Book of the Month

tmccarthy0's picture

The Evolution of Liberalism

by tmccarthy0 12/8/2011 - 2:51 pm

Ultimately as liberals and progressives I think we get stuck in our definition of words. There are some people who define liberalism as a static rather than dynamic concept. But I would put out there that liberalism as a concept is dynamic and does nothing more than reflect the milieu of any given era in civilization.

Let's take the oft-talked about Greatest Liberal of all time FDR. FDR was a great liberal, but he interred Japanese Americans, which isn't liberal at all. Social Security was a liberal policy, but just for white men when it began. Just saying.

Let's look at R.M. Nixon for a minute, an arch conservative with fascist tendencies, who committed a political crime.  That dude created the EPA and his signed into law NEPA thanks to Scoop Jackson, another flawed liberal in Washington State politics -- he supported Vietnam but was a great environmentalist. They usher in an era of deep research into ecological restoration. Nixon reflected his era, because of the pressures around him. That era demanded some action on the environment, which was considered a liberal cause.

Let's look at Jimmy Carter for a minute, you define him as a liberal, but under his administration the airlines were deregulated.  This is not what we would consider today to be a liberal policy position. Indeed he was reflecting his era, his time. And many of the Carter policies were liberal.

We all know that under Clinton, welfare was effectively gutted, and that was an indication of what was to come, the deregulation of financial services. People love Clinton now, because the economy was so great back in the 90's and everyone wants to go back to that, but at the time, Clinton's policies were just reflecting the era.  Sometimes his policies could be considered quite liberal, The Federal Acquisition and Streamlining Act of 1994, a very liberal policy that expanded the numbers of minority businesses competing for Federal Government contracts. It was a very important micro-economic policy.

Barack Obama is no different from those Presidents, he reflects this era. This returns us to my original statement, but what I am describing is our dynamic concept of liberalism which has changed over time.  His agenda is mostly liberal. But not everything his administration proposes or accomplishes is liberal. I think that is because as people we too are more complex than that, we are not one dimensional and we are not static beings. We evolve and change as do our expectations of civilization. This is just another step up in our continuing growth as humans. As we continue to evolve as people, our government will evolve with us.

Crossposted at TheAngriestLiberal

  • Share this
  • Add new comment
  • 587 reads

Tmac, I'm not sure what the point of this piece is. If it's to argue that no president has ever been perfectly liberal, whatever that means, then no duh. We all understand that even the most forward-thinking leaders are nonetheless creatures of their era, constrained by practical realities, and not always consistent.

But that doesn't make all presidents equally liberal. To size up a leader in historical context, you have to look at the body of their accomplishments. We don't regard FDR as a "great liberal" because of his perfectly liberal opinions but because of the tremendous liberal reforms that he brought the country.

On the other hand, if your point is to argue that Obama is a great liberal president or a good liberal president or not the worst liberal president ever, well you haven't done that or even attempted it. You just asserted it. There have been many substantive criticisms of Obama's leadership of the liberal movement here and elsewhere that you just ignore and dismiss with a shrug: nobody's perfect.

If you're just claiming that Obama deserves the label "liberal," then who gives a shit? It's just a label. The meaningful question is whether he is a good president who has done good things for the country, and this piece does not even attempt to answer the question.

I predict that your piece will serve little purpose other than a platform for people to recycle their gripes about Obama or their gripes about people who don't like Obama or their gripes about people they just don't like. Let the gripe-fest begin...or rather, continue.

PS What would have been more interesting and what your title appeared to promise would have been an essay about how and why liberalism has evolved and how Obama fits into the story.

by Michael Wolraich 12/8/2011 - 3:37 pm

You're wrong, Genghis. Such arguments have played themselves out. Instead, I predict that this piece will serve as a vehicle for meta-arguments about whether this piece will serve as a platform to recycle their gripes.

