An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Liberalism unbound: Shifting the center of gravity in American politics
I’ve written a fairly long post with the above title over at The Reaction. I address centrism, moderation, liberalism, and the nature of American politics. My argument is that various factors, various forces, are pulling the center of gravity in American politics back to the left. Essentially, that is, back to where it belongs, back where it really is — in truth, not perception. Conservatives have defined the parameters of American politics for a generation. That is finally changing as liberals reassert themselves.
Given the length and nature of the post, I decided against re-posting it here. But I invite you all to have a look and, if you so desire, to let me know what you think.
Click here.
6 Responses to “Liberalism unbound: Shifting the center of gravity in American politics”
50 years ago Cons supported segregation.
100 years ago Cons were against suffrage.
150 years ago slavery and child labor were defended by Cons.
200 years ago Manifest Destiny was seen as noble by Cons.
The tide of ‘true’ liberalism- not bastardized offspring like capital F Feminazisn nor the like- is undaunted by two or three decade reactionary hiccups. Today Cons accept gays, even if they don;t like them, they accept blacks and others- at least in public. This is progress. Abortion is legal and likely to stay that way, for if the first high tide of Conservatism can’t change it, the second and third won’t, for politics is a spiral, a corkscrew. Each spiral up is a little higher in terms of liberties granted. Each spiral down is still higher up than the last low spiral. The next upward spiral of liberalism will se gay marriage cemented, abortion untouchable, and the one after that will take care of polygamists. The one after that will prob deal with eugenics and marriages betwen androids and humans.
However, perception parallaxes on a dime. Had Gore not been such an arrogant prick in 2000, he’d've beaten Bush handily, and be riding high in his final term, due to 9/11. There’d have been no massice tax breaks for the rich, this de facto depression that has hit the middle class would have been long over, and with four straight Dem Presidents and a fifth likely, the last fifteen years would be seen as a Golden Age for ‘liberalism’.
I’m sorry, but 50 years ago the Cons supported segregation? 150 years ago the Cons were in favor of slavery? What history book is this out of? Certainly you’re not ignoring the multitudes of Libs who wanted to keep segregation going. 91 House Democrats and 35 House Republicans voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, as did 22 Senate Democrats and six senate republicans. Do they all fall under “Conservatives” just to help your argument? Albert Gore Sr falls under the conservative banner? (Though to his credit, he regretting casting his vote in opposition)
Now, conservatives have certainly not been perfect throughout history, but the idea that Everything Cons Do = Bad, Everything Liberals Do = “Good and Wonderful Chocolate happy time” really must stop.
I’m sure if asked TMV could come up with five good things that have happened under Conservative and Liberal administrations, as well as five bad things. But most on the left today (at least on this campus) would rather get shot before they say one nice thing about conservatives.
And before you argue likewise about conservatives, let me say that I opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and though while I disagree with 85% his policies, I would never go around talking about “Vince Foster” or “KKKlintoon” – it’s just over the line.
So here’s my question: Can you bring yourself to say ANYTHING nice about conservatives or republicans, or do you just think they’re fire-breathing religious fundie gay-killing muslim hating paedophiliac monsters who should be executed on site? (Okay, I exaggerate, but you understand my point)
Babganoosh from what I can tell you aren’t from, or never have lived in the south. Those democrats you point out from 1964 are known as dixie-crats. Dixie-crats became republicans after the “southern strategy” was use by the republican party, playing to the racist tendancies of that former group peeling them away from the democratic party. Thing is some of those new republicans were still liberal in some ways (welfare for big business, love of spending tax money, nation building, morality peddling), and became what is known as a neo-con. Thus making the neo-con the grandsons of the former racist, homo hating, fire breathing types you said to avoid pointing out. Btw I have the right to point them out because I grew up with this very type of republicans all around me, only to watch them recently question their mantras with a large grin on my face.
I miss the GOP as it was before being invaded by the lowbrow knuckle dragging neo-cons.
Btw, your apparent revulsion of uber lefties on your campus is understandable, but turning further to the right, and possible worship of neo-cons is more disturbing. My reason is the uber left will never get what they want, but the uber right is currently getting what they want to the country’s detrement, problem is they aren’t conservatives, they are only socially conservative which violates true conservative principals of staying out of the public’s business.
