[marden]

AN ARGUMENT FOR A NEW LIBERALISM
A Fighting Faith
by Peter Beinart
The New Republic Online

Post date: 12.02.04
Issue date: 12.13.04

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Ar...Liberalism.htm

On January 4, 1947, 130 men and women met at Washington's Willard Hotel to save American liberalism. A few months earlier, in articles in The New Republic and elsewhere, the columnists Joseph and Stewart Alsop had warned that "the liberal movement is now engaged in sowing the seeds of its own destruction." Liberals, they argued, "consistently avoided the great political reality of the present: the Soviet challenge to the West." Unless that changed, "In the spasm of terror which will seize this country ... it is the right--the very extreme right--which is most likely to gain victory."

During World War II, only one major liberal organization, the Union for Democratic Action (UDA), had banned communists from its ranks. At the Willard, members of the UDA met to expand and rename their organization. The attendees, who included Reinhold Niebuhr, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., John Kenneth Galbraith, Walter Reuther, and Eleanor Roosevelt, issued a press release that enumerated the new organization's principles. Announcing the formation of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the statement declared, "[B]ecause the interests of the United States are the interests of free men everywhere," America should support "democratic and freedom-loving peoples the world over." That meant unceasing opposition to communism, an ideology "hostile to the principles of freedom and democracy on which the Republic has grown great."

At the time, the ADA's was still a minority view among American liberals. Two of the most influential journals of liberal opinion, The New Republic and The Nation, both rejected militant anti-communism. Former Vice President Henry Wallace, a hero to many liberals, saw communists as allies in the fight for domestic and international progress. As Steven M. Gillon notes in Politics and Vision, his excellent history of the ADA, it was virtually the only liberal organization to back President Harry S Truman's March 1947 decision to aid Greece and Turkey in their battle against Soviet subversion.

But, over the next two years, in bitter political combat across the institutions of American liberalism, anti-communism gained strength. With the ADA's help, Truman crushed Wallace's third-party challenge en route to reelection. The formerly leftist Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) expelled its communist affiliates and The New Republic broke with Wallace, its former editor. The American Civil Liberties Union (aclu) denounced communism, as did the naacp. By 1949, three years after Winston Churchill warned that an "iron curtain" had descended across Europe, Schlesinger could write in The Vital Center: "Mid-twentieth century liberalism, I believe, has thus been fundamentally reshaped ... by the exposure of the Soviet Union, and by the deepening of our knowledge of man. The consequence of this historical re-education has been an unconditional rejection of totalitarianism."

Today, three years after September 11 brought the United States face-to-face with a new totalitarian threat, liberalism has still not "been fundamentally reshaped" by the experience. On the right, a "historical re-education" has indeed occurred--replacing the isolationism of the Gingrich Congress with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's near-theological faith in the transformative capacity of U.S. military might. But American liberalism, as defined by its activist organizations, remains largely what it was in the 1990s--a collection of domestic interests and concerns. On health care, gay rights, and the environment, there is a positive vision, articulated with passion. But there is little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda--even though totalitarian Islam has killed thousands of Americans and aims to kill millions; and even though, if it gained power, its efforts to force every aspect of life into conformity with a barbaric interpretation of Islam would reign terror upon women, religious minorities, and anyone in the Muslim world with a thirst for modernity or freedom.

When liberals talk about America's new era, the discussion is largely negative--against the Iraq war, against restrictions on civil liberties, against America's worsening reputation in the world. In sharp contrast to the first years of the cold war, post-September 11 liberalism has produced leaders and institutions--most notably Michael Moore and MoveOn--that do not put the struggle against America's new totalitarian foe at the center of their hopes for a better world. As a result, the Democratic Party boasts a fairly hawkish foreign policy establishment and a cadre of politicians and strategists eager to look tough. But, below this small elite sits a Wallacite grassroots that views America's new struggle as a distraction, if not a mirage. Two elections, and two defeats, into the September 11 era, American liberalism still has not had its meeting at the Willard Hotel. And the hour is getting late.

Maybe this will help bring America together, as long as the enemy doesn't drive a wedge between us, we can find unity as a nation.

What do you say?

[Spliffdaddy]

I used to think we were all Americans first - with our party affiliation being not as important.

Lately, I'm beginning to wonder if some Americans are unable to be Americans if their party isn't in power.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I used to think we were all Americans first - with our party affiliation being not as important.

Lately, I'm beginning to wonder if some Americans are unable to be Americans if their party isn't in power.

That's certainly the way it appears from an outside perspective ... though from this perspective it applies to both sides of the spectrum.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

That's certainly the way it appears from an outside perspective ... though from this perspective it applies to both sides of the spectrum.

