Liberalism today is a shadow of its former self
Michael Gerson
The Washington Post
Published: Friday, Oct. 19 2012
WASHINGTON —In its heyday — say, the 1960s — American liberalism had an
obvious identity. It was ambitious, reformist and frankly moral in its appeal
to a common good that included minorities and the poor. It was praised as
idealistic and attacked as utopian. Robert Kennedy set out "to tame the
savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world." William F. Buckley,
with some justification, criticized liberals for attempting to
"immanentize the eschaton."
A few days after assuming the presidency, Lyndon Johnson was warned not to
waste his energy on lost causes, however worthy. According to historian
Robert Caro, Johnson responded: "Well, what the h—'s the presidency for?" The
Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, _Head Start_
(http://www.deseretnews.com/topics/2107/Head-Start.html) , Job Corps, Medicare,
the Clean Air
Act, the Wholesome Meat Act, the Endangered Species Preservation Act and the
Public Broadcasting Act followed. (Think of Johnson as the incubator of Big
Bird.)
After four years of Barack Obama and two clarifying presidential debates,
it is extraordinary how shrunken liberalism has become. During his
much-praised town hall performance, the president set out a second-term agenda
of
stunning humility. Enumerating the reasons that the "future is bright," Obama
proposed tax incentives for domestic investment, trade promotion, greater
investment in solar and wind power, road and bridge construction, broader
job retraining in community colleges and higher marginal tax rates on the
wealthy. He added pledges to defend Medicare and Planned Parenthood against
barbarian assault.
The candidate was energized; the agenda remained tired. Taken together,
Obama's proposals have little ambition or thematic coherence. They add up to
the Marginally Greater Society. It helps little to repeat the words "middle
class" over and over in an attempt at political hypnosis. After four years
of weary wandering in the economic wilderness, Obama is still incapable of
describing the Promised Land.
As the agenda of a liberal president, the silences were particularly
notable. At Hofstra, Obama gave no sustained attention to poverty, though 6
million Americans have fallen below the poverty line since 2008. (At the town
hall, Romney used the word "poverty" five times; Obama never did.) Obama did
not mention the scandalous failure of public schools to teach minority
children. He laid little emphasis, Keynesian or otherwise, on aggressively
encouraging economic growth — what John F. Kennedy called getting America
"moving again." There was no mention of global warming, though Obama once
predicted that his "presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership
on
climate change."
Bill Clinton had the capability of weaving an agenda of modest economic
proposals into a narrative of Democratic moderation and responsibility.
Obama's agenda just seems weary, following a health care victory that cost him
his House majority and exhausted his political capital. It is likely that
Obama's main second-term accomplishment would be the defense of his main
first-term achievement — a health law that remains too unpopular to make a
centerpiece of his campaign. Obama has largely set out to protect past
ambitions, not project new ones.
This may be the fate of any political liberal during a fiscal crisis. It is
hard to be Lyndon Johnson with a trillion-dollar deficit. But the Obama
agenda also reflects a broader shift in American liberalism, which has become
reactive. American liberals often defend unreformed, unsustainable health
entitlements — even though these commitments place increasing burdens on
the young to benefit those who are older and better off. They often defend
the unrestricted right to abortion — even though it represents a contraction
of the circle of social inclusion and protection. They often defend the
educational status quo — even though it is one of the nation's main sources of
racial and economic injustice.
Others have termed this "reactionary liberalism." It is more the protection
of accumulated interests than the application of creative reform to new
problems. In the place of idealism, there is often anger. When Obama failed
in his first debate, liberals were generally not critical that he lacked
idealism. They were angry that he wasn't sufficiently angry. The fondest hopes
and dreams of many on the left were apparently fulfilled in Joe Biden's
sneer.
As a conservative, I can't endorse every policy of the Great Society — some
were essential, others counterproductive. But America was better off
because liberals called attention to those in the dawn, the twilight and the
shadows of life. And American politics is worse off because liberalism has
become a shadow of its former self.
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
