that I respect your depth of knowledge within this topic thread. I guess what's most important is that we take time to "reach out" to people who are less complex.

I love humanity but politics is a cruel activity.

Thanks again for explaining without dis'ing me for being less knowledgeable than yourself in this area.

[sui generis]

4. I actually agree with most of his points

if you want a landslide you have to appeal to the interests that are relevant to the daily lives of a majority of people; you have to give them something to believe in.

If we don't want to take the negative approach and appeal to the fears that are relevatnt to the daily lives of a majority of people, then we have to find a relevant message ourselves.

I notice he didn't mention any "social conservatism" issues; kudos to that. I still think that Kerry failed miserably in that regard, by not taking a clearly moral high ground and calling the attempted constitutional removal of rights from Americans immoral and bigoted and smacking of racism, and furthermore by saying it was okay for states to discriminate but not the government - both he and Edwards were talking out of their asses.

We didn't have the kind of leadership required to get a landslide. Life has a funny way of delivering things: whatever you do is enough to give you what you have. If you want more then you have to do more, if you want a different result, you will have to do something different. It's a lesson our party needs to take to heart.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

5. I think the * economic policies

are about to make economic populism very relevant again. You honestly think people are going to not care about being suddenly poor again?

[sui generis]

6. campaigning is not about reality

oh I certainly believe that people are going to care about being poor, but first they have to get poor. Right now while they can still barely afford to drive their Ford Earth Destroyers and keep their black-mold uninsurable homes heated for our new deep freeze winters, they think they're still okay with the status quo. Until they start rationing heating oil and drinking water.

Campaigning is all about how well you can hit nerves - for good or for bad. Bad news always trumps good news - our survival instincts (and excitement) are most easily triggered by things that impact our survival; not by doing good deeds for strangers. I know that's cynical, and I'm certainly not saying it's right - but it is reality and we (myself excepted) suck at going for the throat.

If you want to campaign successfully on positive messages, then you had better have something much worse to compare yourself to, else people will choose the status quo every time. There is a lot of rope out there now - let's help them hang themselves.

His point is that we have to change what we present; we have to change what we prioritize when we go after that group of voters, or else we won't get their interest. And he's asking for innovation, not just the same old tired solutions. Maybe by exploring options we'll determine that some of those tired old solutions are the best ones after all, but we need to stop taking crap for granted and start thinking.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

7. Don't worry

They will be poor. Liberalism was just as dead and pro-business self-interest (because people thought themselves better off than they were-and were living on credit too) and Christian fundamentalism (Snopes trial, anyone?) were just as dominant for a long time-until 10/17/29. Then reality asserted itself in the nasty way it tends to. We're going there again. Sit tight and you'll see. Then all the ziss-boom-bah of presentation will not only be irrelevant, but it will be viewed as a tad offensive given the circumstances.

[sui generis]

8. my goodness thank goodness you don't have anything

to do with campaigning

or we would have lost by an even bigger landslide. Ziss boom bah and all.

I am a liberal. Please don't forget that. But I am also a strategist, and right now our strategies aren't working. If "shoving the corpse out of the car" is offensive, then get out of the car with it. It just means we need new and better strategies, because what we've done so far is reactive and not effective enough to win.

[IrateCitizen]

11. Your understanding of history must be different than mine...

Liberalism wasn't "dead" in the period prior to 1932 -- it had yet to be born. However, in the late 19th and early 20th century, you had populism, socialism and progressivism -- three movements that overlapped and converged in several ways that sowed the seeds for the birth of liberalism.

Religious fundamentalism was actually tied up in these movements as well. Many of the early leaders of the socialist movement were among the clergy. There were virulently nationalistic and teetotaler factions within the Progressives. And William Jennings Bryan, the chief prosecutor in the Scopes Monkey Trial, was the leader of the populists.

