Liberal Nation

As Republicans gather in New York, many commentators will trace the rise of American conservatism from Barry Goldwater to William Buckley to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. The common wisdom goes like this: conservatism has captured the U.S. electorate, climbing over the tired, embittered carcass of liberalism. Democrats go to extremes to portray themselves as centrist, non-liberals because Americal liberalism is dead. Indeed, spirited conservatives have pushed the entire political debate to the right - what was centrist is liberal, what was right is center.

This is a lie - told by uninformed, swallowed by the incurious.

The United States has never been a more liberal country than it is today, three nights before President Bush is nominated again by a "conservative" Republican Party. The conservative movement has failed, destroyed by the imbibing of that most intoxicating beverage, power.

We can argue symbols, of course. (The phony marriage amendment comes to mind). And we should argue about policy. (Iraq). But answer these litmus test questions. Is the Federal government more powerful than it was five, 10, 20, 50 years ago? Does it collect more and spend more? Does it regulate much less? Have reproductive rights been rolled back? Do we spend less on education than we ever have in the past? Are we really more culturally conservative?

No. We're not. We're more tolerant, more diverse. Government spends more; even the too-thin social safety net has grown under Republican leadership in the form of a massive prescription entitlement program. We still regulate our capital markets. Yes, there is a large, political important bloc of religious conservative voters who believe they're powerful because one party bends over to scoop up their votes. But as the smarter leaders of the religious conservatives understand, they don't get a heck of a lot for their electoral support - a few words, almost no legislation. And the country grows more socially liberal by the second.

Look who's speaking at the Garden this week - social liberals who preside over big government states and cities. And then the faux conservative, deficit-spending, government-expanding, Federal-power-grabbing, privacy-smashing incumbent. Read David Brooks' excellent piece in today's New York Times Magazine on the failure of pure conservatism in the Republican Party. Here's an excerpt:

In 1994, there were 4,126 ''earmarks'' -- special spending provisions -- attached to the 13 annual appropriations bills. In 2004, there were around 14,000. Real federal spending on the Departments of Education, Commerce and Health and Human Services has roughly doubled since the Republicans took control of the House in 1994. This is a governing majority without shape, coherence or discipline.

I believe that we can do better - by extending the liberalism that both Democrats and Republicans embrace in spirit, if not in name. Given our wealth and position in the world, the United States owes a certain minimum standard of living to each American, and a certain minimum standard of opportunity. I guess this is what makes me a Democrat. This is not to say there isn't a massive gulf between the parties in terms of policy, leadership, and a vision for the future of the country. But given the spending habits of the GOP over the last decade of Congressional and Presidential power, isn't this really the set-up these days:

Republicans - Kind of Liberal
Democrats - More liberal

I think so. Welcome, fellow liberals, to our fair city. You'll feel right at home.

Comments

[chervokas]

Tom, good piece.

What's interesting and different about this Bush administration vs. previous, modern conservative administrations and candidates, is that it's redefined Republican conservatism to mean only social, evangelical conservatism and not at all fiscal, secular conservatism.

We can see how the Christian conservatives became so important tactically to the contemporary Republican party--they're devoted voters who are already organized (around churches which are supposed to remain outside of politicking). But I think with the current administration they've become important in terms of policy, not just politics, for the first time. This President is truly committed to the social conversion of the nation. In fact it seems to be the only thing to which the administration is committed, the only area where an agenda seems to exist (everything else seems improvised and ill-considered). Whether President Bush can push that agenda through, even w/ Republican control of the entire apparatus of Federal governance, remains to be seen (after all, only 20-25% of Americans are evangelical Christians and less than 5% are politically active evangelicals.) But certainly in the areas where the executive branch can act by fiat we've seen that social agenda put in place (FDA appartchick over-ruling the agency's own science panel on the morning after pill, banning fed. funding for new stem cell lines, diverting fed. money from secular non-gov't service providers into "faith-based" institutions). And more of the same or worse will be in order in a second Bush term freed from the restraints of needing to run for re-election afterwards.