IIRC, Articleman loves meta-arguments.

by Verified Atheist 12/8/2011 - 3:48 pm (re: Genghis)

I think I need to create my periodic post "Obama Good."  That might more succinctly give us the discussion Genghis is complaining about.  I thought there was a place on the Internet for that sort of thing.  We certainly sell more beer and fries when we put up "Obama Good/Obama Bad" threads.  And it brings back memories of the 2008 TPM Cafe, even if those memories are a bit inflected with PTSD for some people.  (That last sentence was tongue in cheek.)

So yes, I love meta threads.  I love freezing them, in particular.  Ah, the smell of napalm in the morning...

by Articleman 12/8/2011 - 4:02 pm (re: Verified Atheist)

Hey Genghis, I am not really claiming much about Obama as I am making a point about us, as people. I think. I was fleshing out the dynamic term liberalism as opposed to our static view of what we think liberalism was as defined by the past.  But all those Presidents just reflect us, and they reflect how we have changed as a people I think.

OWS could be an effective movement in that it could make us see ourselves differently, and it could make the general population once again believe it has some power to make effective change.  Because humanity is not static either. Those up there are examples of how we have changed as a nation.

by tmccarthy0 12/8/2011 - 3:55 pm (re: Genghis)

Maybe another sentence needs to be added to the end of the first paragraph, something like:

 

But I would put out there that liberalism as a concept is dynamic and does nothing more than reflect the milieu of any given era in civilization.  As such, our presidents, whether Democratic or Republican, have reflected that dynamic unfolding and growth.

by Another Trope 12/8/2011 - 4:03 pm (re: tmccarthy0)

I think asking "who gives a shit" about whether Obama is sufficiently liberal or progressive is odd.  Lots of people give a shit, in particular, liberals and progressives.  While I find the recurring argument in this and other blogs around that point tedious and repetitive, it's not because the idea of whether the President is sufficiently liberal or progressive is valueless; it's because you have a small number of people running in circles saying exactly the same thing and sometimes razzing each other.  But lots of people give a shit about that subject, including people who really don't like Obama, and people who really do.  And they are both right to care about it, IMO.

Additionally, while it may be old ground for me to note that FDR interred the Japanese, and to note the reasons why Chomsky lauding Nixon as the last liberal President or such is fatuous and asinine, her point that what is liberal or not morphs across eras and distorts that discussion is spot on.  I have made the former point about FDR, and people stomp off whinily into the night.  *sniff*  It's a good point.  Who are the true Democrats?  What about the failings and apostasies of some other occasionally-great or often-great Democratic Presidents?  These historical comparisons are interesting in informing our judgments of Obama, whether they tend toward the negative or positive.  I have periodically seen some (not you) remark that it's not meaningful to make these kinds of comparisons in assessing Obama.  I couldn't disagree more.  Anyone who thinks that should have been forced to take more history in school, or should have been forced to think more while taking it.  History is messy and complex.  Doesn't excuse things we don't like now.  But it is messy and complex.

by Articleman 12/8/2011 - 3:58 pm (re: Genghis)

Moreover, it is more than whether we should compare the contemporary with the historical, but how we compare: to what extent is it apples to apples, and when it is apples to oranges.  One of my continuing points in the FDR-Obama comparison is that the country as whole, and thus the general constituency of voters, was a nation of poverty, or close to it, during FDR, and Obama is dealing with a middle class, or close to it, nation.  That is just one facet of many when turning back to look at how history can inform the present.  Because as they say, one can prove any point one wants when turning back to history.

by Another Trope 12/8/2011 - 4:17 pm (re: Articleman)

And, of course, middle class itself is an evolving, nebulous concept. I was going to argue with your assertion that the nation is mostly middle-class now, but then I realized that what middle-class means is not exactly clear. A literal meaning would give us a meaningless meaning (how's that for an oxymoron?), where the majority of the population was middle-class during the depression, as well. I agree with your larger point, however, that we're significantly better off now than we were then.

by Verified Atheist 12/8/2011 - 4:25 pm (re: Another Trope)

The post-WWII boom changed the economic landscape of America, in part by creating a much deeper sense of the possibility (or even entitlement) of upward mobility in terms of income, both for an individual during their lifetime and for the next generations.  In other words, the expectations about how one has progressed over time, what rewards one has received for hard work has morph, or one can say evolved over the last 100 years.