Much of the work of these groups was brought to fruition during the TR and Wilson presidencies. The 1920's were characterized by an economic boom (albeit one on false footing), so there wasn't nearly as much zeal for furthering those ideas. But we're really only talking about a lull of about 14 years here, which really isn't that long of a period, historically speaking. It could hardly be called an "era", like liberalism was.

Politics is ALWAYS about presentation. It amazes me that there are those among us who still believe that we can simply present the facts to people, and they'll eat it up. It also amazes me that many think that social norms simply remain static over time, and that there is no need to change approaches and strategies as the times change the political realities. IMHO, such approaches are doomed to failure, and apparently a few more losses are required to get this to sink in.

I'm reminded right now of the book The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith. The US emerged from WWII as a society in which want of basic needs was largely an uncommon phenomenon, unlike the way it had been prior to that. Up through the depression, people knew what it was like to go without basic needs such as food, clothing or shelter. Except for relatively small segments of the population, this is not the case anymore. I'm not saying that everyone is affluent, but basic needs are met for the majority of the population. This requires a different approach to politics, as Werbach identifies, based on fulfillment.

Fulfillment can come from a variety of sources. Of course, our society preaches that it comes from material possessions and pursuit of wealth. But this doesn't have to be the only narrative. It can also come from community and human interaction. If you ask me, there is a generation coming of age that is naturally coming around to this way of thinking. Unless the Democrats want to be doomed to perpetual minority status, they need to speak to this need for fulfillment -- otherwise the right will jump in and capitalize on twisting this need into selfish pursuit of wealth as fulfillment.

[The Traveler]

9. He's right, and the DLC is just a symptom

of what he's talking about. Liberalism must be renewed. The liberal movement must be re-invented. The values haven't changed but we need new theories by which those values may be achieved. We need new ideas and priorities that express those values in a 21st century context. We need to present a coherent plan for fixing the mess the neocons and that would be Mussolini Bush have created.

In a sense, we gotta go back to basics and move forward from there.

Becoming more Republican is not the solution.

[IrateCitizen]

12. I think the values HAVE changed somewhat...

At least in the sense that Werbach is talking about moving away from economic survival, and concentrating on fulfillment.

Prior to and during the depression, economic survival was a real concern for large parts of the population (probably a majority). There was real concern in families about just having a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs, and food on the table. While there are segments of the population that are genuinely poor, these concerns over basic needs have been relegated to a minority status.

Since we became the "Affluent Society", as penned by John Kenneth Galbraith, we no longer have quite the need for maintaining economic survival as before. But many people are finding that simple economic survival doesn't breed fulfillment. Therefore, they look for that fulfillment in other areas. If Democrats want to win, they need to capitalize on this, while pushing the core VALUES that made liberalism succeed. It just requires a different narrative and different emphasis. The overarching goal of a fair, egalitarian, forward-thinking society still remains.

[The Traveler]

14. You hit the nail on the head

"The overarching goal of a fair, egalitarian, forward-thinking society still remains."

Yes. But after another 4 years of neocon budget management, "survival issues" are likely to see something of a resurgence.

How do we face the global warming and other environmental matters AND prosper? AND achieve the overarching goal? AND maintain just and healthy relations with the rest of the world? Democrats need to invent workable answers to such questions. I believe it can be accomplished, but as a party we have to get creative.

[IrateCitizen]

16. Yes, but in order to get people to go where you want them to go...

... you have to first go to where they are.

I'd love it if people were actually concerned with global climate crisis and other looming environmental catastrophes. But they're not. And so long as the ideas of fulfillment remain tied solely to economics and increasing production in pursuit of ever-expanding economic growth, they won't be concerned with it.

However, if fulfillment can ALSO be tied to ideas like community and forethought, then we have a chance to get these issues on people's radar. This is a tough row to hoe, because it deals with the re-adjustment of social norms and recognition of basic values that we've drifted away from. But it's the path we need to take if we want to actually achieve that egalitarian, fair, forward-thinking society we all seem to want.

