[othervoice]

The center left magazine American Prospect recently devoted an issue to how conservatives developed a vast infrastructure of think tanks, lobbyists, advocacy groups, and donors with the help of big business to dominate American politics. The contributors writing for this issue argue that liberals must work on a longterm 40 year strategy to develop a liberal infrastructre that can turn the country in a better direction. Everything they said about strategy and tactics from fundraising to developing ideas and fighting for issues made perfect sense, but I couldn't help thinking that alot fewer people identify with liberalism compared to conservatism even people who support popular programs created by liberals like Social Security and Medicare. So the question is how do we draw in moderates, independents, and working people who should but do not always support liberals ?

Its important for politicians and others who are liberal to say so and stop using the term progressive. There was a time when Democrats like Senators Hubert Humphrey and Ted Kennedy were proud to say they were liberals. Democrats from the end of WWII through the 1950s talked of Roosevelt and the New Deal the way conservatives speak of Ronald Reagan. You do not find Democratic politicians like that any more and its a problem. Liberals need claim the label, tradition, and accomplishments making the arguement that we can do great things to make the country better more free, equitable, and prosperous for all our people. We did it before overcoming The Great Depression and enacting reforms to control capitalism in the public interest and expanding the rights of blacks in the Civil Rights Movement through the political leadership of liberal minded Democrats like FDR and John F. Kennedy. This is the history we must remind people of.

But liberals do not live in the past. We must argue for good paying jobs that enable people to live as truly fee people and for programs that help them when they need it. No one is free when they can't afford higher education, training, or healthcare, and freedom doesn't mean allowing large corporations or the rich to pollute the environment , keep wages low, and offer fewer benefits to working people while raking in more wealth and income for themselves. This "breadwinner liberalism" reasonates with voters because its clear, concrete, and relevant to the concerns of most people.

Reviving liberalism and more importantly making our country more free and liveable depends as much on what we say as what we do in the longrterm.

[J Oswald]

The centre left magazine American Prospect recently devoted an issue to how conservatives developed a vast infrastructure of think tanks, lobbyists, advocacy groups, and donors with the help of big business to dominate American politics.

American Prospect is, naturally, trying its best to pretend that American left-liberals haven't developed a similarly vast infrastructure of think tanks, lobbyists, advocacy groups, and donors with the help of big business to dominate American politics. Apparently, so are you.

I'll skip over the left-liberal textual masturbation that follows, and turn my attention to this paragraph:

But liberals do not live in the past. We must argue for good paying jobs that enable people to live as truly fee people and for programs that help them when they need it. No one is free when they can't afford higher education, training, or healthcare, and freedom doesn't mean allowing large corporations or the rich to pollute the environment , keep wages low, and offer fewer benefits to working people while raking in more wealth and income for themselves. This "breadwinner liberalism" reasonates with voters because its clear, concrete, and relevant to the concerns of most people.

It's always very fun to see new left- or right-liberal American posters come onto this forum and try to convince us that there is some meaningful difference between the two parties. I'd ask you if you are seriously claiming that the Democratic Party isn't supportive of offering "fewer benefits to working people while raking in more wealth and income for themselves," for example, but knowing your ilk, all I would get in return is some long-winded, unsubstantiative diatribe

[Eran]

No one is free when they can't afford higher education, training, or healthcare, and freedom doesn't mean allowing large corporations or the rich to pollute the environment , keep wages low, and offer fewer benefits to working people while raking in more wealth and income for themselves.

You seem to be confusing freedom with wealth. People who cannot afford higher education, training or healthcare may be poor, but they are not unfree merely by virtue of not being able to afford to purchase certain services from other people.

Nor is a society in which services for some people are "guaranteed" by forcing others to provide it can be considered "free".

And freedom does mean that corporations may keep wages low and/or offer as much or little by way of benefits as they wish, provided only that the working people are equally free not to work for such corporations.

[Rich]

It's always very fun to see new left- or right-liberal American posters come onto this forum and try to convince us that there is some meaningful difference between the two parties.

There is meaningful distance between the parties. Give one party the Presidency, a majority plus working margin in the House and a super majority plus working margin the Senate and a majority of justices on the supreme court and the chairman of the Fed and then re run history with the same for the other party and you'll see very significant differences. Look at Britain where a 20 seat majority in the house of commons really allows you to get stuff done. Britain in 1983 would have gone down a distinctly different path if Michael foot had become Prime minister with a working majority. Politics in America is a bit like the West Front in World War I, just because the opponents were evenly balanced didn't mean that the efforts of either side had no effect.

