dagblog - Comments for "Scott Walker, the Koch Brothers, and the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page as Bull Connor"

BTW, were/are any of these

quinn esq — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:30:08 +0000

BTW, were/are any of these Conservative ideas in any way "new?" Even in the 60's or 70s?

e.g. Guns... taxes... regulation... God... wimmen... Commies... anti-liberals/socialists... etc.?

In short, there are lots of

AmericanDreamer — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:02:27 +0000

In short, there are lots of ideas out there large enough to spawn world-changing movements - which in turn generate more ideas. What I would argue is that the "liberal" political creed hasn't done the serious work of fully-integrating and transforming its beliefs with these views at the center, as opposed to merely attempting to incorporate them as "special interests."

Interesting. I said I'll start a New Deal 2.0, or a New New Deal? thread to pick up on this thread subtopic if no one else has gone ahead and done so, probably not until Friday or this weekend. I hope you'll elaborate on what you wrote above and offer your thoughts, quinn.

In a couple of years you can

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:50:24 +0000

In reply to This is a fascinating

In a couple of years you can take him to this place. It will be full of inventers and craftsmen who love the chance to get their hands on.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/03/techshop-san-francisco-video/

I was thinking about the

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:41:33 +0000

In reply to Not sure about this,

I was thinking about the women's movement, though not environmentalism. In either case, I'm happy to push back the last big liberal idea by a couple of years.

The Internet isn't an idea, but I guess that you could call the democratization of information a big idea. I agree that political liberals have not made it a core element of the platform, as evidenced by the muted debate about net neutrality. I can't imagine it spawning a movement equivalent to the women's or labor movements, but that could just be a failure of imagination.

Conservatives are still trying to implement Goldwater's ideas, as well as the neo-con and culture war initiatives of the late 1970s and 80s, so the ideas still have potency. They've been successful on guns and somewhat successful on taxes and deregulation, though not nearly as much as they'd like. Culture war goals like banning abortion still largely elude them.

As I mentioned previously, liberals are a victim of their own success. For instance, feminism is a dwindling issue on college campuses largely because the women's movement was so successful (which is not to say that its work is done).

Not sure about this,

quinn esq — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:04:34 +0000

In reply to I'm somewhat familiar with

Not sure about this, "liberals haven't produced any new big ideas since the 1960s."

That is, the Conservatives haven't really either, as you can trace the rise of the Right back at least to the 1960's and Goldwater.

Now, I'm not sure you can really credit "liberals" with producing them, and yes (as always) the roots run deeper, but the environmental movement, as well as the latest wave of the women's movement, really launched in a mass way in the late 60's and 1970's.

Since then, we've also seen the rise of the Internet, and oddly-enough, I'd argue that much of its culture and m.o. flow from the environmental movement as well as liberal ideals. Yes, there's a "libertarian" element (though you might just as easily label it "anarchist"), but whatever it is, it's not "conservative" in the traditional sense (of authority, hierarchy, etc.); nor is it a creature of the rich; nor is it being created or controlled by existing large corporations; etc.

In short, there are lots of ideas out there large enough to spawn world-changing movements - which in turn generate more ideas. What I would argue is that the "liberal" political creed hasn't done the serious work of fully-integrating and transforming its beliefs with these views at the center, as opposed to merely attempting to incorporate them as "special interests."

I'm somewhat familiar with

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:29:42 +0000

In reply to Just to elaborate a bit,

I'm somewhat familiar with the efficacy of scare tactics. ;)

But I wasn't really addressing positive vs negative tactics so much as new vs old ideas. Even scare stories get stale. In the 70s and 80s, the right was obsessed with secular humanism. There were books, documentaries, and parent meetings about it. You never hear the word anymore.

The left does it too. Two years ago, no one had even heard of the Koch brothers. Now it turns out that they're vanguard of the evil corporate oligarchs, and liberals feel obliged to curse them every third breath. In another two years, I expect that we'll be on to some new villain.

The most powerful new ideas, however, tend to be the big positive ideas that drive movements. Those movements may incorporate both positive and negative tactics. Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative sparked an ideological revolution on the right that led to Ronald Reagan's presidency. It also spawned two spinoffs, neo-conservatism and cultural conservatism, which contributed to Gingrich's Republican Revolution, George W. Bush's presidency, and the Tea Parties.

By contrast, liberals haven't produced any new big ideas since the 1960s. That's why we're now forced into the position of struggling to sustain the fruits of our old big ideas.

Just to elaborate a bit,

AmericanDreamer — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:19:01 +0000

In reply to Let's go with new good

Just to elaborate a bit, psychological research (applicable beyond late 20th/early 21st century American subjects, who relatively speaking, if not always as they see it, materially and with respect to personal freedoms "have" a lot?) confirms what community and labor organizers know--that people will do more to avoid a perceived harm than to attain a perceived good.

The fundraising appeals the Dems and Reps send out don't lead with "we have some new ideas to make a better society". First they establish a narrative whereby the reader is reminded that s/he is under assault by the bad guys. If it's a Dem letter it's the Republicans who are bound and determined to destroy our middle class. If it's a Rep letter it's the socialistic Democrats who despise your success and will stop at nothing to take it away from you.

Remember the conversation we had awhile back on victim envy, not as something limited to one political philosophy or party but as, arguably, a cultural characteristic? All of that is rooted in a belief, pretty well-founded, that if you're trying to get people to do something the best short-term thing you can do is get them worked up about the injustices that are being inflicted on them by those so-and-so bad guys.

I am suggesting that I think this is a "good" thing, just that this seems to be the (dominant--some people don't just they are repelled by negative appeals while responding to them anyway, but really are repelled by negative appeals; some people are motivated to a far greater degree by positive, non-protective aspirations) the way things are.

It is not at all unproblematic. One could make a case that these dominant tendencies don't just reflect, but actually foster, conflict and social discord, and undermines the kind of social trust that arguably is necessary to create a society founded on a much broader and deeper sense of mutuality, or solidarity, if you will.

Let's go with new good

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 05:30:42 +0000

In reply to What do you mean by "new"

Let's go with new good ideas.

You don't necessarily need new ideas if you're still fighting for old ones. But the progressive movement is a victim of its success. Labor made huge strides in the first half of the 20th century, which paved the way for the growing middle class of the second half. Since then, labor gains have been very small by comparison.

In the 60s, progressives shifted their focus to civil rights, race/gender equality, and safety nets. Again, they made huge strides. And the gains since the 1970s have again been relatively small. HCR is the last of the Great Society objectives.

The question is what's next? Where do we go from here?

Doing.more.than.treading.wate

LisB — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 05:21:44 +0000

In reply to Learn.to.jump.in.a.lake.dude.

Doing.more.than.treading.water.helps.

even better

kyle flynn — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 03:54:03 +0000

In reply to Learn.to.jump.in.a.lake.dude.

even better