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, 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.