Republicans did it to Clinton. Democrats do it to Bush.

"Gotcha" politics.

[spacefreak]

Domestic policy disputes are to be expected. When a nation is at war, that's a whole different ballgame.

You've never heard Republican leadership mimicking enemy talking points (or vice-versa) in a time of war. The same can not be said about Democratic leadership today.

[marden]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Domestic policy disputes are to be expected. When a nation is at war, that's a whole different ballgame.

You've never heard Republican leadership mimicking enemy talking points (or vice-versa) in a time of war. The same can not be said about Democratic leadership today.

You are using your ideals to judge them. They use their ideals to judge you.

The other will always fall short. It's like a man criticizing a woman because she doesn't have a pair. It's like a woman criticizing a man because he's not sensitive.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by marden

You are using your ideals to judge them. They use their ideals to judge you.

The other will always fall short. It's like a man criticizing a woman because she doesn't have a pair. It's like a woman criticizing a man because he's not sensitive.

Can you dispute my point?

[marden]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Can you dispute my point?

I think that's an example of what I mean. The Democrats believe that the most important thing is the integrity of the ideal of our freedoms and that a robust exercise of civil liberties during wartime is the essential aspect of importance. That a free discussion of secrets proves that America is great.

They believe if anyone tries to cut the freedoms they are weakening America.

[spacefreak]

The priority during wartime should be winning the war.

What freedoms are you referring to, and how has this so-called "weakening" of them affected anyone you know?

[marden]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

The priority during wartime should be winning the war.

What freedoms are you referring to,

Originally Posted by spacefreak

You've never heard Republican leadership mimicking enemy talking points (or vice-versa) in a time of war. The same can not be said about Democratic leadership today.

Originally Posted by spacefreak

and how has this so-called "weakening" of them affected anyone you know?

I was speaking of others.

Originally Posted by marden

The Democrats believe that the most important thing is the integrity of the ideal of our freedoms and that a robust exercise of civil liberties during wartime is the essential aspect of importance. That a free discussion of secrets proves that America is great.

They believe if anyone tries to cut the freedoms they are weakening America.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

The priority during wartime should be winning the war.

So what is your plan for a war we can't win?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

That a free discussion of secrets proves that America is great.

No you're not understanding. Free discussion of secrets makes the government have to answer to it's people about it's actions. It's not about showing off. It's about making your government accountable to you.

Liberals are about accountability. We aren't comfortable with a system in which voters cannot decide how a government should be run.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

When a nation is at war, that's a whole different ballgame.

... and the Neocons KNOW this. Which is why they knew that all they had to do was get the United States into a state of war and then they'd have carte blanche. Even better, if they could get the United States into an unending, nebulous war, then they would have carte blanche forever. They'd be able to concentrate the power in the hands of the few people that they already influenced and thereby have the strength to do what they think needs to be done to extend American hegemony into the New American Century.

So they declared a war on terror. Has there ever been a more nebulous definition of the enemy? Has there ever been a more vague war? Then they duped you into a war in Iraq by presenting fake witnesses that they found through the Iraqi National Congress, by exaggerating or completely making up intelligence and hyping Saddam's WMD capacity. And when that didn't work so well, they shifted it to a question of Iraqi human rights and when that didn't work so well they shifted it to a "Whatever mistakes we made, leaving would be worse" justification. Anything to maintain the state of war.

The Neocons have America over a barrel. They have you engaged in a war with no identifiable enemy and with no empirical measure of progress or victory. THEY decide when this war is over. In those circumstances, I cannot see how your reasoning can apply. I cannot see how you can expect people to just fall in line behind the President and suspend their own beliefs and criticisms indefinitely.

This Administration connived their way into a state of war and then predictably uses that very state of war to refute criticism as unpatriotic. This is not the time to be falling in line. This is the time to be speaking out.

A lot of us outside the US are horrified at what's gone on in the last 8 years. I wonder how many of you stop to think about what's happening there. You're having a national debate about what kinds of torture should be allowed for prisoners. You have hundreds of prisoners locked up in an American colony where they've been held for years without charge or trial. You have the government running secret foreign prisons and making people disappear to them from third countries in the middle of the night. You have prisoners being tortured, raped and killed in prisons you run. You have your government spying on you. To me, it seems you've kept quiet and given up enough of your rights for the sake of the war on terror.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Troll

... and the Neocons KNOW this…

Exactly how I see the situation.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

No you're not understanding. Free discussion of secrets makes the government have to answer to it's people about it's actions. It's not about showing off. It's about making your government accountable to you.

Liberals are about accountability. We aren't comfortable with a system in which voters cannot decide how a government should be run.

