The age of Obama promises the rebirth of US liberalism

When in college, I flirted a bit with conservatism. I was mostly doing it to shock my father, and I quickly discovered that my heart really wasn't in it. But it was a useful experience, because it spurred dear dad to initiate some conversations with me. In essence, what he impressed upon me was the need to see the world through eyes other than my own. Try to examine events from the perspectives of poor people or striking workers or what have you. If you emerge from this process a conservative, he suggested, that's life. But at least understand that politics is a competition of interests, and that your self-interest as a relatively privileged young man may sometimes be outweighed by other interests.

Later, I understood that my father's lesson was in fact a profound one of political philosophy, considered by thinkers from Rousseau to Mill to the American founding fathers, among others. At what point did one's conception of a good society require a person to sublimate his own interests in support of a larger common interest? I was mulling all these matters during the age of Ronald Reagan's ascendance, when they were decidedly unpopular. And I can see why. By 1980, many middle-class Americans had come to feel that liberal governance was demanding far too much sacrifice of them.

The part of the social compact that had broken down was this. Since the 1930s, Americans had been asked to pay higher taxes, submit to greater regulation and so on. But for three or four decades most felt it was worth the trade-off. These middle-class people (mostly white) were getting something out of it: an enviable standard of living, and a fundamentally stable society. By the 1970s, they were getting stagnant wages, high crime and myriad other maladies. At the same time, liberalism kept up the fight for rights for various aggrieved groups: a noble battle, but, shorn of its connection to any larger common interest, an uphill one.

It was easy for Reagan, Newt Gingrich and, eventually, the cretins on Fox News to caricature this. And this is the short version of the long story of US liberalism's 40-year demise: from a creed that many Americans embraced because they saw that it served both their interests and a larger common good, to an ideology that many Americans rejected because it seemed to stand only for "regular" people paying ever higher taxes so that fornicators could have more rights and artists could insult America with taxpayer-funded grants.

Now we are in the age of Barack Obama. Now it's conservatism that has broken down and contracted into a narrow ideology. And Obama's project is nothing less than to revive this pre-1970s conception of liberalism as an ongoing civic project to which all contribute and from which all benefit. It was there in his inaugural speech when he spoke of "the price and the promise of citizenship", and it's present in his early proposals. The stimulus package that he began negotiating with congressional leaders last week is an audacious experiment along these lines. Let's invest these billions together, he is saying, and in time the investments will bear fruit and benefit everyone.

The gamble is clear. The stimulus has to work. Whatever healthcare proposal he advances will have to be broadly seen as an improvement over what we have now. The energy proposals will entail new costs for businesses. There's no avoiding that, and there's no avoiding that some of those costs will be passed on to ratepayers. But if they produce good jobs, green jobs, a more modern policy in which most Americans see that slightly higher rates are worth it in terms of producing both a stronger economy and a healthier planet, they'll be broadly endorsed.

The same is true in terms of foreign policy. For 28 years, the American right has said: America first. The appeal to average citizens was clear, especially when set against liberal arguments of the 60s and 70s that America should restrain its hegemonic urges. But in the last eight years people have seen that "America first" doesn't always leave America in first place. Obama's calls for a new multilateralism and a new relationship to the Muslim world will take a long time to show themselves and will be highly contentious here. But if they make us stronger and the world safer, most Americans will come to see the wisdom of sacrificing some power upfront.

The remarkable thing is that according to the polls, large majorities understand all this. We're not a nation of amateur political philosophers debating Locke down at the bowling alley. What we are is a practical people, and after the wreckage left by Bush, the above seems practical. And if it works, Obama will make us a liberal country again, in which a mostly forgotten tradition of shared sacrifice for the common good will be reasserted. Dad would have been 84 if he'd lived to see Obama take the oath of office last week. He'd have been moved to tears at the sight - and as I learned from him all those years ago, he'd have understood precisely what the new president was up to.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/26/tomasky-obama-us-liberalism

I am sick and tired of "liberal" being used as a bad word of some kind by so many people. Liberal/progressive when compared to conservative is the better way to be. Even in the dictionary definitions of the words, liberal is better. I don't think anyone can convince me otherwise. Moderate is ok, but I prefer liberal. Screw conservative, except when it comes to pinching pennies, within reason. On social issues though, liberal is the only humane, moral, ethical way to be.

