- Overlords of World War II July 23, 2009
- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- 2010 Bartley Dinner
- RET on C-SPAN
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Feature
Is Liberalism Dead?
HAVING WRITTEN AN ARTICLE a year ago on the question "Is Conservatism Dead?" and answering it in the negative, I am now charged with answering the reciprocal question, "Is Liberalism Dead?"
I am afraid that, pace my friend Bob Tyrrell, I must also answer this one in the negative. Liberalism is not dead for some of the same reasons that conservatism is not dead. Liberalism and conservatism are more or less permanent antagonisms within our system of state capitalism such that neither is likely to disappear unless or until the system of which they are parts somehow blows up. The question, therefore, is not whether liberalism is dead but rather whether our highly institutionalized system of political economy shows signs of breaking apart. If either liberalism or conservatism should expire, then it will be through a crisis or cataclysm much in the way that secessionism disappeared with the Civil War and laissez faire capitalism in the Great Depression.
Such an upheaval, while still unlikely, is not entirely out of the question. The long recession that began in 2007 continues to strain public and private budgets and to undermine the legitimacy of market capitalism. Yet in this accounting there are reasons to conclude that the return of the business cycle will pose the greater threat to liberalism than to conservatism. Thus if we should now be in the midst of an extended period of stagnation, then it is possible that liberalism in the form we know it will not survive as a vigorous political movement. Liberalism is not dead, but it may soon be under siege.
LIBERALISM DEVELOPED INTO A FORCE in U.S. politics only late in the 19th century after extended conflicts over slavery and secession were resolved and industrial capitalism had introduced a new set of issues into the system. Up until this time, parties and interests framed their arguments in terms of the Constitution and the nature of the system it had created. Liberalism, when it emerged late in the century, introduced the element of abstract philosophy into these arguments. More importantly, it set these arguments off into a new direction by asserting that the 18th-century Constitution was inadequate to the challenges of the industrial system. Thus, liberals no longer argued over what the Founders intended but rather over how their creation should be reinterpreted and reformed to meet the challenges of the new century. In this sense, liberalism developed as an aspect of modern capitalism and should be viewed as an enduring element of that system.
Over the past century liberalism has passed through at least four separate stages and is now well into a fifth. It first emerged late in the 19th century under the banner of Progressivism, asserting that new political institutions had to be established to regulate industrial concentrations and to mediate conflicts between business and labor. Progressivism flamed out during World War I and seemed to have disappeared for good during the 1920s. It revived itself during the 1930s as "New Deal liberalism" while preserving a few of the themes of Progressivism. When FDR's brand of liberalism faded out because of World War II and the prosperity of the postwar period, it revived itself in the form of "Cold War liberalism," achieving new peaks of popularity and influence during the Kennedy-Johnson years. The rebels, protesters, and reformers of the 1960s authored still a fourth chapter by introducing into the movement the theme of liberation or "cultural liberalism."
By this last adaptation liberalism strengthened its appeal to the educated classes but at the expense of its broad support among working- and middle-class voters-the "Archie Bunkers" of America. And it was through this revolution that "liberalism" morphed into "leftism." The traditional liberal objective of providing economic security for the working man gave way to a desire to reform and even to overturn the inherited fabric of society, thereby politicizing cultural practices relating to family life, sexual mores, and religion. It was only in this fourth phase, in addition, that liberals (and leftists) managed gradually to gain control over the Democratic Party, which up until the 1970s and 1980s had also provided a home for Southern conservatives, national security "hawks," conservative Catholics, and moderates of various kinds. All of these groups have by now left or been expelled from the Democratic Party, their exodus turning it into a coalition of ideological liberals, public sector unions, and beneficiaries of public programs.
Through these four stages in the history of liberalism one can see a common denominator in the expansion of the power of the national government. Every stage has brought forth an expanding list of demands for government action to address one or another national challenge. This is true even of the cultural liberals of the 1960s like Hillary Rodham Clinton, who sought liberation from just about every institution in American society but the national state. The two themes are obviously connected because as people liberated themselves from religion, family obligations, and community norms, they had nowhere else to turn for protection but to the state. This is why conservatives saw instantly that "liberation" was a challenge to "liberty."