The centre of the Democratic party and the Centre of the Republican party are a long way apart. The politics of the Republican party are further confused by the alliance between semi Libertarians and social conservatives.

[Eran]

I disagree.

There are obvious differences between the parties, and the American political culture is geared towards zooming on those differences.

But take a bird's eye view and you'll see that even Democrats are not nearly as socialist as European conservatives, and even Republicans are far FAR FAR from being even moderately libertarian.

Both parties support a moderate welfare state, strong corporate welfare, strong international armed presence, etc, etc.

The differences between them are minor in comparison with their similarities.

[Someone5]

The centre left magazine American Prospect recently devoted an issue to how conservatives developed a vast infrastructure of think tanks, lobbyists, advocacy groups, and donors with the help of big business to dominate American politics. The contributors writing for this issue argue that liberals must work on a longterm 40 year strategy to develop a liberal infrastructre that can turn the country in a better direction. Everything they said about strategy and tactics from fundraising to developing ideas and fighting for issues made perfect sense, but I couldn't help thinking that alot fewer people identify with liberalism compared to conservatism even people who support popular programs created by liberals like Social Security and Medicare. So the question is how do we draw in moderates, independents, and working people who should but do not always support liberals ?

Getting anyone but some relatively wealthy and well-off folks to support liberals would be pretty hard. Getting people to support leftists, on the other hand... that wouldn't be so hard. I mean, a leftist wants the government to give people a hand to help them out and thereby strengthen working class folks... a liberal just wants to use the government to beat the population into submitting to their view of how capitalism ought to work. Getting people to go along with the latter is pretty hard.

Its important for politicians and others who are liberal to say so and stop using the term progressive.

Might be important to liberals.

There was a time when Democrats like Senators Hubert Humphrey and Ted Kennedy were proud to say they were liberals. Democrats from the end of WWII through the 1950s talked of Roosevelt and the New Deal the way conservatives speak of Ronald Reagan. You do not find Democratic politicians like that any more and its a problem. Liberals need claim the label, tradition, and accomplishments making the arguement that we can do great things to make the country better more free, equitable, and prosperous for all our people.

Note; this transition occurred when politicians abandoned leftism and embraced liberalism.

But liberals do not live in the past. We must argue for good paying jobs that enable people to live as truly fee people and for programs that help them when they need it.

Time's up for that. The jobs are gone, they're not ever coming back. Even when capital relocates back to the United States, they will automate the work so much that it creates little additional employment. The days when everyone could be assured of a job are gone.

[othervoice]

Someone5 Thank you for staying on topic and thinking about my post. I wish we could agree about liberalism because capitalism has won out against socialism or even social democracy especially in America. I do not think thats a bad thing at all. Even in Western Europe the left for the last two decades has moved towards market forces while ensuring growth, protecting the public wellbeing, and helping the needy. State ownership has greatly declined and privately owned firms have been allowed to expand. Big financial interests have been allowed to conduct business in the global marketplace within sound regulatory limits so its not a very leftwing Europe anymore. Americans don't have a problem with wealth, big corporations, or working to meet their needs but they demand fairness and concern for he needy. Sensible regulations, fair taxes, and government programs make capitalism work so we don't need to go as far left as Europeans did. Think about our economy and quality of life from the end of World War II through the early 1970s. This is why I think a compelling liberal message is so important.

[The13thFloor]

Oh please!! Are you one of those people who think that, it's only the Republicans? Obama and Romney were both sponsored by Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. Obama violates the constitution, every other day. He spews out all this propaganda about Human Rights at the UN generally assembly, then tramples all over our constitutional rights, here at home. Obama punishes 19 year old soldiers who expose Americas war crimes (Bradley Manning,) and call him a terrorist and all this other BS. Btw, what ever happened to closing Gauntanamo Bay? Another broken promise from the liar and chief.

[Social_Critic]

13th floor makes good points. I'm sort of libertarian and switched from GOP to democrat in 2000 (convinced to do so by a very bright young man who is dead but could have been a great American). This sort of gives me a good idea about both sides. And I do see the extreme right wing better organized but losing to historical forces and possibly to their need to please Christian fundamentalists.

[The13thFloor]

13th floor makes good points. I'm sort of libertarian and switched from GOP to democrat in 2000 (convinced to do so by a very bright young man who is dead but could have been a great American). This sort of gives me a good idea about both sides. And I do see the extreme right wing better organized but losing to historical forces and possibly to their need to please Christian fundamentalists.