:woohoo: The most liberal senator of 2007 (source: National Journal Yearly Senate Rankings) won the presidency!! :party:

"We're not a nation of amateur political philosophers debating Locke down at the bowling alley. What we are is a practical people..."

It's especially insidious because the entire basis of his "thought" rests upon deceptively trading on a manufactured ambiguity. On the one hand, there's the Obamian contrast between practical (yay!) and ideological (boo!). Under the cover of night, the author attempts to parlay this contrast into a complete abomination: between "practical" ("yay!") and intellectual (boo!)

The idea of counting the intellectual, the theoretical as being on the "bad" side is simply laughable. As the media literally always encourages us - the ignorant populace - to do, such an accounting constitutes nothing so much as the deliberate wiping of the record about *who correctly foresaw the various trainwrecks (Iraq, subprime, etc.) Those profs and others who got it right weren't just randomly guessing, people.

There's a moral available to be learned: Practicality - the real, genuinely good one (opposed to ideology) - the Obamian notion, set adrift completely alone, will always be nothing more than a blind and uninformed practicality. The author comes uncomfortably close to spilling the beans on this when he slides - without so much as batting an eye - from "practical" to "seems practical". Talk of people doing what "seems practical" is just another way of expressing the the ignorant nature going-it-solo "practicality" (that's why the word "seems" exists, after all).

What's needed is not simply the semblance of practicality, the mere aspiration to practicality, as distinguished (per Obama) from ideology, but moreover this aspiration needs to be augmented by actual knowledge and intellectual horsepower in order to achieve its goals. And in fact, the intellectual horsepower needed to fuel the aspiration to practicality is one of the most highly cherished of all of Obama's good qualities. (Well, maybe not so cherished by the author, I suppose.)

In the context of the author's actual article, it's amusing to close by noting that nowhere in the author's extensive revisionist travels through yesteryear does he ask the question: What if, in the run-up to all of those historical American trainwrecks, the American people HAD BEEN "amateur political philosophers debating Locke" - i.e., possessed of a certain amount of *real* intellectual oomph, which could have provided the blind "seems practical" with the force required to get over the hump, and becoming *true* practicality?

Clearly it would not behoove the author of this article to have asked that particular question - although the question is the most natural one in the world, after reading the article. But while the author endangered the convincingness (better: *semblance* of convincingness) of his thought by blithely tossing in the "seems practical" phrase, that faux rhetorical force would have simply vanished into smoke (poof!) had he included that world's-most-natural question.

Republicans are in denial, too, as they say the same thing as DLC DUers. Gawd forbid they admit
that a bonafide liberal is/can be more popular than any president for decades.

Kucinich and Gravel would be left wing, but even that is only in the context of the Democratic party. The left comprises a lot more than just Democrats. Compared to many outside of the Dem party, even DK is a centrist. It's all relative, and it's one of the things about DU that always amuses me. We really do tend to forget that there's so much further one could go to the left or right than just Democrats and Republicans. In that simple binary context Obama certainly does seem more liberal. In the context of the full political spectrum he seems a centrist.

The trouble you're having is that a lot of people say it as an insult, which is what I'm guessing bothers you. But he really is, and when I say it I don't mean it as an insult. It's just a recognition of the extent of the full political spectrum that extends on both sides beyond Democrats and Republicans.

Gawd forbid they admit that a bonafide liberal is/can be more popular than any president for decades.

Changes nothing that I say above. A liberal can be a centrist, and vice versa. Again, the political spectrum is a wide one, and Obama simply doesn't venture far from that center.

Also, the "center" to me isn't just one single spot on a political line. If we envision the political spectrum as scale of between 1 and 100, the center would be between 40-60 to me, not just right smack dab on 50. So a centrist can wiggle a little to each side, and this is what Obama is doing, has said he would do, and will continue to do throughout his presidency.

I enjoy your philosophical perspective and I understand your viewpoint. However, I am eschewing intellectualism in
favor of the sum of his actions as President so far. All the executive orders he has signed since Tuesday have been
unabashedly liberal. They have been criticized on the right as anything but centrist despite some GOP pre-inaugural
assertions that Obama is "the first independent president," "a centrist," etc.

On the other hand, most liberals heartily approve of what he's done in the past four six days. I view Barack as a wily
lifelong liberal who has learned to carefully cloth himself as a temperamental moderate in order to build bipartisan
consensus and public support. He knows how to speak in the plainspoken Midwestern language of his grandparents
which appeals to the center but is not in and of itself politically centrist in the way moderate Republicans and Third Way/
DLC/DINOs think of themselves or would act in Barack's place.