THE "STATIST" AGENDA OF liberalism, though it is usually framed in idealistic terms, serves a hard-nosed political purpose. If there is a single lesson liberals have learned through the decades, it is that the power and resources of the state can be used to build winning political coalitions. After nearly a century of this, liberalism and the groups associated with it have intertwined themselves with the day-to-day operations of government, implementing the programs they have managed to pass into law and organizing new voting groups around them. Liberalism is no longer merely a philosophy of government, as it was in the Progressive era, but rather an integral part of modern government itself, which is why it cannot be killed off despite failures in policy, lost arguments, or even by lost elections.
Liberalism represents America's version of the 20th century's romance with the state. The disasters that befell other countries as a consequence of this infatuation did not happen here because our 18th-century Constitution and the acquired political habits of the American people did not permit it. Here a more gradual and incremental evolution took place that took nearly a century to complete. But make no mistake: the century-long revolution engineered by liberalism has succeeded in overturning the institutional prescriptions of the ancient Constitution. A constitution designed to limit the central government has now been turned into one that empowers it to act in just about every area of life. Liberalism has by stages taken aim at one or another of the institutional pillars of limited government -- federalism, strict construction, separation of powers, public thrift -- until today few are still left standing. Madison's "parchment barriers" have been blurred or obliterated to such an extent that today the only genuine limitation on national power is to be found in public opinion.
Nevertheless, critics like Mr. Tyrrell are correct when they point out that liberalism is no longer the nation's dominant public doctrine, as it was during the middle decades of the last century. Liberalism rode an ascending arc of influence for most of the century before reaching a peak in the 1960s, after which time it has been on a steady downward path. The manifest failure of liberal policies during the 1960s and 1970s, contrasted by the successes of conservatives during the 1980s, was sufficient cause of this reversal of fortune. To make matters worse, these policy failures, as they related to crime, the explosion in welfare rolls, illegitimate births, and the collapse of standards in education, were linked to liberal and leftist attacks on conventional morals that doubly alienated middle-class voters.
The shocking and disquieting events of the 1960s, in particular the assassination of President Kennedy, the urban riots, and the war in Vietnam, produced a psychological change among liberals and leftists toward American society and traditional ideals of reform and progress. From the Progressive era until the 1960s, liberals viewed reform as an instrument of progress through which the ideals of liberty and justice might be more perfectly realized. But in response to these shattering events, liberals began to recast their idea of reform from an instrument of progress to one of punishment. When liberals looked about, they did not see progress but rather blighted cities and ghettoes, a despoiled environment, discrimination against women and minorities, and a national government that coddled dictators in the name of anti-communism. The idea developed in their minds that instead of self-congratulation the nation deserved punishment and chastisement for its manifold failures to live up to its ideals. In this way reform liberalism gave way to "punitive liberalism" and in turn to various policies that sought to punish the middle class for winning success at the expense of higher ideals. From this flowed school busing, race and gender preferences, the coddling of criminals who were "victims of society," and a legal culture based upon the idea that every wrong can be remedied by a lawsuit. For the new liberals, a sense of anger replaced the sunny optimism of former heroes like FDR and JFK. (I have made this case in greater length in my book, Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism [Encounter Books, 2007].)
In response to these upheavals, the public soon turned against liberalism until today, according to recent polls, only about 20 percent of Americans are willing to call themselves "liberal," while about 40 percent describe themselves as "conservative." In popular circles, where liberalism is associated with high taxes, wild spending, and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, the tag "liberal" is often thrown about as a term of abuse. But this does not mean that liberalism is "dead," only that it is in the process once more of changing its appearance.
LIBERALISM HAS EVOLVED from a popular philosophy in the middle decades of the century into a "vanguard" movement today with great support among experts, academics, journalists, and government workers but with far less support among voters whom these elites purport to serve and who increasingly must pay for the programs they propose. Liberalism has always relied upon its "vanguard" classes to supply it with new problems to solve and new programs for doing so. The Progressives had their academic experts and muckraking journalists, the New Deal had its "brains trust," and the postwar liberals looked to the federal courts to engineer far-reaching reforms. What is different today is the extent to which the new aims of liberalism -- environmentalism, feminism, homosexual marriage, high taxes, and income redistribution -- are dissociated from the practical aspirations of the middle classes. The liberal vanguard once claimed to speak for the middle classes but most of the time no longer even pretends to do so.