Well, Libertarian is actually more Right than Republican. Republicans are supposed to believe in small government, but most have really swayed from those ideals. Honestly, 98% of the GOP is back woods nationalist. Burt then, most Democrats are snooty prius driving suburban city folks, who want everyone to pay more. I'm Libertarian too. I used to work out in NY, and it's a Blue State. Dude, taxes we're $100 out of every $500. That's 20%!! For a college student, working and going to school full time! I was probably paying for another family to eat!!! That's not quite as "fair" as they act like it is!!

[Someone5]

Someone5 Thank you for staying on topic and thinking about my post. I wish we could agree about liberalism because capitalism has won out against socialism or even social democracy especially in America.

People have been saying that socialism is dead since it began. Transitions between economic systems take a very long time. Socialism is about as popular as it's always been when you ask people about issues rather than about "socialism." Next time you think socialism is dead, consider the political response that threats to medicare get. That's just more end-of-history nonsense.

I do not think thats a bad thing at all.

Liberals--progressives--have claimed victory over socialism many times in the past, and it is no more true today than it has been before. Socialism is pretty hard to stamp out because it's honestly rather obvious.

Even in Western Europe the left for the last two decades has moved towards market forces while ensuring growth, protecting the public wellbeing, and helping the needy.

And "market forces" are as unpopular as ever. Governments do indeed act against the will of their people in pursuit of "ensuring growth and protecting the public well-being," and that too has been rather common throughout history. Note the popular responses to these changes that are being forced on people. Riots, mass public protest, general strikes, etc.

State ownership has greatly declined and privately owned firms have been allowed to expand. Big financial interests have been allowed to conduct business in the global marketplace within sound regulatory limits so its not a very leftwing Europe anymore.

I'm entirely aware of what liberalism does. I don't agree with it, but I do know how it "works."

Americans don't have a problem with wealth, big corporations, or working to meet their needs but they demand fairness and concern for he needy.

That is a line of absolute bullshit. Americans have no problems with big corporations? Are you fucking joking? The American government has no problem with big corporations. State governments have no problems with big corporations. But huge, huge swaths of the American citizens certainly do have massive problems with big corporations and government collusion with big corporations. And yes, lots of Americans also have a problem with obscene wealth in a country that also features grinding poverty; lots and lots of Americans certainly do have a huge problem with the income inequality in the United States.

Sensible regulations, fair taxes, and government programs make capitalism work so we don't need to go as far left as Europeans did.

We need to go much further to the left than any state in Europe even contemplated attempting. What we'll probably get in reality will fall short of that, but what we need is a revival of traditional leftism. "Sensible regulations, fair taxes, and government programs" is basically just a code-phrase for corporate welfare and protection of the wealthy by throwing crumbs to the poor.

Think about our economy and quality of life from the end of World War II through the early 1970s.

Yeah, back when the United States was plotting a political course far to the left of what it practices today. You know, back when the government actually gave socialists some level of representation--back when the two parties would set policy in a way that would attract the interest of socialist voters. That is how the United States got Medicare. That is how the United States got welfare programs at all. That is how schoolchildren got assured of a meal at school, and hundreds of other social well-being programs. We got those things because socialists in the United States pushed for them, and pushed in an effective way.

I understand that you liberals have claimed that mantle for yourselves, mainly due to the absolute failure of leftists in the west, but that needs to change. And probably will as the failures of liberalism become increasingly evident.

This is why I think a compelling liberal message is so important.

Liberalism has been a terrible experiment and a terrible failure. I have to ask; why do liberals fight so hard to ruin everything the left has done?

[Distracted]

Liberalism, including the pro-market policies of say the LibDems and Third Way Democrats but excluding libertarians as a separate thing entirely, is pretty durable because it is the political school of politics itself. Especially in countries that have been constitutional monarchies or democratic republics for long periods and have traditions of non-socialists who aren't simply for increasing the monarch or dictator's power (the SDP is the primary "liberal" party in Germany for a reason, socialists were the primary pro-democracy vehicle in the Kaiserreich).

So I think it is a misapprehension to ascribe power not represented in numbers of supporters to a specific philosophical school's idea of freedom that conflicts with a lot of people's common sense definition of the subject (not to mention the empirically derived definition), Eran; and to ascribe the successes of reform movements like the establishment of Social Security to socialism, Someone5.

Promoting that people organize politically and use the democratic process to achieve the ends that they choose, to be free to pursue whatever programs at any time that can make their lives better, and to encourage empirically analyzing what works and what doesn't, is a strong platform and a liberal one.