“…violates true conservative principals of staying out of the public’s business.”
Now this is certainly a statement I can agree with, and I have been repulsed by much of the right’s antics as of late (though I have been humoured as well, like the time Tom Delay thought about bringing up an ethics charge), but my general point was in regards to the first four lines of Cosmoetica’s comment about “The Cons” being imperialist, racist, sexist, et cetera, while absolving all liberals of any mistakes they have made. I just think it’s ridiculous to be making statements like the four made in the first comment. Conservatives have made their fair share of errors (I’m looking at you George Bush’s dad), but I just find it very rare these days (ie, I’ve never seen it) for anyone of the leftist persuasion to say anything positive about those on the right.
Ok, I understand what you mean. Liberals have thier own pasts to own up to as well, you are correct. Thing is the worst the liberals have against them tend not to be as, well, disgusting to use a word, as the “conservatives”, and I use that term loosely. Neo-cons is more like it. To be honest if you took the furthest right, and left and dumped them off a cliff I wouldn’t lose a bit of sleep. GHWB wasn’t as bad as Regan if you ask me, since he reeled in the deficit which Regan was scared of doing because it required taxing people (I.E. rich people). I guess you can call me someone of the leftist persuasion (populist-libertarian-with conservative overtones) if that makes sense LOL. And I find, if you can fathom it, Pat Buchanan to be a refreshing viewpoint from the right. Goldwater in his later years was a good example of what I think a conservative should aspire to be. Hell Nixon would be a good replacement right now LOL. I really like how Trent Lott has snapped back against the fakes in his party. I could go on but I’d really have to go through a bunch of people, so I’ll leave you with this….decent enough for ya?
Baba:
I used the word Con for a reason. there are Con Dems, a few still, and Lib Reps- even fewer. That you cannot understanf the diff between political theory and political party is sad, but indicative of why this country’s politics is so vile, and most decent people turn off to it.
Even Bill Buckley recently stated his biggest error was being against the ’64 Civil Rights bill.
A little less personal angst and bioas, and a little more clarity is in order.
I am neither a Dem nor Rep, BTW. The former are nihilistic and w/o ideals, while the latter are without any semse of ethos. This is why I urge people to vote 3rd, 4th, and 5th party.
In my lifetime, there has not been a good Prez: LBJ did some social good, but castrated his own long term goals with genocide in Vietnam. Nixon made LBJ’s mess worse, and went bonkers insane to boot- Watergate. Ford was not around long enough to do damage, but he helped cover up the warren Commission’s lies and pardoned Nixon: Thumbs down. Carter’s a great ex-President, but was in over his head. reagan bankrupted this nation, sent a generation into poverty, paid off his rich cronies, stabbed the middle class in the back, spat on the Constitution wityh Iran-Contra, then lucjed out when the Soviet Union finally fell, due to Harry Truman’s blue print from 40 years earlier. HST was prob the last GREAT Pres, BTW, with only the two Roosevelts sharing that honor this past century. Bush 1 continued Reagan’s disastrous fiscal policies, which led to the ’87-92 Depression- and yes, I mean by the pre-Nixonian standards. Clinton was arguably the best Pres of my lifetime, but he squandered any potential to get his balls licked by interns. Bush 2 has been an utter disaster on every front- neglect on the job, horrid economy, and an insane war to secure massive profits for the oil companies. He’s as close to a Rep LBJ as they come, although he has no Civil Rights bill to mitigate his crimes.
Were there any real justice in this world LBJ, Nixon, and now Bush 2 would have faced War Crimes Tribunals, while Reagan, Nixon, Clinton, and Bush 2 should have been successfuully impeached.
Of course, this is all pipe dreams. Why are there more negatives on the Rep side than Dem? Simple, they’ve won 7 of the 10 Prez elections in my life. Switch the score and there’d likely be a similar tally the other way. After all, Carter could also be indicted for his support of the Timorese Genocide.
Simply put, Baba, grow up, and read some history books.