By the upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s, liberalism exchanged its broad support among the middle classes for the security and political leverage it found in highly institutionalized sectors of American life. While conservatives now command broad support in public opinion, liberals can claim influence over leading colleges and universities, major newspapers and broadcast outlets, public sector spokesmen, and public employee unions which in combination can shape -- or go a long ways toward shaping -- the national political debate in the space between elections. Conservatives, to be sure, have learned to fight on this terrain as well but are still outflanked by liberals who occupy strategic positions in much closer proximity to government. As the "party of government," liberalism by degrees has attached itself to the state such that in many areas (education, welfare, the arts) and place (Sacramento, Albany, Washington, D.C.) it can be difficult to distinguish between them. As the party of "limited government," conservatism has gradually mobilized its forces at some remove from the state.
This describes the fifth and perhaps the final stage in the evolution of American liberalism. Over the course of the 20th century, it succeeded in rewriting the Constitution, building political coalitions around public spending, insinuating itself within the interstices of government, and gaining control of key institutions that manufacture and legitimize political opinion. Today it has retreated into impregnable redoubts encircling the state from which positions it fights a defensive struggle against voter sentiment increasingly skeptical of its programs of high taxes and public spending.
View all comments (29) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Articles by James Piereson
More Articles From Feature
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Unwanted: Dead or Alive
- Whacking Anwar
- A Grateful Heart
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
ADVERTISEMENT
Ret. Marine| 2.21.11 @ 7:11AM
"But this does not mean that liberalism is "dead", only that it is in the process of once more changing its appearance."
The single most important statement in this entire article and factually correct in all of it entanglement. Today we now have two against one. They now have the islamist/jihadist progressive alliance vrs. the Capitalist/middle class/Constitutionalists battling it out in the form of needs and wants vrs. outcome of one's hard work. Today We the People are in the biggest fight ever for this Nations survival and it is all based upon an "idea". The idea that millions upon millions of us are going to bend over and grab our ankles for this type of entitlement attitude we witness all across the globe, in separate Countries, States, Counties, and Cities is likely to lead to much more turmoil, destruction and deaths. We are witnessing the deliberate dismantling of the social norms, ethics, morals and cohesion that binds us as a people's of this earth, and for what? the idea that somewhere there exists a utopia of all things the same. Boring. We are all individuals, not a collective as many portray this need, it is a want not a need, it is a desired outcome of one fits all slavery model. I'll have no part of it, as I suspect others of the same/sane mind would agree. The day is coming and it will soon be upon us. That day will be the recognition of its either peace and prosperity for all or slavery and servitude. Pick a side and fight hard, may the best idea's win. God, Country and freedom is the best model ever conceived, no reason to doubt it.
Alan Brooks| 2.21.11 @ 7:21PM
What I don't get it why NR promotes Jeb Bush in its issue dated today. NR isn't a little kooky vanity-press rag, is it?
I sense NR is thumbing its collective nose about this.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.21.11 @ 7:19AM
Well spoken, Marine!
MikeD| 2.21.11 @ 8:04AM
It is sometimes instructive to study one's enemies. I use the term "enemy' rather than 'adversary' here intentionally because, in this current struggle, make no mistake; we are thought of as the enemy, and the libs/dems/progressives have proven over and over that they have done, and will continue to do anything to win. If that victory happens to result in the very destruction of our country, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
This confrontation is the most cataclysmic struggle in this country since the sixties riots and civil rights activities. The liberals see the serious nature of the situation and are pulling out all the stops to beat back the challenge to their 'goodies' and 'royal perquesites'. These excessive bennies are assumed to be due them; and that attitude pervades their entire being. They care not one iota for the school children; the kids are just convenient pawns to be played as a tool against the 'other side'. "What about the children?" has worked every time it has been played before! But don't be fooled. These people don't give a damn. The next thing to watch will be how they can work in "The race card"; although it will be a sign of absolute desperation in this case.