by Another Trope 12/8/2011 - 4:52 pm (re: Verified Atheist)

Culturally one can see one of these changes in the 50's when the notion that high school days would be a time of leisure for adolescents, who not yet adults, began to emerge.  This coincided with the emerge of a youth culture that had not existed in any serious manner prior, in part facilitated by the emergence of new technology.  One can spend a good amount of time outlining the impact of rock and roll on the notions of what is liberal.

by Another Trope 12/8/2011 - 5:00 pm (re: Verified Atheist)

The first part of your comment, how the differences among eras inform our understandings of Presidents during these different eras, is the essence of the post.  The second part, that you can prove anything using history, is not really true, IMO.  It's like when I depose a witness and ask them if Mr. X did something, and they don't want to admit they know he didn't.  So they say grudgingly, "it's possible."  And I hammer on that, and they say, "anything's possible."  And of course it isn't.  Not everything is possible or plausible.  And history doesn't bear any and all interpretations one might place upon it.  It's why we go to bars, and drink, and argue with each other.  

by Articleman 12/8/2011 - 5:11 pm (re: Another Trope)

I wouldn't say history bears any and all interpretations, but humans will find a way to make the square peg fit their round hole.  Which is why we argue.  So I suppose I got the articulation wrong.  Any one can twist and distort history to prove their point - exactly who is twisting and distorting is the subject of the debate.

by Another Trope 12/8/2011 - 5:56 pm (re: Articleman)

I think asking "who gives a shit" about whether Obama is sufficiently liberal or progressive is odd. Lots of people give a shit.

It was a rhetorical question. Certainly, some people get very incensed about whether someone is a "true" liberal or "true" Democrat or whatever, but I think debates about who qualifies for such labels are inane.

That's not to say that the labels aren't useful for making a point. When Chomsky lauded Nixon for being liberal, his point was that American politics has shifted to the right. A debate about whether Nixon was "truly" liberal--as in did he check enough boxes to qualify for the label--would be beside the point. And it would be inane.

As for arguing that history is messy and complex, that's like saying "the world is messy and complex." Of course it is, but so what? Proclaiming that the world (or history) is complex won't change the opinions of those who tend to see things in black-and-white, and to everyone else, it's patently obvious.

by Michael Wolraich 12/8/2011 - 6:59 pm (re: Articleman)

Don't have much time right now, but I think one way to look at this issue is socialist-capitalist spectrum.  There are no true pure capitalist societies, nor no true pure socialist societies.  There is just those that are more socialist than capitalist, others more capitalist than socialist.  Within each there is a varying mix of people who response to economic approaches lean more often one way or the other.   But for simplicity sake we just label this one capitalist and that one socialist, even though there are elements of the other approach in each. 

by Another Trope 12/8/2011 - 3:54 pm

And here I thought liberalism was intelligently designed ...

by Donal 12/8/2011 - 4:36 pm

Now that is an elegant joke.

by Articleman 12/8/2011 - 5:07 pm (re: Donal)

I hereby render unto Donal the Daily Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site given to all of him from all of me.

by Richard Day 12/8/2011 - 7:06 pm (re: Donal)

Well deserved.

But I thought the image of sliced meta threads and eggs for breakfast, the smell of coffee and napalm in the air, was a runner up. 

by Oxy Mora 12/8/2011 - 7:15 pm (re: Richard Day)

by Richard Day 12/8/2011 - 11:24 pm (re: Oxy Mora)

Why do historical comparisons matter?

by Dan Kervick 12/8/2011 - 5:09 pm

They don't, if you're ahistorically minded.  There is that little aphorism about those who do not understand the mistakes of the past being doomed to repeat them...  Don't you want the government to think harder because of Vietnam about initiating military action?  Don't you want to judge the success of a failed policy based on how obvious it was that it would fail based on dumb things others did before?  

