The occasion was the recent (April 12) publication of
Alterman's latest book, The Cause: The
Fight for American Liberalism from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama (New
York: Viking 2012), coauthored with Kevin Mattson and called by CAP "the first
full-scale treatment of postwar liberalism."
A history of liberalism is most valuable for all
those left of the Right wing, I'd say, because the Right wing, for all intents
and purposes, can't be reached. A consistent theme throughout the stimulating
discussion was that liberalism has lost its self-confidence. Too personified for
my taste, but true.
After the discussion, it became clear to me, and
Alterman agreed, that the ruthless surgeon/amputator was the deterioration of
our public school system that can be traced back to the seventies along with
the rise of plutocracy and its dumbing down of the populace to the level of
irrationality that fuels the money grubbers.
The Children's Crusade was led, after all, by middle
and upper-middle class college students seeking to activate the principles they
were studying as part of their humanities curriculum, emphasis on which has
decreased also with the rise of the plutocracy over the decades since the
seventies.
The Enlightenment is the backbone of liberalism, said
Alterman, that flowering of reason that fueled the American Revolution and the
values it sought to perpetrate.
"Liberalism has a lot to learn," he said. The key to
life is learning from the mistakes of others, he continued, quoting his good
friend Warren Buffet.
Along with the Enlightenment, came the second of its
three main roots, New Deal liberalism, which added the theme that beliefs must
be realized, not simply idealized. The government must be on the side of
individuals, championing equality of opportunity, which became an issue in this
country with the advent of the industrial revolution.
The third principal root of liberalism was a product
of the 1960s, cultural liberalism, which demanded civil rights for those who
had never before enjoyed them. The problem with this emphasis is that it must
be coupled with economic liberalism to be effective, said Alterman. And it
wasn't.
Kazin's very valuable contribution at this point was
to distinguish between liberalism and the Left wing. "The Left brings up issues
that liberals won't face," he said. For liberals, slavery was an issue that
would resolve itself through time, a problem that could be solved by deporting
all blacks back to Africa. For the abolitionists, who ultimately triumphed,
there was no compromise. The slaves had to be freed, and they were.
In the late nineteenth century, the labor unions that
arose to protect and sponsor workers' rights were led by radicals and
considered radical, even by liberals, who hated strikes, which were frequent at
that time.
To accomplish what needs to be done, said Kazin, the
Left must ally themselves with the liberal elite. Added Halpin, the Left feels
freer to criticize government than do liberals.
Liberals and the Left are nearly symbiotic, said
Alterman. Liberals, including the Kennedys and LBJ, were late to champion civil
rights in the sixties and had to be prodded, but to get the job done, LBJ was
as crucial as the radical MLK.
The liberals also stab themselves in the back with
internal back stabbing over disagreements, losing sight of their friends, the
Left wing, and in this process, their opposition to their real opponents, the
right wing, is being weakened. The Right wing presents a united front against
them, further diluting their strength.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