Governor Walker CANNNOT back down; he is being watched by those in every other state in the Union. This is the Waterloo for the public employee unions, and thusly, for barack obama who has, once again betrayed his narrow view of reality and complete political incompetence by making things worse (for himself AND his supporters) by opening his mouth before reading the teleprompter.
He, of course, cried that those protestors are "their friends and fellow citizens." No, they're not. They are the self described enemy who are in it only for themselves. The dem senators pulled their usual cowardly, childish stunt by sneaking out of town to avoid doing their jobs, once again leaving it to the adults. It happened before; which serves to illustrate their true feelings: Their idea of compromise and negotiation means that you give up and they get their way. We can no longer afford to indulge their childish fantasies; the time is here to pay the piper.
Liberalism will not be dead as long as there is one college professor jamming down their student's throats. It will not be dead until the media tells the truth instead of selective reporting and sheer fabrication. It will not be dead until the democratic party itself says it has had enough and purges the evil ones. And, it will not be dead until some amount of common sense returns to our political and societal arenas. We must be on them like a cheap suit and deny them at every turn. They will never give up, they'll just slither lower in the gutter to avoid detection. No wonder hey have to lie, their truth is deadly dangerous.
martin j smith| 2.21.11 @ 8:22AM
I agree with the idea that Liberalism is not dead only I do not call it Liberalism--it has morphed into Socialist-Marxist-Leninist leadership with the MSM very obviously playing a major role along with Government unions. No it is not a Party or movement that I see as American--rather it is foreign. European,Soviet and yes this love affair with totalitarianism in China,Russia or Iran are no accident. Neither is it an accident that the NYT years ago covered up the holocaust as well as Stalin's mass murders--and others.
This group has tried to cover up who they really are--and perhaps always have been. But now they ar out in the open. What Conservatives must realize is they must be stragtegic,thinking ahead of the game to politically counter this Socialist crowd. Deal making may be right or it may be dead wrong and one has to choose very prudently
in the end voters will choose who they feel is best for them. So to counter the Socialists Conservatives must: Act responsibly, illuminate the Socialist agenda and its effects on the pocket book of voters and offer a better plan--
while behaving reasonably within limits to the other side. Conservatives behaving in a totally hostile manner might fail unless they can show they have good reason. In the case of Obama and his fellows, there is good reason , but still do so carefully.
Bob K.| 2.21.11 @ 8:24AM
"But we must recognize a more fundamental phenomenon. This is the waning of liberal and parliamentary democracy. Here we face two, perhaps superficially contradictory, developments. One is that liberalism has, after all, triumphed: it's self-imposed tasks are done. The other is the overall waning of its appeal, of the appeal it once may have had.
If "liberalism" means the extension of all kinds of liberties to all kinds of individuals, mostly as a consequence of the abolition of restrictions on all kinds of people, these have now been institutionalized and accomplished in formerly unexpected and even astonishing varieties of ways. (And with not a few fateful and, yes, deplorable consequences, such a laws approving abortions, mercy killing, cloning, sexual "freedoms," permissiveness, pornography.......a list almost endless.) ..........................
Many of these deplorable consequences were and are, again, results of the liberal emphasis on justice--if need be, at the expense of truth."
This quote is from:
"DEMOCRACY AND POPULISM Fear and Hatred" pp. 217-218 Professor John Lukacs, Author. Published 2006.
Bob K.| 2.21.11 @ 9:33AM
Note the last sentence in the above quotation!
USSAlabama| 2.21.11 @ 1:25PM
""Many of these deplorable consequences were and are, again, results of the liberal emphasis on justice--if need be, at the expense of truth.""
Justice.
Social justice, economic justice, and *always* at the expense of truth.
al| 2.21.11 @ 8:40AM
piereson, one tyrrell, zero.
Bob K.| 2.21.11 @ 9:30AM
It is a tie.
Liberalism is in it's declining years. (moments?) It's effects linger on and will cause damage for years, if not decades, to come.