Genghis is putting together a book about the Progressive Era a century ago.  I think the historical resonance of that time with this one is precisely why these comparisons are valuable to us in a similar moment with some similar quandaries, and are not simply nice stories about dead people who did funny things.

by Articleman 12/8/2011 - 5:14 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

I didn't ask about historical knowledge.  I asked about historical comparisons.   What does it matter where Barack Obama ranks in the historical lib-o-meter rankings?

by Dan Kervick 12/8/2011 - 5:20 pm (re: Articleman)

That's less a comparison and more a facile ranking.

by Anonymous (not verified) 12/8/2011 - 5:25 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

Historical comparison don't necessarily mean one is ranking the entities/phenomenon/individuals, although people will use the evidence of those comparisons to justify this or that ranking. 

While rankings are basically as meaningless as a ranking of which NFL football team dynasty was the greatest, it does serve a purpose of comfort if one can prove that while this or that is not the best, it is a good as it gets, or at least has gotten.

Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

by Another Trope 12/8/2011 - 5:36 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

I will anxiously await the Obama campaign rollout of their new "As Good as It Gets" campaign slogan.  Meanwhile, I have said all I'm interested in saying on this thread.

by Dan Kervick 12/8/2011 - 5:45 pm (re: Another Trope)

Just to have the last word, I never said that as good as it gets is necessarily a legitimate claim, or that this justifies all or part of the Obama administration's past.  My only point is that some people find comfort in that notion.  You obviously don't. 

by Another Trope 12/8/2011 - 5:59 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

I was just thinking of the smear campaigns that happened in the first decades of our Republic.  Jefferson was one of the worst, using a 'hired gun' to put out pamphlets about his opponent that made the accusations thrown around today look tame.  There is the facet of trying not to repeat the same mistake.  There is also the facet of exploring the consistencies between the ages, and by doing so touch on revealing the nature of human nature.  Are doomed to perpetual war?  Is our destruction built into the structure of what makes us who we are?  And even if we sidestep the question of human nature, comparisons at the very least, when taken in their entirety reveal something about our identity.  Who are Americans?  Just as our individual lives define us, so does our history define our country, our nation, our particular cultural civilization (is Western Culture evil? imperial and oppressive?), our region of the world, our ethnicity, our....

by Another Trope 12/8/2011 - 5:30 pm (re: Articleman)

​​You are right. Times change and liberals change.too. 

"I have found a certain type calls himself a liberal.   Now I always thought I was a liberal.  I came up terribly surprised one time when I found out that I was a right-wing, conservative extremist, when I listened to everybody's point of view that I ever met and then decided how I should feel.  But this so-called new liberal group, Jesus, they never listen to your point of view...."

 

by John Wayne (not verified) 12/8/2011 - 5:19 pm

"Pretty bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"

by Donal 12/8/2011 - 5:42 pm (re: John Wayne)

An ah'll tell you what!, bud, them libruls was never mugged neither. 

by Oxy Mora 12/8/2011 - 5:59 pm (re: John Wayne)

An  libruls caint shoot no guns.

by Oxy Mora 12/8/2011 - 6:01 pm (re: John Wayne)

Blacks were not excluded from Social Security per se - just lots of jobs blacks did were excluded, including government workers. 

Explain how Clinton "gutted" welfare. A 5-year limit is "gutting"? And are you complaining about the Bush additions to the law, or only Clinton?

by SharkFinSoup (not verified) 12/8/2011 - 5:37 pm

Des/Per, please comment under a consistent alias.  Gracias. 

by Articleman 12/8/2011 - 7:11 pm (re: SharkFinSoup)

Just testing or trolling the waters, so to speak.

by PeraFinSoup (not verified) 12/8/2011 - 7:18 pm (re: Articleman)

TMC, you're touching on something I've been thinking about---whether we are in the process of defining a new American person ideal. And whether this new model of American citizenship will change concepts of liberal vs. conservative. Perhaps it will be More Community vs. Less Community. I think it's worthwhile to think about how human evolution may effect our political labels and distinctions.  

by Oxy Mora 12/8/2011 - 6:26 pm

In 2004, following four years of the worst Presidential Administration in decades the repubs were voted back into office; they had both Houses in Congress.

