When was liberalism’s expiration date?
posted at 9:55 am on April 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
E.J. Dionne commemorates the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King by proclaiming it the day that liberalism died. He argues that King’s death led to the election of Richard Nixon, thanks to his “coded racism” of law and order, and that liberalism died on the balcony at the Lorraine in Memphis. The only problem with this analysis is that it ignores the entire decade of the 1970s and misses the mark by eleven years:
It is easy to forget that the core themes of contemporary conservatism were born in response to the events of 1968. The attacks on “big government,” the defense of states’ rights, and the scorn for “liberal judicial activism,” “liberal do-gooders,” “liberal elitists,” “liberal guilt” and “liberal permissiveness” were rooted in the reaction that gathered force as liberal optimism receded.
From the death of John F. Kennedy in November 1963 until the congressional elections of November 1966, liberals were triumphant, and what they did changed the world. Civil rights and voting rights, Medicare and Medicaid, clean air and clean water legislation, Head Start, the Job Corps and federal aid to schools had their roots in the liberal wave that began to ebb when Lyndon Johnson‘s Democrats suffered broad losses in the 1966 voting. The decline that 1966 signaled was sealed after April 4, 1968.
Liberals themselves share blame for the waning of their movement. Just because right-wing politicians used “law and order” as a code for race did not mean that concern about crime was illegitimate. On the contrary, the country was in the opening stages of a serious crime wave and had good reason to worry about rising violence.
Liberalism itself was cracking up in 1968. Liberals had turned on each other over Johnson’s Vietnam policy. The old civil rights coalition splintered as advocates of racial integration warred with defenders of Black Power, a slogan voiced in 1966 by a young activist named Stokely Carmichael.
First, the contemporary themes of modern conservatism existed at least a decade before the summer of 1968. By that time, William F. Buckley had solidified the conservative movement around his intellectual bases for it, with National Review uniting disparate conservative factions into a political force. Barry Goldwater ran on that platform in 1964, doomed by the martyrdom of a young President who is best understood as a centrist who supported civil rights in opposition to his own party and as a continuance of the Eisenhower administration’s efforts to enforce federal law in Jim Crow regions.
And Nixon was hardly the epitome of modern conservatism. Nixon, it will be recalled, imposed wage and price controls on the American economy that would raise screams of socialism today, even among centrists and independents. While he certainly believed in law and order (except in application to himself), Nixon expanded federal authority and land management in every direction. He started the EPA and pushed for the Endangered Species Act that constituted large intrusions on private property ownership that remains to this day.
The entire decade of the 1970s constituted a liberal experiment in American governance, and not just in top-down management of the economy. Affirmative action started and expanded not before 1968 but afterwards. We withdrew from Vietnam and allowed the Saigon government to fall, thanks to defeatism at home. We became weaker abroad and allowed our military to sag during the transition to an all-volunteer force. Unemployment and inflation rose while we allowed OPEC to batter our economy rather than ramp up our own domestic oil production capabilities.
And finally, in November 1979, we reached the nadir of American power when we allowed the Iranians to sack our embassy in Tehran without offering any appropriate response. The collapse of American prestige continued for 444 days while the liberal administration of Jimmy Carter floundered for a solution short of military action. Religious fanatics held our diplomatic personnel — and our credibility — hostage for well over a year, during which the Soviet Union felt emboldened enough to invade Afghanistan and set off a series of events that plague us to this day.
That was the end of liberalism as a credible political force. After a long run of American decline, voters corrected their poor 1964 decision and elected a Goldwater conservative in Ronald Reagan. We finally rejected the big-government model of politics and demanded a return to private-property respect and robust international power. Iran understood the implications and hastily arranged an end to the hostage crisis before Reagan could take action against the mullahcracy we helped establish.
The two 1968 assassinations of King and Robert Kennedy definitely changed the course of American history. They didn’t end liberalism by any stretch of the imagination.
Update: The Anchoress has some interesting further thoughts on what did end with the Kennedy and King assassinations.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Huh. I didn’t know “law and order” were code words for racism. EJ Dionne is a useless hack.
Badger in KC on April 4, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Liberalism is alive & well. Look at how high Obama is polling despite Rezko/Wright/CanadaGate, Michelle’s big mouth, & no experience.
jgapinoy on April 4, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Liberalism is dominating the world, with the USA & precious few others (half-heartedly) trying to ward it off.
jgapinoy on April 4, 2008 at 10:03 AM
And then the liberals arranged for a liberal to be made the republican (with a small “r”) presidential nominee. And they have the gall to complain about Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos.