[The Traveler]

19. A subtle point

but I think you are correct. Where we differ is that I believe a multi-pronged approach is required. We have real, life altering issues like global warming, impending energy crises, etc. that can be successfully addressed by foreward thinking. And the solutions do not require abandonment of justice and equality ... rather, and I do belive this, the solutions are in a real sense dependent upon them.

I believe you are absolutely correct in saying "And so long as the ideas of fulfillment remain tied solely to economics and increasing production in pursuit of ever-expanding economic growth, they won't be concerned with it"

Much of this will be easier to accomplish as more chickens come home to roost, and the rate of chicken arrival is accelerating.

[blindpig]

21. fulfillment

And how does America get fulfillment? Television mostly. Sports on television. Religion on television. Television promoting itself on television. Television, television, television. It's the biggest single difference between how people lived in 1932 and how they live today. And they own it.

An interesting article and food for thought. Werbach's take on environmental orgs is right on the money, that's a lot of money that does comparatively little other than salving the consciences of the middle and upper classes. I've long felt that instead of competing for the dollars enviro orgs should band together and get political, maybe taking the lead from the LCV.

[rodeodance]

23. we are in the era of Neo-liberalism according to historians. One of

the characterists is the we no longer speak of the collective nation but of the fexible automous self working for the well-being of the self.

[msgadget]

25. Huh?

Could you explain 'fexible automous self working', please? Thanks.

[blindpig]

26. so?

This flexible autonomous self is an artifact of the piracy, oppression and unsustainable environmental exploitation that have sustained Western civilization for the past 500 years. When the bubble pops(soon) we'll see who is autonomous.

Whats that got to do with my post anyway?

PS, Spell Checking is your friend.

[ElectroPrincess]

31. Please, let's keep it thoughtful?

Hey, on the flip side of the coin, what does anything about your post have to do with the average Americans daily struggle.

I've forgotten to use spell check from time to time myself. Not one of us is perfection.

All of us claim to be Liberals. How about we all take a step back and try to show a true understanding and respect that we come from different walks of life.

[IrateCitizen]

33. Actually, not all of us do claim to be liberals. I'm a progressive.

I don't adopt liberalism as my philosophy not because I think the RW has demonized it, but because I think it's run its course and, despite the tremendous advances that it made, it has some fatal flaws that have just become too glaring to ever get past.

That, among other reasons, is why I call myself a "progressive". I actually consider my views to the left of "liberalism" on many issues.

[Pax Hayden]

34. It may be in a comma, but it's not dead.

On a personal note, I don't think that Liberalism is dead. Liberalism is a philosophic ideal... and ideals don't die, they just get re-translated with each new generation. It's the Democratic Party that died, or at least it's in a deep comma.

Were to start? I don't know. It may be to late, but this article makes several good points.

[rman]

35. "moral and intellectual framework (of) Democratic politics" = Liberal?

"Is Liberalism Dead?
...the moral and intellectual framework underpinning Democratic politics has become irrelevant."


For the past few decades Democratic politics has been shaped mostly by corporate interests. While that may at least formally be in fact "liberal", many democrats don't feel represented by these politics. The original core values of the Dem party where about protecting the workers from exploitation by Big Capital. Most people still are workers, but the Dem party does a very poor job of protecting their rights, no matter how "liberal" the party and/or the people claim to be.

Also consider that "Liberalism" is what the right wing identifies as the cause of the erosion of what they call "moral values", they see this as something that needs to be fixed, and they're very intent on fixing it. In the mainstream media you'll hardly ever come across any other way of framing the term "liberalism". And you certainly won't find much mention of traditional labor/democratic values; it is as though these values do not exist anymore. Anything that even smells of labor values is immediately labeled as socialist and/or communist, terms then have been redifined to have a negative meaning.

I think that intellectual framework underpinning Democratic politics - as in 'moving ever further to the right' - is indeed dead. I also think that the original intellectual framework of the left is not dead, but slumbering.