Liberalism before the 60s

[ginnyinWI]

This is a rather wonky article (hi TayTay) which tells how the intellectual liberals (like Arthur Schlesinger Jr.) in the 40s and 50s laid down solid arguments for the liberal view of geo-politics, and how the 60s era of activism was relatively less effective. He argues that we need to go back to those earlier days and build up the left with something substantial rather than just go out and protest in the streets.

Some good points, although I think a little well-timed protest is also good. It just can't be the only thing we do. I might get the book that this article is based on--interesting ideas. It compares what the left was doing in the 60s (protest marches) with what the right was doing (building up their think-tanks and forming well-thought-out policies).

oh yeah, the link: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=9366

Kerry references:

"If we take these lessons seriously, our biggest challenge moving ahead is how to articulate our opposition to the right’s well-developed agenda while simultaneously developing a public philosophy like that of the ’48ers. The need for this became abundantly clear in the last presidential election. John Kerry lost because Americans didn’t understand what he stood for. They understood him as an opposition candidate but not as someone who had “values” that could be articulated and explained. This wasn’t just Kerry’s problem; it is the problem of liberalism generally. The public perceives liberalism negatively, due to the long war the right waged against it from the 1960s onward. Unlike the ’48ers, we cannot assume that our ideas resonate; we need to make them resonate.

To rearticulate liberal ideals while acting in opposition is not as hard as first appears. Take Social Security. Clearly, Bush is surprised by the backlash against privatization, as he scrambles around the country garnering support. This appears a dream come true for progressives, but it’s much more. It’s a challenge to articulate not just opposition but a public philosophy that can explain what liberals stand for. We shouldn’t defend a program inherited from the New Deal in a rearguard fashion but should reiterate the idea of a shared national purpose based on collective sacrifice.

Nor should we turn this into a demographic issue and bank on the elderly supporting Democrats; that’s interest-group politics, not a long-range public philosophy. We need to explain what Social Security teaches the nation about deeper principles. Why do Americans react against the term “privatize”? Because there is still a sense of shared obligation to one another, and it’s up to liberals to articulate that public philosophy while they oppose the president. We can show how the president’s proposal reflects the “social imbalance” the ’48ers perceived, the elevation of the self’s interest above the common good. None of this requires protest. It requires public argument. The time for protest may come, but it will undoubtedly rely on a change of leadership first and serious thinking about strategy later.

The same needs to be done on foreign policy. It’s not good enough to protest the Iraq War. Occasionally, Kerry articulated an alternative, albeit muted, to Bush’s foreign policy that embraced the ’48er idea of national humility and a critique of hubris. Today, we need to articulate this liberal foreign policy more forcefully. Its central message should be that American responsibility abroad shouldn’t rely on guns alone or a sense of superior moral virtue. Liberals should argue for nurturing civil society and democratic institutions throughout the world, envisioning an equivalent of the Marshall Plan for the Middle East and elsewhere. Liberals need to emphasize that the war against terrorism is a war of ideas as much as a war of military power and intelligence. Like the ’48ers, liberal intellectuals should define America abroad as more than just its well-known Hollywood films. We need not allow Bush to expropriate the rhetoric of democracy and freedom; we need to reshape these ideas in a more responsible and meaningful manner. "

[whometense]

1. Hi Ginny,

We may be the only two up. It's a sleepy rainy morning here.

Great article. I like this bit:

. Occasionally, Kerry articulated an alternative, albeit muted, to Bush�s foreign policy that embraced the �48er idea of national humility and a critique of hubris. Today, we need to articulate this liberal foreign policy more forcefully. Its central message should be that American responsibility abroad shouldn�t rely on guns alone or a sense of superior moral virtue. Liberals should argue for nurturing civil society and democratic institutions throughout the world, envisioning an equivalent of the Marshall Plan for the Middle East and elsewhere. Liberals need to emphasize that the war against terrorism is a war of ideas as much as a war of military power and intelligence.

Although I'd argue that Kerry (in the NY Times magazine article) expressed these ideas very forcefully. It's too bad there wasn't a Greek chorus of high-ranking Dems reinforcing and emphasizing what he was saying in an organized way.

The Amperican Prospect is my favorite political magazine - it's smart and reasonable. I get the Nation too, but it pisses me off as often as I agree with it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

2. "The American Prospect is my favorite political magazine"

Mine too. There were a few post-election articles that I felt weren't fair about Kerry, but overall, the content is great. It is liberal (unlike TNR, which is basically so far right it's "independent"), but reasonable (unlike "The Nation," which publishes that insufferable blowhard Alexander Cockburn, who couldn't say a nice thing about a Dem with a gun to his head).

[ginnyinWI]

3. I liked that part too

And I do blame the party for not having a clearly articulated position. Kerry should only have had to chime in with what was already out there--instead his message on foreign policy was a brand new idea, and was either misunderstood, spun negatively by the Bushies, or just didn't sink into peoples' heads.