I'm reminded of FDR's statement about constant, bold experimentation. Or the idea in the Declaration of Independence, that for the purposes of self-government the truth will be self-evident to the people. That means it doesn't need to be handed down from the mountaintop by ancap philosophers or the self-proclaimed school of the working class that is a scientific socialist (that is to say, Marxist) political party.

Simply promoting the organs of self-government: civic education, political organizing, electoral reform, clean and fair politics; and encouraging civic engagement and a fact-based analysis and discussion regarding policy decisions. These things further liberal ends.

The movement for old-age pensions already existed, and was, in my opinion at least, not from a liberal or socialist or any school of thought. It was just a thing a lot of people wanted. And liberalism helped those people establish it on their own steam. Liberalism was the tool by which they got their voices heard in Washington and got their man elected and got Social Security.

So the smartest thing liberalism can do is not to become dogmatic about a single program, but to try to shift the debate back into a democratic and fact-based direction. Popularizing non-partisan economic findings of the CBO and promoting an understanding of the mainstream economics taught in textbooks, getting Republicans to admit tax-cuts don't pay for themselves, these are more significant achievements for promoting liberalism than they are being given credit for.

[Eran]

So I think it is a misapprehension to ascribe power not represented in numbers of supporters to a specific philosophical school's idea of freedom that conflicts with a lot of people's common sense definition of the subject (not to mention the empirically derived definition), Eran;

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what error you ascribe to me.

Promoting that people organize politically and use the democratic process to achieve the ends that they choose, to be free to pursue whatever programs at any time that can make their lives better, and to encourage empirically analyzing what works and what doesn't, is a strong platform and a liberal one.

Such a blanket statement illustrate the moral bankruptcy of liberalism. Liberalism enables and even promotes the use of the political process to achieve group goals without an independent reference to the morality of either goals or means.

This is a form of the "might makes right" fallacy, with "might" understood in the context of democratic politics to be broadly synonymous with "popularity". Thus popular policies are taken, with very few exceptions, to be "right" regardless of their content.

[SE23]

Really how deluded are intellectuals these days, claiming they are the oppressed minority blah blah. I would argue in the U.K that there is a liberal bias in schools, universities, the majority of the media and in government institutions such as local councils. Look at the flak libertarians such as Nigel Farrage recieved. A conservative establishment has been replaced by a liberal establishment, and like the predecessor this one is going to have its faults with it as well.

[Rothbardian]

The center left magazine American Prospect recently devoted an issue to how conservatives developed a vast infrastructure of think tanks, lobbyists, advocacy groups, and donors with the help of big business to dominate American politics. The contributors writing for this issue argue that liberals must work on a longterm 40 year strategy to develop a liberal infrastructre that can turn the country in a better direction. Everything they said about strategy and tactics from fundraising to developing ideas and fighting for issues made perfect sense, but I couldn't help thinking that alot fewer people identify with liberalism compared to conservatism even people who support popular programs created by liberals like Social Security and Medicare. So the question is how do we draw in moderates, independents, and working people who should but do not always support liberals ?

Its important for politicians and others who are liberal to say so and stop using the term progressive. There was a time when Democrats like Senators Hubert Humphrey and Ted Kennedy were proud to say they were liberals. Democrats from the end of WWII through the 1950s talked of Roosevelt and the New Deal the way conservatives speak of Ronald Reagan. You do not find Democratic politicians like that any more and its a problem. Liberals need claim the label, tradition, and accomplishments making the arguement that we can do great things to make the country better more free, equitable, and prosperous for all our people. We did it before overcoming The Great Depression and enacting reforms to control capitalism in the public interest and expanding the rights of blacks in the Civil Rights Movement through the political leadership of liberal minded Democrats like FDR and John F. Kennedy. This is the history we must remind people of.

But liberals do not live in the past. We must argue for good paying jobs that enable people to live as truly fee people and for programs that help them when they need it. No one is free when they can't afford higher education, training, or healthcare, and freedom doesn't mean allowing large corporations or the rich to pollute the environment , keep wages low, and offer fewer benefits to working people while raking in more wealth and income for themselves. This "breadwinner liberalism" reasonates with voters because its clear, concrete, and relevant to the concerns of most people.

Reviving liberalism and more importantly making our country more free and liveable depends as much on what we say as what we do in the longrterm.

If what you want is freedom, you should stop fixating on what kind of nonsensical rhetoric one political party uses to trick the mouth breathing masses into supporting them.