The 20th century liberal legacy and myth of conservative primacy

[_Jumper_]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/02/22/the_liberal_legacy/

<In 1980, when the Republicans won the presidency and the Senate for only the second time in 50 years, the liberal-vs.-conservative score wasn't 0-0. The bluster of nearly every conservative talk-show host, however, is designed to distract their listeners from one overriding point: No matter who wins the presidency this year, the last century went to liberals -- and there's no going back.>

. . .

<Consider a short and incomplete list of 20th-century liberal triumphs, all vehemently opposed by conservatives at the time: the Federal Reserve System; the federal income tax; women's suffrage; federal deposit insurance; Social Security; the investor protections of the Securities Acts of 1933 and `34; public power; unemployment compensation; the minimum wage; child labor laws; the 40-hour work week; the Wagner Act, which gave private-sector workers collective bargaining rights; the Civil Rights Act; the Voting Rights Act; federal fair housing laws; Medicare; federally sponsored guaranteed student loan programs; Head Start; food stamps.>

<Nixon permitted his labor department to introduce regulations that created the first "affirmative action" programs, and created the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Reagan may have denounced "big government," but can you name one federal agency that he eliminated? Apparently he was too busy helping to "save Social Security" (remember the Greenspan Commission?) and close corporate tax loopholes. Republicans don't even talk about eliminating Cabinet departments anymore. Rather, George W. Bush has expanded the Cabinet for the first time in 15 years -- while also significantly expanding the federal role in education, creating a Medicare drug benefit, and enacting the first progressive campaign-reform bill in nearly 30 years.>

<Even the House of Representatives has gotten into the act. When Medicare was passed in 1965, exactly 10 House Republicans voted against making the program voluntary rather than mandatory -- the key vote in the Medicare debate. Just last month, over 200 Republican House members supported the prescription drug benefit. Whatever the flaws in the president's version, a social program costing more than $500 billion over 10 years can hardly be considered "conservative.">

[Skinner]

1. That's a great read. Thanks for posting it.

I think the author makes a very interesting point, and I think there is some truth to it.

My personal opinion is that conservatives can succeed in forcing some short-term rollbacks. But the general long-term trend is toward greater tolerance of others, greater interdependence, greater freedom for people to live life how they want, more cooperation rather than confrontation, greater compassion toward others. In short, toward more liberal society.

This reminds me of another interesting read. For those of you with a knowledge of game theory... In the book "Nonzero," author Robert Wright makes a compelling case that successful human societies move toward greater "non-zero-sum" relationships, and fewer "zero-sum" relationships. He argues that this trend is occurs naturally, in an almost Darwinian way. Greater "non-zero-sum" relationships are "adaptive" and provide clear advantages to society.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Thanks for the Wright reference.

I hadn't been aware of it.

[_Jumper_]

5. I agree

I think many conservatives realize this on a subconcious level and that is why they are so angry.

[boobooday]

3. The Age of Reason

Yes! If we are truly in an age of reason, and information, the liberalism must follow.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[kaitykaity]

4. A well-deserved kick.

:kick:

It's time to reclaim the "L" word, goddamnit.