Right now the Dems are an opposition party, and Kerry ran as an opposition candidate mostly, but if we are going to be stronger that has to change--we have to stand for something in the public's minds.

I'm wondering whether to subscribe to the American Prospect. I get The Nation now, and read the rest online. But it's nicer to have a copy of something in your hands to read.

[sandnsea]

4. You have got to be kidding me

These people screamed and hollered that Kerry should be anti-war and didn't want to hear anything about foreign policy. And when he talked about foreign policy, they chimed in and said it was all the same, "stay the course" bullshit. NOW they want to talk about foreign policy???

Fuck these people. I am soooo fed up with this shit.

[whometense]

5. I finally got a chance to sit down

and read the article. (My magazine just came in today's mail.) I think maybe I'll need to read it a few more times to really absorb it. I found this paragraph eye-opening.

This is the ugly legacy of 1968: the authenticity of conscience pitted against the requirements of a pluralistic and conflicted society, the ethic of expression winning out against all other aims, including practicality. "Direct nonviolent action"� no longer means what King believed it meant; it now means remaining pure by turning "Your Back on Bush," as recent protesters did at the inauguration, even if the result wasn't anything more than making them feel better. Expressive anti-politics is the last refuge of the powerless. Impulsive, it bursts like a flame and then burns out, to be felt only in the heart of the participant while the ruling class, unperturbed, goes on its merry way.

There's more than a bit of truth to this. And to my mind, no matter what he says about Kerry I pretty much discount it. One man can only do so much. In fact the more I think about the election, the more amazed I am at what Kerry was able to accomplish on his own, and with grassroots support, but with almost no institutional backing except for what came from the very new 527's.

I felt a little guilty reading this. I am unquestionably a child of the 60's - street theater is part of my world. But I do get his point, and think it a valid one.

[sandnsea]

6. I agree totally with the anti-politics

We can't always be the party that's stopping this and that and never getting behind something new and innovative for the future. Too bad some of these people refused to listen when people from the campaign were trying to explain that last year. That's the part that pisses me off.

[whometense]

7. Agree.

Oh boy, do I ever.

I am hoping that at some point the finger pointing and blaming will just get old. And that some SELF-evaluation might take its place.

One thing for sure, Kerry is doing everything right. As he comes out with positive message after positive message, and presents his (normal) dignified self, is it futile to hope that people will start to - um - shall we say, compare and contrast??????

[TayTay]

9. I agree as well.

The Democrats have their issues. They are not wanting for ideas. They need to stand up and say what they believe. I think Kerry is doing this, as are a few others. I think Joe Biden is now part of the problem. His foreign policy seems to be 'whatever the rethugs say, only double it.' This is not an origianl vision. It is a betrayal of liberal values.

The traditional liberal concerns of poverty, labor, education, social safety nets and advancing opportunity for those without are still there. But they have to be articulated by more than just the quadrennial nominee. (John Kerry couldn't do this on his own. He needed consistentcy from the support staff and the other national Dem pols. And in order to do that, we need a permanent infrastructure. and so it goes.)

I agree with the part about protest. I mean, come on, the RW nuts co-opted the protest tactics of years gone by and used them last week to push for lunatic ideas. Yeah, I think protest has to be rethought.

[whometense]

12. That's really funny,

my psychic sister. The very person I was thinking of in my response above was Biden.

In the same issue of the Prospect there's a very interesting article about Holy Joe that had steam coming out of my ears for the same reason. Here: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=9348

Opposition to Lieberman is driven by the sense that at a time when Democrats are seeking to achieve unity, and liberals are seeking to construct a new infrastructure comparable to the one the conservative movement has built over the past 30 years, Lieberman is uninterested in acting as a team player. Postings on the Dump Joe e-mail list cite his willingness to disparage fellow Democrats on FOX News, often alongside his “good friend” Sean Hannity, as evidence of his unacceptability.

While other Democrats saw Condoleezza Rice’s secretary-of-state nomination as a useful opportunity to critique the administration’s foreign policy, Lieberman not only voted to confirm her, he went beyond the principle of deference to the president’s choices to wax effusive. “It is important,” he said, “that the world not only knows that this secretary of state has the ear of the president, but that she has, if you will allow me to put it this way, America’s heart...”

[sandnsea]

14. That too

It definitely works from both sides. What a friggin' mess. Man am I grumpy today.

Sorry everybody.

[whometense]

15. That's okay.

We love you even when you're grumpy. :hug: Too many "DEAN PEOPLE" today? That would put anyone in a foul mood.

[sandnsea]

19. I'm actually disappointed

I expected more and was just dumb-founded by what I heard. And having a sinking feeling we've got alot more losses in store. I'm hoping other places have a better strategy.