Scott| 2.21.11 @ 8:54AM
I think M. Steyn (as always) points out something very important these days--the incredible rapidity, efficiency, and control of technology in imposing regulation and extracting money from private citizens. One can't move to a state like Idaho anymore and expect limited regulation, etc., to last very long. This brings up the debate of whether a general apathy or a growing frustration with such faceless instruments and methods will prevail.
Curly Smith| 2.21.11 @ 8:58AM
Before the Industrial Revolution we were, as was the world, largely a nation of farmers. The Constitution gave us freedom but the technology limited how much impact we could have. With the Industrial Revolution came liberalism, fostered by academics, politicians and "experts"... but to what end? The academics, politicians and experts all represented "old money". Before the Industrial Revolution they were largely in control of our Manifest Destiny through positions of power and influence but technology unstoppered the bottle and allowed the Archie Bunkers to sidestep the power brokers. Liberalism was always about controlling the masses, about stifling freedoms and limiting opportunity "in the interests of the children" while, oddly, filling the pockets of politicians, academics and experts.
Both technology and freedom are force multipliers, both allow a single individual to accomplish astonishing feats. Without the Constitution we'd have been Mexico. If liberalism had been more effective early we'd have been Mexico. If the GOP doesn't grow a lasting spine we've still got a chance of becoming Mexico
Bob K.| 2.21.11 @ 12:52PM
Curley,
Consider these thoughts from John Lukcas's Historical Essay: "DEMOCRACY AND POPULISM Fear and Hatred," published 2005; at pages 223-224 from the chapter titled: "Triumph and disappearance of 'liberalism'."
"I have argued throughout this book that the old categories of "conservative" and "liberal" have become almost entirely outdated. "Right" and "Left": not quite so. But one tendency is evident. The "Left" has been losing its appeal, almost everywhere. It may be in the future the true divisions will not be between Right and Left but between two kinds of Right; between people on the Right whose binding belief is their contempt for Leftists, who hate liberals more than they love liberty, and others who love liberty more than they fear liberals; between nationalists and patriots; between those who believe that America's destiny is to rule the world and others who do not believe that; between those who trust technology and machines and others who trust tradition and old human decencies; between those who support "development" and those who wish to protect the conservation of land--in sum between those who do not question progress and others who do."
He cites Lord Salisbury: "Free institutions, carried beyond the point which the culture of a nation justifies, cease to produce freedom. There is the freedom that makes every man free: and there is the freedom, so called, which makes every man a slave to the majority." p.225.
Bob K.| 2.21.11 @ 12:56PM
Pardon me, but the Professor's last name is spelled Lukacs. (not Lukcas)
Wayne | 2.21.11 @ 9:06AM
I think we can not ignore the globalistic goals, and the Will to Power. Both have been scaring the bejeabers out of us conservatives for over 2 years. Worse some Republicans have engaged in their own globalistic goals. We had the neo-cons, and now we have the Obamites. Both use the resources of the United States for global ends, and this is what has been destroying the US economy.
In s way, that has ben a good thing, because the Obamites are now constrained by economic realities, and we get to slow them down. But we know that they will use force in the end to get their way. Hence this is a dangerous time. That is why we must support those of us on the front lines: The Palins, the Malkins, the Walkers, for they are slowing that Progressive train (no doubt Obama knows the symbolism of High Speed Rail).
But we are now firmly in the Information Age, and we can now discover the truths for ourselves. And in the end, it is that which brings down the tyranny. It can not function in the day light. The enduring image of the White House with Obama will always be the Christmas eve deals in the dark of night away from cameras and Republicans. That is also a symbol. He couldn't have done better wearing fangs.
It is not that Liberalism is Dead, but rather that Liberalism is for the Dead.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.21.11 @ 12:24PM
Mr. Peireson,
Splendid article.
Guys above,
Thank youse (smile)
My contribution is simply: "Liberalism is in fact dead...........but communism, (pardon the shorthand), is NOT!"
Mohamedism is NOT!
Gird your loins for battle my friends. This is going to get nasty.
Mike D.| 2.21.11 @ 4:06PM
Totally agree here. Leftism has in fact achieved its greatest triumph, elected a true marxist destroyer as the President of the United States.