As you know, I've long advocated a left-right alliance of more libertarian, secular minds, people on both sides who believe in free trade, free speech, fair play and due process, not a government that favors massive deficit spending, expansion of criminal justice intrusion, the diversion of public money into private hands (i.e. "faith based" initiatives, school vouchers, the privatization of social security), or an administration that makes resources available to the few (the evangelical right, a handful of favored industries and companies personally close to the executive branch)at the expense of the tax-paying many. I still think that group of cross-over voters exists but, for all the talk about running to the middle, this election, it seems, is being fought on the fringes--in part because that is where Republican tacticians believe they have an advantage; but also in part because that is where the current administration lives.

[bruce b.]

While, as expected from TW, the posting is extremely well written, the argument is not accurate.

On economic policy, it is off the mark to say that the society is more "liberal" than ever. That is, of course, if your idea of a liberal economic policy is a strong safety net; a government that is concerned about economic rights, such as the right to education, housing, health care, and a job; and the level of equality or inequality in a society.

I expect to catch hell from almost EVERY regular poster on this blog on the statement above about economic rights. But this is proof of the triumph of conservative economic principles. Just 25 years ago, the statement would have gone unchallenged. For example, the Humphrey-Hawkins bill of the late 1970s was a FULL EMPLOYMENT bill which guaranteed the right to a job (the REAL way to do welfare reform); my recollection is that it almost passed.

For TW to cite the Bush prescription drug plan, which in essense is a huge transfer payment to the drug companies and HMOs and has very limited benefits for seniors (do you know a single senior who has benefitted from those "discount cards" or even has one), as a "massive entitlement program" is off-base. And, of course, the Republicans are setting the stage for the privatization of Social Security and Medicare, the gutting of the true liberal entitlement programs.

More response later. I have barely scratched the surface (not mentioning the increase in inequality and the attack on progressive taxation).

[Tom W.]

Bruce, I'm saying the Republicans say one thing (and get votes for it) and do another, especially after their government shut-down planned flopped so badly in the 90s. Now, they haven't met a program they don't like, as long as they propose it and use words like "personal" and "private sector" somewhere in the language.

Further, I'm arguing this point at the 30,000 foot level, not on the ground. Month to month, year to year, the GOP does try to pass conservative legislation. The thing is - they fail. And decade to decade, the country grows more liberal....

And to Jason's point about social conversion, yeah, I think Bush is for - I think he believes he is divinely ordained. But he also wants reelection. And besides, we really do grow more liberal as a society - indeed, it's what's causing the increasingly shrill moral/conservative bleats from the far right.

[bruce b.]

Tom, "from 30,000 ft", since the start of the Reagan period:

-- wages have stagnated for 30 years
-- economic inequality has increased for 25 years; the rich have gotten vastly righer while everyone else has stagnated or gone down
-- union membership is a shadow of its former self
-- we still have no national health insurance. America lags almost every major industrial country (and even some developing nations) in public health indicators
-- we have one of the highest (if not the highest) percentage prisoners in the world
-- our manufacturing base has withered (yes, this is a liberal issue: it has to do with whether we are a producer society or a consumer society) and the trade deficit has gone out of control
-- funding for higher education has drastically decreased
-- federal funding for housing is basically non-existent
-- federal funding for K-12 education has drastically decreased; K-12 education is more dependent than ever on the regressive property tax (so it is excellent in rich suburbs and underfunded everywhere else)
-- the tax system has gotten more and more REGRESSIVE rather than progressive, especially during the Bush era

If a "liberal" society means one where all citizens have some sort of reasonable economic safety net, where education and opportunity are open to all and good jobs are available to all, where a working family can afford a decent standard of living, a decent house, and a college education for their children, then clearly American has not gotten MORE liberal but less so.

In addition, certain basic rights -- for example, the right to an abortion -- have been steadily eroded. In many rural areas there are few or no abortion clinics available for hundreds of miles.