[whometense]

21. My daughter's been going to

"Drinking Liberally" regularly, and she says it's amazing how easy it is to pick out the "DEAN PEOPLE" from the rest the minute you enter the room.

I won't bore you by rehashing all the old Dean stuff, but this stubborn messianic worship of him is plain weird. He's just a party moderate from Vermont. Not a prophet.

[TayTay]

16. Oh, gag me. That is disgusting

Joementum has got to go. If he gets any closer to the Rethugs, he is gonig to be eligible to be in a porn movie. Arrrrggghhhh! Somebody get the hose. Holy Joe is humping the President's leg again. Arrrgggghhhh!

Why is it so hard for Holy Joe to stand up and say he believes the Idiot King is wrong. That the Idiot King is harming America with his pre-emptive invasion of another country.

The Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive Assault is wrong, wrong, wrong. It will come back to bite us in the ass in the future. Holy Joe just seems to think it's muy macho and therefore a good thing. But a freaking clue Joe!

[whometense]

18. It gets even worse than that.

Such posturing turns liberal stomachs, but there’s more at stake here than digestive tracts. Lieberman’s acts of selective apostasy do real damage. While most Senate Democrats ultimately joined Lieberman in supporting the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, had it not been for Lieberman’s decision to join with Dick Gephardt in undermining the bipartisan compromise resolution being pushed by Senators Joe Biden and Dick Lugar, it might never have come to the floor at all. When the Abu Ghraib story broke last spring, it at first appeared that the Senate Republicans might buck tradition and mount a serious inquiry. The Armed Services Committee, which had oversight responsibility for the issue, contains several gop moderates, and independent-minded conservative Lindsey Graham was visibly horrified by the revelations.

Lieberman, however, was minimizing the importance of the affair right out of the gate. In his opening statement at the committee’s first hearing on the subject, Lieberman said he could not “help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, never apologized,” an argumentative move of dubious merits straight from the right-wing talk-radio handbook. “And those who murdered and burned and humiliated four Americans in Fallujah awhile ago never received an apology from anybody,” Lieberman continued, thus debuting as the Democratic Party’s leading apologist for torture.

Ack. It then goes on to point out how difficult it will be to unseat him if he doesn't sell out the dems on social security.

[sandnsea]

13. Image

People didn't vote for the Democratic Party, because it has an image people don't trust.

People at the local level can run and win as Democrats in all parts of the country, because of that "vouching" thing we were talking about a few days ago.

But when it comes to the Presidency, people are unclear on the image. Is it PETA? Is it that anti-WTO protestor with the cloth over his head and face? Is it free Mumia? Is it the human shields who went to Iraq?

Is it Lieberman? Biden? Kucinch? Who?

We do have to have a national infrastructure, but we've also got to have those local people who run to present a somewhat consistent message. And at the very least, to not bash other Democrats when they need to run slightly different. Like the idiots around here who insist on using the word gun grabber. Or, on the other side, the well-intentioned woman at my Dem meeting today who used the term "natural resources" instead of environment. Oy.

[ginnyinWI]

8. I didn't see the article as anti-Kerry

It was just pointing out the need to go further back than the 60s for our models for change. But I too am a child of the 60s, and I can't help but think all the demonstrating did some good. I mean look at Kerry and the VVAW. It showed the country what was going on. You can't get support for an idea if you don't get the idea out there somehow. And in this media-controlled age, we have fewer options for it. So I am inclined to agree with the article about building up a positive agenda, but am open to the need for some emotional grassroots appeals too. :hippie:

[TayTay]

10. And Kerry tired of the 'street theater' antics

of the VVAW fairly early. That's why he sought to run for the Congress. It was an effort to work the system from the inside and try and affect change with direct action. It is just all too easy for popular protest to fracture into splinter groups that can't get along. (For all the reasons that we so often see at DU. The various factions compete with each other to see who is the purest of them all. Waste of time, IMHO.)

Grassroots protest can be re-invigorated. But it will involve ceding some control to those who are directly affected by the awful policies of this Admin. A genuine grassroots movement should involve the actual people, and some control that has been vested in spokesmen (and women) from academia, the media and business is going to have to devolve back to the ones who are affected. (Who needs health care and who should be speaking up for it?)

[whometense]

20. This thread is getting too wonky

I'm performing a citizen's intervention. Here.



Ok. That's better.

[ginnyinWI]

22. speech in pocket, as usual!

Just think: this guy's been a public speaker since at least 1971. That's 34 years, not counting college! Wow. This picture must have been taken 34 years ago, this month, right? That's when it all happened-- in April.

[whometense]

23. Didn't even notice

the speech - that is funny! And yes, 34 years ago almost exactly...