IMHO, I don't see any other recourse other than total defeat of these "college communists" that parade themselves as intellectual elitists now populating our government. I abhore the term "liberal". Collectivism and redistribution of wealth and those that practice it are marxists and wield its principals as control of the masses and nothing less. Marxism is the mental masturbation of academics and the sword of death of tyrants. Communism is evil and tens of millions have died because of it. Now we have to deal with it here, in our own country, the last refuge from this sickness on humanity in the world. Its going to get dicey friends.
John Navratil| 2.21.11 @ 5:17PM
Ken,
Can you believe that in our beloved Texas, 25 people can petition our state government and create a special taxing district that it will 75% of those in the district to dissolve. It's happening HERE. The liberals have make it trivially easy to create a bureaucracy and almost impossible to remove it. No real surprise there, but in this case the bureaucrats are answerable to absolutely no one and do not stand for election.
Look to stopdistrict11.org for more info. Read and weep.
Ed| 2.21.11 @ 12:53PM
I think there is a more fundamental reason Liberalism will not die. As long as liberals can appeal to the worst of human nature.. envy and greed for what others have... and cloak it in the highest of human ideals... altruism and compassion... liberalism will live on.
Kurt in S.L.C.| 2.21.11 @ 8:25PM
Ed,you are spot on,but you could have added that it not just envy and greed that motivates the Left,It's outright hatred of the success of those who have achieved it outside of the elitist nexus of academia,non-profits,unions,etc. That couldn't have been made clearer than when Bob Schieffer of CBS asked Obama if he didn't know that higher tax rates led to lower revenue for the government and Obama replied he didn't care,it was a matter of "fairness".These people are not merely stupid,they are evil.
simon templar| 2.21.11 @ 1:37PM
Liberalism is not dead... its just more virulent and it has been able to show its true colors as it has reducated a large segment of the public to accept what was not normal or accepted. The author writes, " new aims of liberalism -- environmentalism, feminism, homosexual marriage, high taxes, and income redistribution are not new aims at all but all are directly out of Karl Marx and his contemporary's writings. We are the ones who have changed as we have become desenzititized and accepting of these ideas as legitimate political ideas and have forgotten that they were the essential components of Socialism from the very start.
Oldefarte| 2.21.11 @ 2:00PM
Great article James, and equally great comments ALL [AND THANK YOU]! Liberalism in my life experience has represented GVERNMENTAL CONTROL. As stated, our 18th century Constitution installed governmental restraints, and liberalism is an an adverse reaction to same. Liberals have increased the influencial power of government, and enabled it with increasing taxiation to fund same. Whereas conservatism represents individualism and the economic empowerment of same, liberalism attempts to shelter those left behind by conservatism through the power of government. As liberalism [or statism, totalitarism, communism, etc] increases in political influence, the individual liberties of citizens diminishes. Liberalism's increasing influence throughout the 1950-60's was eventually hindered by the increasing conservatism of the 1980's-90's, which would have continued if not for these recent Middle East/Gulf wars. This country's reaction to 9/11/01 was correct and warranted, but our mistake was in becoming bogged down in an unwinable, continuing land war against a hidden/masqueraded enemy [just as with the Viet Nam War]. The previous administration was warned by an astute military head that a prolonged Gulf war would result in a IF YOU DROP/BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT situation. Citizen-voters were simply fed up/disgusted with the [politically enumerated by liberals] the military death tolls reported, and over-reacted by ignoring intellectual common sense and voting into the Presidency someone of highly questionable loyalties [and professional experiences]. As is said, THE REST IS HISTORY. Have conservatives, moderates and anyone wih an ounce of brain-cell matter finally WOKEN UP? We'll see, come November of 2012!!!!!!!!!
davelnaf| 2.21.11 @ 3:02PM
Very good article. The author is right in saying that liberalism will fight tooth and nail from its current redoubts within government to preserve itself. Its dilemma is that it always had to be seen ramping up entitlement spending in order to make itself appear relevant. This could not go on forever. With the private sector now unwilling and probably unable to bail Liberalism out it is faced with a relevancy crisis that has no solution. Liberalism will survive in some form or other because it will be hard to pry liberals from their redoubts. But their days of fighting for ever higher entitlement spending are about over. Mr. Tyrrell's argument that Liberalism is about to die a political dead, rather than be completely expunged, is the more meaningful argument.