We have become a society of the corporate elite, who have certain social rights and who have a liberal social viewpoint.

With all due respect, you are not being consistent with prior posts. Not long ago you touted John Edwards and the concept of "two Americas." What do you think this means?

Also, isn't this EXACTLY the point that the Drum Major Institute has been making so well, with your support, urging, and guidance?

The Republicans have PLENTY Of programs they don't like: anything that benefits working class people or poor people (or people in general). Try Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, any form of national health insurance, any form of housing subsidy, federal aid to education, federal aid to higher education, and the list goes on and on. Oh, and progressive taxation, including taxes on investment income.

[Tom W.]

Bruce, we're in heated agreement, I think. To throw your main argument back at you:

If a "liberal" society means one where all citizens have some sort of reasonable economic safety net, where education and opportunity are open to all and good jobs are available to all, where a working family can afford a decent standard of living, a decent house, and a college education for their children, then clearly American has not gotten MORE liberal but less so.

Yes, that is a liberal society - with one massive ingredient that isn't government madated: tolerance. We are clearly a more tolerant society than we were in 1970. Because of that, I believe that we're still inching toward the ideal you wisely captured above.

I think we do need to fight, I think we need better leadership, I think we need to do a better job in guaranteeing opportunity. Certainly, there are two America's - the haves and the have nots. And policy changes have eroded what we've always thought of as a strength: the middle class, large swaths of which is poised on the precipice of personal economic disaster.

I'm not trying to be pollyana-ish and present a glowing picture at odds with the facts. Indeed, I don't even think this is a particularly optimistic post. I'm merely trying to point out that party politics aside, and over the course of large chunks of time, we become more liberal as a society. Yeah, this leaves out organized labor, federal housing funds, and the progressive vs. regressive tax debate - all well-accepted big-L liberal causes.

I'm saying that conservatism - while succeeding as an electoral movement, in certan instances - has largely failed as a social experiment, at least as fully as organized "liberalism" did before that. I'm saying that even if Bush wins and the Republicans hold Congress this time around, that over the next decade, the country will continue to embrace a more open, liberal (small-L) society, and that big government is permanent.

[bruce b.]

TW,

Yes, we are in heated argument.

"Tolerance" is a SOCIAL construct. I agree with you that at least in the "blue" states and in particular the large metro areas (NY, LA, Chicago), we are much more socially tolerant, less racist, less homophobic, etc.

On the other hand, we have become much more economically stratified. There is no question about that. The middle class squeeze is very real.

I am speaking about ECONOMIC policy, not social policy.

Big government for the oil companies and the military contractors is a conservative cause. While ensuring a safety net for their buddies, they have been quite successful at dismantling the safety net for the people.

Can I ask you, if everything you say is true, why were 500,000 people on the street yesterday? Simply because of the war?

I don't feel confident that either Social Sec. or Medicare will survive 4-8 more years of Republican rule.

[jackson]

It would be interesting to see what exactly will survive 4-8 more years of republican rule. Hopefully we may not have to.

[Darwin]

Bruce B :
On the other hand, we have become much more economically stratified. There is no question about that. The middle class squeeze is very real.

Do you have a preferred reference which documents this? It's one of the things I've always heard but have seen no evidence of in my personal life. I don't have an opinion on it one way or the other, but I hear it used in a class-warfare context by the Usual Suspects so I am suspicious.

=darwin

[bruce b.]

Darwin,

I don't know how you would accumulate evidence of a broad societal economic trend in your personal life. These trends show up over years, and proceed incrementally.

But there is broad documentation of this, and the trend towards concentration of wealth and income in the US is unarguable.

One web site devoted to documenting this, with some nice graphs.

A working paper by an Edward Wolff, an NYU economist who has done substantial work in this field. (Click on the PDf to download). This is a somewhat more optimistic look at the issue, as he finds that household wealth overall increased in the late 90s (after stagnating since 1983), as one can imagine mainly because of the stock market boom, Nevertheless, I urge you to examine the inequality trends and the vast concentration of wealth. The movement toward inequality just slowed down in the late 90s. It has picked up again in the Bush era.