[TayTay]

24. You know, he ought to issue his own diet plan

Cuz I don't think that man has ever put on an ounce of weight since college. What the hell is up with that? I remember thinking that last summer when they would show Kerry and then show that piece of shit o'Neill and O'Neill looked like a friggin whale. And Kerry looked like he could still fit into his old Navy uniform. (Maybe even the dress white ones. Hmmmmm. Wow! That would be cool.)

Ahm, what was I saying again? I seem to have misplaced my wonk here. (Thanks Whome!)

[ginnyinWI]

25. always good to get your "wonk" derailed once in a while!

Yeah, I can't understand it when people never gain weight. No fair. He's really active and has a lot of nervous energy, I suppose. And from what I've read or heard, he doesn't eat much junk food. (?)

Al Franken asked Vanessa about it when she was on. She said he needs to eat a lot of food all the time. Franken responded that he wasn't going to vote for him, just for that. Then he said he was kidding. Franken is short and pudgy, isn't he? lol

haha--O'Neill looks definitely older and unhealthier than JK. Must be all of that hate! Hate and anger can do you in. Well even when young he was nothing to look at, the little twirp.

[whometense]

26. It's really unfair.

My husband, who's built just like JK, and also is full of nervous energy, can gain weight, but loses it SO easily. Needless to say, I'm not built that way. It continually pisses me off.

Just luck of the genetic makeup, I guess, though I like your theory about the unhealthiness of hate and anger.

[sandnsea]

11. It all depends

It's a matter of what the grassroots does. I think that the movements in the sixties also had a positive vision for the future which could be embraced by those in Congress and people in general. The protesters today don't. The left wing movement doesn't. It's stop the drilling. Stop logging. Stop the war. Stop the Patriot Act. I know that Kerry people spent the last two years trying to get people to move to a positive agenda. For sure people online tried, and many offline too. Kerry gave a foreign policy speech at CFR in early 2004 that was called one of the greatest foreign policy speeches in years. But because it mentioned James Baker and didn't call for ending the war, the left bashed it and missed everything else it had to say. So for these people to turn around NOW and say we need to have a positive agenda, and a foreign policy agenda, is just a bit over the top for me.

I posted those questions in my Dem meeting post for a reason. Building the party from the ground up? Not if it means the same thiing to other people as it means to the Dean people at my meeting. They seem to think that just because we say we're going to run local people and build the party from the grassroots up, that it's magically going to happen and change everything.

This article was just one more in a long line of so-called liberal experts who get it after it's way too damn late. Or those who still don't get it in other areas. And STILL won't admit that Kerry isn't the one who had it wrong and they missed the opportunity to support him and still won't because they're not capable of admitting their biases.

I'm not yelling at you, I'm just yelling.

[whometense]

17. Good point.

There were some things he said that stung, though - about the yippies becoming yuppies, for example. I know that's facile and punny, but there's a kernel of truth to it. I know way too many people who abandoned their sixties principles for a huge house.

I'm feeling pretty assaulted this week. There was yet ANOTHER article in the Prospect about the evil David Horowitz (David-Brock-in-reverse) tryimg to bully colleges into hiring more right wing faculty. A subject close to my heart (liberal academe, that is).

Oh - sorry - link: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=9349

Good issue.

[whometense]

27. Back to the wonk...

Digby has a really interesting post up http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_04_03_digbysblog_archive.html#111266314334089802 about this same article.

Back To The Future

I don't know who this group of hippie protester strawmen are in Kevin Mattson's cautionary tale in this months Prospect, but I've not had the pleasure. I don't think there exists a vast number of nostalgic baby boomers and utopian youngsters out there who are planning to launch another Summer of Love, unless he's specifically talking about the anti-Iraq war protests, which of course, he is, but won't admit it. That's because those war protesters weren't trying to hop on a nostalgic magic carpet ride back to the days of Hanoi Jane, they were participating in a worldwide protest about a very specific unjust war being launched by an illegitimate president --- a war which the "fighting liberals" like he and Peter Beinert foolishly endorsed. I suppose the fact that millions of people all over the globe also marched merely means that they too were recreating the alleged glory days of People's Park.

People will always take protests to the streets from time to time. The 60's liberals certainly didn't invent the tactic and the fact that liberals are associated with protesting has a lot more to do with an image propagated by the right than any real danger of a resurgent Yippie movement.

My instinctive reaction to this entire line of paranoid ramblings about the wild and crazy lefites making a big scene and ruining everything is that if this guy thinks that a bloodless, wonkish liberalism is ever going to compete with the right wing true believers he's got another thing coming. American liberalism grew out of a passionate progressivism and a worldwide union movement, both of which featured plenty of "protest politics" in their day. And if he thinks that the modern GOP's political might hasn't drawn much of its power from pulpits and talk radio demagoguery, then he hasn't been paying attention. Nobody does political theatre better than the right wing...