If you trust your government there is a certain amount of leeway you will give them in making decisions when the time comes that an open accounting is impractical.

This time is going to come.

We need to heal our divisions.

[Helmling]

I'm with Troll.

The conservative American citizenry are being used by powers beyond their comprehension. In their simple, good vs. evil worldview, they've been duped into backing a sinister agenda based on arrogance and greed.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

If you trust your government there is a certain amount of leeway you will give them in making decisions when the time comes that an open accounting is impractical.

This time is going to come.

We need to heal our divisions.

But we don't trust the government.

Liberals don't trust the current government. That's the point.

There will be no healing unless the Republicans try to regain some trust of the Liberals. But they don't seem to feel any need to.

Trust is a two way relationship. Unless the government shows that it trusts it's people, it's people won't trust it.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

But we don't trust the government.

Liberals don't trust the current government. That's the point.

There will be no healing unless the Republicans try to regain some trust of the Liberals. But they don't seem to feel any need to.

Trust is a two way relationship. Unless the government shows that it trusts it's people, it's people won't trust it.

That's why I think Bush should spill the beans.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...ill-the-beans/

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Helmling

I'm with Troll.

The conservative American citizenry are being used by powers beyond their comprehension. In their simple, good vs. evil worldview, they've been duped into backing a sinister agenda based on arrogance and greed.

I'm fairly conservative and have voted Republican in every election since 1984 when I came of age to vote. I do not see everything as falling into two categories (good vs. evil). However, I do see some things for what they are and some things are pure evil and some are basically good, but nothing is perfect. For example, I believe my country is basically good but far from perfect. What so many liberals seem to do is to dwell on things that are bad about our nation's past and instead of viewing those problems as human problems, they view them as American problems. For example, Slavery was widely practiced and accepted in Asia, Latin America, the Middle-east, Europe, and Africa (for a thousand years) before Europeans brought the practice to the American colonies. Yet, Liberals point to Slavery as evidence that America was founded on evil principles and therefore must still be evil and we should all be forever ashamed. Never mind that many Islamic nations are still practicing it and America was one of the first nations to end it. Slavery is part of the human social evolution, not specific to American social evolution. Liberals point to the European settlers conquering the Native Americans but fail to consider that all lands were settled with some initial act of aggression and history is full of those who conquered and those who were conquered and those that were conquered were also conquerers who practiced things such as slavery and many other atrocities.

From my experience, it's the liberals in general that view things as either evil or good and America is evil in their eyes. I believe it comes down to that they fail to grasp the true nature of humans. Their ideas of utopia where all people are equal in every regard sounds great in theory. It's just that the theory is not congruent with human nature. Even if we could devise a plan where everyone had equality in terms of income, there would be those who would settle for easy jobs and expect to make as much as those who work like dogs. It's just not human nature to work tirelessly for the common good. We need to know that we will be directly rewarded for our own efforts. Maybe that's selfish, but it's human nature. Liberals seem to believe that their vision of utopia is possible if only it wasn't for what they call the "imperialism" of the U.S. They seem to hate Capitalism but fail to realize that within any economic system and govt system, there has to be some form of management. That system of management (whatever form it takes) is vulnerable to corruption. The bigger that system is, the more likely it is to be corrupted. If our whole country was run by a huge trade union for example, that trade union would be just as likely to be corrupt as our current system of democracy is, if not more so. We've seen that trade unions have a history of corruption as much as anything does. Also, communism did not work because no govt is capable of running a huge economy and we have a huge economy. What you get when you have a central govt trying to run a huge economy is what they had in the Former Soviet Union where people stood in bread lines while warehouses of food spoiled. I sure don't trust the govt to run our economy. Communism is inefficient because there is no personal interest involved. It inspires mediocracy at best. It certainly does not inspire the type of creativity and innovative spirit and desire to succeed that capitalism does.

I do think that there can be abuses in Capitalism. I see these huge monopolies forming and that decreases competition and that is not what a true free market is supposed to do. That is why I believe the best system is capitalism with the right amount of regulations to keep it from becoming predatory capitalism. However, all economic systems have their potentials for abuse and time and time again we see these social revolutions where the revolutionary is supposed to make everything better for the people, just to become more of a tyrant than the tyrant overthrown.

I fully acknowledge that there is corruption in our govt. Too many of our elected officials are beholden to those who fund their campaigns and they are not supposed to be. I just don't think that the corruption rises to the level that they are being accused of by the left. I have some serious issues with Pres Bush but Liberals and some libertarians just seem to take it too far and just seem to hate the U.S. and everything it stands for and it seems to me that the deeper issue driving that hate is that they truly believe in this utopian world that could be acheived if not for the U.S. and it's system of capitalism.