David| 2.21.11 @ 5:27PM
Liberalism is not dead and will probably never be as long as most of us are educated in public schools and the ruling class media continue to have the influence they do.
Liberals GIVE things to people. Conservatives are always painted as TAKING back from people what Liberals have GIVEN them. Conservatives simply can't win that battle with public school educated citizens and a media vehemently opposed to everything conservatism is.
Want proof? Watch what happens, even in this current climate that favors conservatism, when we start saying that insurance companies WILL be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, or that the insurance companies will NOT be required to insure 24 year olds on their parents' insurance plans.
As I've said many timse before, as long as we have in place legalized theft by our fed government in the form of the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), not much will change other than tinkering around the edges. I wonder how many people still DO NOT know what the EITC is?
It is flat out theft from those who actually pay fed income taxes and given to those who pay ZERO fed income taxes (now 40+% of workers). It is not a targeted gift for specific necessities such as food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid, etc. It is a cash gift (in the thousands) every single year, to a family who pays no fed income taxes, to buy whatever it is that they choose to buy with the cash government has stolen from actual taxpayers. Televisions, stereos, another car, drugs, booze, prostitutes, cigarettes, etc. All life's necessities - right?
If we can't stop the EITC, then there is no hope we will ever make a significant dent in any other program. Liberalism ALWAYS marches on - ALWAYS. Even welfare reform the repubs forced Clinton to sign is now moot thanks to Bam Bam. Bam Bam got away with sending poor inner city kids back to shitty schools right after he took office by defunding the charter school vouchers that so many poor BLACKs depended upon. The program was a great succes for those kids and their families, and Bam Bam and the dems/libs got away with crushing a couple of thousand poor kids. How? The media and spineless repubs for not harping on what he did day after day after day. You know, like the dems do. We all know repubs are dumb because Dan Quayle misspelled potato 20+ years ago. But hey, Bam Bam can visit all 57 states with 2 more to go and no one remembers that or any of his other moronic statements.
It makes me sick when repubs hold the libs to only 10% of what they wanted on any issue, and then celebrate as if they had WON a victory for conservatism. They are idiots and morons - they don't realize they just LOST another 10% to the libs. They didn't and almost always don't WIN anything from the libs. And on and on it goes, and I suspect it will always be so.
Michael L. Hauschild| 2.21.11 @ 7:49PM
Great thread, all the heavyweights. The jarhead won by the way.
Vita Men| 2.21.11 @ 8:43PM
----About as dead as our CON-serving,
Rockefeller front op, Globalist 'CON-servatism'.
BTW ---check out who's relocating out of the
country!
David Rockefeller sets up in RED China,
joining Maurice Strong, Jim Rogers and,
so we hear, Kissinger ----while the Bushes
are off to Paraguay where they're buying
HUGE swaths of land over the world's
largest aquifers of clean water --even as
our own clean water is being MASSIVELY
exported to RED China.
Clean water is going to be the new oil as
Globalists have effectively contaminated
what we're drinking worldwide with fouride,
lythium, prozak and a host of other toxins
and chemicals.
SO-----KEEP watchin' that Super Bowl kiddies!
----EVERYTHING'S JUST DANDY!
Jeff| 2.21.11 @ 11:51PM
Liberalism is not dead and will not ever die unless and until we conservatives quit making process arguments against it and start making root arguments against liberalism.
Process argument: There is not enough money to make liberalism work.
Liberal answer: That is because the right people have not been doing it. "We are the ones we have been waiting for."
Root argument: Liberalism can never work because it is based upon the FALSE premise that the fundamental nature of man can be changed.
Liberal retort: You are mean spirited.
That is how liberalism will finally be defeated. By fundamental root arguments. For these they have no cogent answer.
Marc Jeric| 2.22.11 @ 4:08AM
I found much to like in both of these articles about the "liberalism" being in the state of dying or close to it. However, it is not the liberals we should fear - it is now professional marxists and communists in power, and these do not like to lose power. There will be another bloody revolution in this country before long - with the most probable outcome in favor of a terminal communist victory.