Two years following our greatest economic crash since the crash of '29, the American People (whoever the hell that is) permitted the repubs to take over the House and made gains in the Senate.

Frankly I think the repubs will retain the House, take over the Senate and take over the Executive reins.

This is the Land of Bilks and Phonies.

FOX News rules the airways along with the fascist radio talk shows.

Liberals barely represent half of the minority party in this country.

We owned both Houses of Congress and the WH for a brief period of time and we were unable to get Obama's nominations thru and failed to pass a budget.

Basically, the American People are dupes; they buy repub tweets and shamwows along with corporate owned politicians.

 

Quote:
Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement.

On the other hand :

41% of Republicans still doubt Obama was born in the US

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...id=I73JKpRHNF4

'Liberalism' is dead in America.

Let the Corporations rein forever!

by Richard Day 12/8/2011 - 7:25 pm

The Dems allowed the Republicans to win in 2010 by running on nothing but "we suck less than them". They couldn't use a majority in both houses and the presidency to implement a stimulus that stimulated enough, a housing program that prevented illegal repossessions, a jobs program that got us down from 9%+ unemployment.

They couldn't or wouldn't even stop a regressive continuation of Bush tax cuts for the rich that makes it impossible to fund our government properly.

The Republicans in principle didn't deserve to win (in strategy yes), but the Democrats deserved to lose. 

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) 12/9/2011 - 2:30 am (re: Richard Day)

The Dems in 2004 by and large followed Rahm's advice, "don't talk about the war". Those that did complain about the war in a large part won. But the Dems took a drubbing.

Of course the Dems let Howard Dean get tossed out of the race for a mere "Yeaaaggghhhhhh", so instead of a charismatic, dynamic candidate, we got Mr. Serious. (I thought Kerry finally started performing in the final debates, but by then it was way too late).

If you let the GOP define the discussion, they're going to win - whether in votes or actual outcomes. Now we're busy drowning government in a bathtub even though we supposedly have the White House & the Senate.

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) 12/9/2011 - 2:36 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

The distinction between "static" and "dynamic" models has a paradoxical element to it.

Since the static models do not make any claim about the future but rely only on being able to identify essential qualities to measure the worthiness of  proposed changes, they are not bound by the logic of dialectics that would reveal a pattern to history and the struggles between people. While people get "stuck" in static visions of themselves and others there is also a form of life where people are stuck within narratives of change.

Where things get really weird is the place where both elements are in play simultaneously. For example when a Creationist begins arguing for Social Darwinism,  a cognitive bifurcation has taken place. Similarly, when a Marxist dictates what is essentially human, something has been broken into two.

by moat 12/9/2011 - 12:15 am

Is this like when a clown stands up and pulls a newt out his ass?

by Richard Day 12/9/2011 - 1:43 am (re: moat)

I was thinking it was more like a game of Twister. The co-option of popular messages to make groups attractive on the election market lead to convolutions.

For instance, Goldwater opposed the Great Society in a consistent manner; the remodeling of our social environment was anathema to his idea that free individuals sorted out such matters between themselves. After a couple of decades of living without the apartheid the Goldwater ideal preserved, the public at large did not want to give up the benefits of that social change. So when Reagan reiterated the Goldwater mantra, he added the promise that none of those benefits would be sacrificed by dismantling the instruments that made those changes possible. The "free market" went from being a bellwether of personal liberty to providing for the common good. GHW Bush called the idea "voodoo economics" before he went out and bought his own doll.

So, you are correct, the process did lead to a Newt.

by moat 12/9/2011 - 8:13 am (re: Richard Day)

Evolution. Nice concept. Ugg missed it.

by Ugg the Repug (not verified) 12/10/2011 - 5:39 pm

no one ever said that evolution was an equal opportunity employer

by Another Trope 12/10/2011 - 5:59 pm (re: Ugg the Repug)

Latest Comments

more