I want to look at some of this stuff more closely myself, in particular the Wolff paper.

[Darwin]

Thanks!

=darwin

[Fitz]

Bruce,

You said:

“While, as expected from TW, the posting is extremely well written, the argument is not accurate.”

No argument with neither your succinctness nor correctness.

And you said:

“I expect to catch hell from almost EVERY regular poster on this blog on the statement above about economic rights. But this is proof of the triumph of conservative economic principles.”

To the contrary, I applaud your work laying out the real liberal position for Tom. All those years of suburban living must have dulled his senses.

Fitz

[chervokas]

Fitz,

The problem with this debate, of course, should be transparent to any of us who know the man. By calling conservatives liberals Watson was just trying to bait you and Kissane.

It was a poor choice of words. As Bruce pointed out, the profligate spending of the Bush administration doesn't make it politically liberal. But as I tried to point out, it also disqualifies it from being conservative, at least in the sense that Wm F. Buckeley would mean in using the term. The Bush administration remains conservative only in the social, religious sense, and I frankly am disheartened that this is not a problem for more rank and file Republicans.

Then again, one of the reasons I had not been a member of any party before this year, is because partisanship seems to require adoption of the old "our guy right or wrong" mentality. I've never been able to swallow that one. I had no problem advocating Bill Clinton's removal from office for lying under oath and was disgusted by all the Dems who rushed around trying to rationalize why lying under oath wasn't so bad for a sitting president (it wasn't technically perjury, he didn't lie about anything important, it was a Republican witch hunt). I'm equally disgusted by all the Republican conservatives--those that favor smaller gov't, no nation building, free trade, reduction of gov't intrusion into the personal lives of individuals--who are willing to hold their noses and vote for Bush even tho' he's sold out all their principles and ideals.

[bruce b.]

I extend an open (albeit a PARTIAL) apology to TW. The reason for the apology is that Bush's speech last night lead off with a long litany of new government social spending plans, lasting perhaps the first 1/3 to 1/2 of the speech. I was amazed. Community health centers, seven million new homes, more money for training and community colleges, on and on and on. If a Democrat made those sorts of promises he/she would be savaged. I heard little or no mention of this in the talking head media after the speech. (Mark Shields on PBS did say that there wasn't the slightest hope that any of it would gen enacted. This was in response to the distasteful David Brooks's pro-Bush cooing.)

It is only a PARTIAL apology because 1) I believe that a great majority of the promises are pure bullshit: he didn't make the slightest attempt to show how he was going to pay for them WHILE financing the Iraqi and Afghanistan occupations, AND making the tax cuts permanent and 2) many of the Republican "entitlement programs" that DO get implemented, such as the prescription drug plan, are actually hand-outs to big companies and not real social or economic development spending.

Nevertheless, I think TW was on to SOMETHING in throwing the massive Republican spending in the faces of our friendly Republican blog posters.

Here is what Andrew Sullivan said about it:

He pledged to provide record levels of education funding, colleges and healthcare centers in poor towns, more Pell grants, seven million more affordable homes, expensive new HSAs, and a phenomenally expensive bid to reform the social security system. I look forward to someone adding it all up, but it's easily in the trillions. And Bush's astonishing achievement is to make the case for all this new spending, at a time of chronic debt (created in large part by his profligate party), while pegging his opponent as the "tax-and-spend" candidate. The chutzpah is amazing. At this point, however, it isn't just chutzpah. It's deception. To propose all this knowing full well that we cannot even begin to afford it is irresponsible in the deepest degree. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats now is that the Bush Republicans believe in Big Insolvent Government and the Kerry Democrats believe in Big Solvent Government.

I am not backing off some of the other points I made in my previous thread postings. But I was overall too hard on TW on this point.

[singer]

http://www.deliziepandellorso.com/wwwboard/messages/33555.html auditoriumsquintedthan