Posts Tagged ‘liberalism’

Neo-conservative Threat

Sunday, April 5th, 2009

I’m often asked why the left has to be revived. Hasn’t the revival already happened with Obama’s election and the collapse of free market fundamentalism?

My answer to this question is no. The backlash to many of Obama’s policies will be strong, conservative interest groups are powerful, and, most importantly, I don’t think there has yet been a fundamental shift in moral values that will secure a liberal future for America.

In particular, foreign policy and security will be highly resistant to liberal influence.

The military/industrial complex is still in place and its supporters remain dominant in the press corps, policy institutes and think tanks that generate the conventional wisdom in Washington. Neo-conservatism—the ideology that brought us the Iraq War and the “global war on terror”—still represents mainstream thinking on foreign policy. (Eliot Abrams, a long-time, influential neo-con was just appointed to the Council on Foreign Relations) These institutions are likely to outlast the Obama administration and will be ready to reassert themselves when the Republicans regain power in Washington.

The manner in which the Iraq War plays out will likely benefit neo-cons, not liberals. If things remain quiet there and our troop commitment lessens, the neo-cons will take credit for the surge that worked, a policy that liberals opposed. If things turn violent again, it will be liberals who are blamed since it happened on their watch.

Furthermore, Obama’s Afghanistan policy does not represent a fundamental change in thinking. Juan Cole opines that Afghanistan is turning into Iraq:

“The secretary of defense is predicting that the US military will be in Afghanistan indefinitely and will only achieve limited goals there. (!) I ask myself, “why?’”

If Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, it will be Obama’s approach—more diplomacy and development aid—that will come under attack from neo-cons who will likely be successful in arguing that a more robust military response would have succeeded. Afghanistan may well be the quagmire that stymies the development of a genuinely liberal political culture.

Anti-communist militarism helped bring conservatives to power in the 20th Century. Militarism may well bring them back to power in the 21st—unless public attitudes undergo a more fundamental shift toward a less militaristic stance.

To bring about that shift is one among many reasons why liberalism is still in need of revival.

Old Left, New Left

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

Sheri Berman’s recent article in Dissent is a terrific primer on the history of left politics in the 20th century and a thoughtful assessment of the direction of left politics in the near future.

 

Berman casts the 20th Century debate as one between those who think capitalism should be replaced (Democratic Socialists) and those who think capitalism should be managed (Social Democrats)

 

And the Social Democrats have won. Much of Western Europe is governed by social democratic principles and, prior to the right wing’s coming to power, the United States was a highly regulated, free market system that aspired to provide basic necessities for nearly all citizens.

 

Why did social democracy achieve victory over democratic socialism? Because after World War II, social democracy succeeded in combining economic growth, well-functioning democracy, and social stability.

 

“Without the amazing economic results generated by the operations of relatively free markets, the dramatic improvements of mass living standards throughout the West would not have been possible. Without the social protections and limits on markets imposed by states, in turn, the benefits of capitalism would never have been distributed so widely, and economic, political and social stability would have been infinitely more difficult to achieve.”

By contrast, the socialists wanted to get rid of capitalism and transform society by ridding it of the exploitation inherent in an economic class system. But in the face of the success of social democracy, they ultimately made themselves ineffective, lacking any practical program for achieving their aims.

 

And what about the present?

 

“One of the great ironies of the twentieth century is that the very success of this social democratic compromise made it seem routine; we forget how new and controversial it actually was. As a result, by the end of the twentieth century the West had begun to gradually abandon this compromise, moving in a more neoliberal direction, freeing markets and economic activity from some of the oversight and restrictions that had characterized the postwar settlement. The challenge to the left today is to recover the principles underlying this settlement and to generate from them initiatives that address today’s new problems and opportunities….American leftists must try to do what the Scandinavians have done: develop a program that promotes growth and social solidarity together, rather than forcing a choice between them.”

 

This seems quite right

 

But Berman goes on to say that the left has lost optimism and historical vision.

“ Despite current disillusionment with capitalism, this is precisely the situation the left finds itself in today, given the loss of its vision of a postcapitalist society. Many of its parties win elections, but few inspire much hope or offer more than a kinder, gentler version of a generic centrist platform. Given the left’s past, this is astonishing. The left has traditionally been driven by the conviction that a better world was possible and that its job was to bring this world into being. Somehow this conviction has been lost.

I think this is right but it is crucial how we understand the idea of transformation.

 

The old left was animated by the idea that if we transformed the economic system we could invent a new human being, less selfish and greedy than the human being constructed by capitalism. But this idea of inventing a new being through a political process was dangerous. Politics cannot drive moral transformation—at best it can gently encourage it.

 

Social democracy was successful because it did not try to invent a new being. It aligned its vision with the public’s desire for consumer goods. Its political agenda was aligned with the moral motives of citizens who were seeking stability and prosperity. By contrast, any political movement that conflicts with the moral framework of those it aspires to govern will either turn violent or be marginalized.  

 

Socialism faces a hurdle. Most people have moral identities that are not formed around beliefs rooted in class conflict and do not depend on class solidarity. This has been and will always be the Achilles heel of genuinely socialist movements. The vague, poorly conceptualized alternatives to capitalism on offer from socialists are unlikely to garner mass support. Democratic socialism will likely remain a pipe dream.

 

Berman is right that the left needs a vision. But it must be a vision rooted in moral ideals that are already at least latently lived by the public. Regaining political momentum requires changing hearts and minds as much as it requires finding new social and economic institutions.

Hello world!

Tuesday, February 17th, 2009

Welcome to Reviving the Left: The Home of Rootstock Liberalism. This website is dedicated to exploring liberal values and developing a revised liberal moral identity that can meet 21st century challenges. These are the themes of the book entitled Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America.

We see the conversation developing along two fronts-the ideas that drive contemporary liberalism and the activism that brings those ideas to fruition. Thus, we offer two blogs-one that emphasizes the philosophy of liberalism (called Rants and Reasons), and another that focuses on activism (entitled Action Left.)

We invite comments, but please keep them civil and on topic. We monitor comments and will delete irrelevant and offensive comments as well as trollery.