P.S. I like your dragon. How do I get one?

However, I am eschewing intellectualism in favor of the sum of his actions as President so far.

Ok, but by doing this we're constricting the talk to that binary context I spoke of. Within that framework Obama is easily more liberal than right wing. But outside of a place like DU we can't really ignore the rest of the spectrum. A far leftie on DU is usually a lot more moderate than many true far lefties I've known off of DU. DU really only has a small handful of people that are further left than the Democratic Party allows.

They have been criticized on the right as anything but centrist

But he's also been criticized on the left as being anything but liberal as well. The fact that he catches hell from both sides tells me he's fairly centrist.

I view Barack as a wily lifelong liberal who has learned to carefully cloth himself as a temperamental moderate in order to build bipartisan consensus and public support.

I hope you're right, and suspect there's some truth to this. I've always been open about the fact that he's not my first choice. I consider myself on the left edge of the Dem party, and I personally would like to see someone closer aligned with my own thinking (who doesn't?). My hope is that Obama can lay the groundwork for an even more aggressive approach on issues like climate change and human rights. Climate change especially seems like a train barreling it's way at us, and I think the time is fast approaching where we're going to need something far bolder and dramatic than anything on the Democrat's table right now.

I understand that right now America isn't ready for a snap from the far right to the far left, but we need one desperately. But Obama may be what the country needs short term right now, and with some luck, he can lay the foundations for what we need long term.

A friend of mine made a great point though about Obama being called a liberal, and why that's a good thing. If Obama goes on to do really well (and he has that ability, no doubt) than we can say to the Repubs and others that those liberal policies weren't so bad after all, were they? Maybe he can make the word liberal something that people embrace again of instead of run away from.

As for the mini Godzilla....here's a link.

mania.co.uk/movies/Godzilla/

Just copy the gif image addy into your sigline box and viola! :)

Which is why I use it. Of course, your intellectual flexibility in viewing him within a political continuum is valid from an academic
stamdpoint (and I must repeat that it is refreshing to encounter 3D thoughtful replies here at DU GDP of all places) but it is not
practical for my basic purposes of DUer elucidation.

The fact that he catches hell from both sides tells me he's fairly centrist.

Since polls have shown that he gets overwhelming support (close to 90%) from self-identified liberals while receiving only a small
(less than 20%) fraction of support from self-identified conservatives, I feel safe saying that most liberals are quite happy with his
actions thus far. The media reports of disgruntled liberals have been greatly exaggerated as is their wont.


My hope is that Obama can lay the groundwork for an even more aggressive approach on issues like climate change and human
rights.

I have no doubt he will.

Maybe he can make the word liberal something that people embrace again of instead of run away from.

He already has. That is why some DLCers and GOPers want to insist that he is a centrist to forestall your hope as long as they can.
It's too late to put their fingers in the dike, though. Rahm Emanuel recently declared himself a liberal on Meet The Press. The dike
is cracking and soon the liberal floodwaters will claim the political landscape, drawing admiring followers from among pro-Obama
forces everywhere. Independents, having already gone from right-leaning to left-leaning since the arc of Obama's campaign
verged into victory, will continue their journey to the political Promised Land, while moderate Republicans become one of them
out of embarrassment of the (R) label. In fact, thanks to Karl Rove, being a Republican has become a pariah term and liberals
are newly proud. Ain't life grand?

As for the mini Godzilla....here's a link.

Thanks. I love dragons; they're in my bloodline. ;)

FDR created the post-WW2 Liberal vision of America and JFK and LBJ tried to perfect it.

My Millennial Generation is the most Democratic generation since the WW2 Generation (which voted 86% for FDR in 1936).

You know the board where being a progressive is tantamount to wearing a target. And words like leftist and extremist are used to identify anyone left of center right.

My guess is probably not.


What I am trying to say is beware defining liberalism by one man's position it may end up redefining liberalism. And that my friend is exactly what the right wants.

Good points.

You've noticed that, too, eh? Sometime it seems the DLC astroturfs certain blogs.

Go to the Greatest page!

Really good think piece. It IS true that sometimes the interests of the individual are trumped by the interests of the greater good. And we are now in one of those periods where the greater good composes The Most Urgent priority of all.