The era of big government is not dead, it just went covert. On 20 January 2009 the resurrection of liberalism (i.e. socialism) and big government will return.
At this point I would put the phrase “God help us all,” but we are told that there is no God but Gaia and Algore is her prophet.
TwinkietheKid on April 4, 2008 at 10:06 AM
The beginning of the end came when the Frankfurt school immigrated to America. Their intellectual attack on reason and free speech, combined with their sexual liberation ideology and ethnic studies, set us up for ethnic rights and the break down of mores.
But we must not entirely historicize this moment. Liberalism is still under attack. The FITNA censorship this week shows we must keep fighting against what Marcuse ignited with political correctness and “repressive tolerance” in the 1960s.
Recently, I’ve had some articles rejected out of politically correct publishing rules. I blog about it this week. When free speech goes, liberal democracies are in trouble. Liberalism’s expiration date has not happened yet. Keep fighting.
http://www.culturism.us
culturism on April 4, 2008 at 10:10 AM
I disagree with the premise that MLK was a liberal. MLK held the following conservative values: Respect for all people regardless of color/race/creed, reward by merit, giving everyone a fair chance, love of God, love of country, speaking the truth even when unpopular, respect for life and pro-life values, respect and importance of fathers and family, just to name a few.
Just like Brown v. Board of Education was NOT a liberal ruling, it was the most conservative of rulings: “All mean are created equal.”
JustTruth101 on April 4, 2008 at 10:12 AM
typo/All men are created equal.
JustTruth101 on April 4, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Twinkie nailed it. There is nothing left to be said.
Angry Dumbo on April 4, 2008 at 10:14 AM
As a European, I find it amazingly frustrating how Americans use the word “liberalism” when what you’re describing is social democracy. Where I’m from liberalism means a free-market, private property respecting, small-government ideology. When/how did the term take on opposite meanings in the US and Europe?
xyan on April 4, 2008 at 10:15 AM
What the 1968-72 period did was to really radicalize American liberalism, due to the combination of the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam protests. Nixon’s decision to abandon the draft and go to a volunteer military shattered that coalition, but the left failed to realize it, and both they and the people covering them in the media thought this more hyper-aggressive, anti-American left was the “wave of the future”.
That led to their delusional push for McGovern in 1972, which involved not only isolating and demonizing the Southern Democrat wing of the party, but doing the same to the Richard Daily old-time machine pols up north, many of whose supporters would later become the Reagan Democrats. And the irony is, they’re still so sure of their absolute moral authority that — thanks to Nixon’s later resignation — most of them who were around at that time still see nothing wrong with what they did in the late 60s and early 70s, which is why they also can’t see any problems today with the Obama campaign.
jon1979 on April 4, 2008 at 10:17 AM
yep that along with “street crime”,”underclass” and “welfare queens” are all just racial code words. Republicans have a long history of using them to critique liberal policies rather than just coming up with better ideas themselves. Conservatives used “law and order” as a critique of the civil rights movement in the early 60′s.
crr6 on April 4, 2008 at 10:18 AM
This Hayek article has been linked to before on HA. But it does help define some terms like Conservatism, socialism, and liberalism, especially from the European point of view. Perhaps it’s what you mean.
JiangxiDad on April 4, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Dionne’s belief that liberalism “died” in 1968 fails to take into account that what the assassinations ended up doing was to radicalize liberalism and codify the ascent of the “New Left” to prominence, culminating in the McGovern takeover of the Democratic party in 1972.
The New Left was not made up of the mostly harmless, starry eyed idealists of the old left who, like Humphrey and Johnson were staunch anti-communists, internationalists, and above all, realists who believed in incremental change in order to maintain consensus.
The radicals had taken over the barnyard and to this day, dominate Democratic politics. You can draw a straight line from McGovern to Obama – the triumph of emotion and “feelings” over objectivism and rationality. Obama himself was the pointed end of the New Left stick as a street organizer in Chicago. He and his radical friends seek to overturn society and re-create it into something unrecognizable to most of us – a paradise for the PC crowd, the multiculturalists, the American apologists, and all the other unsavory hangers on who have been pushing leftist dogma for 35 years.
God help us if they win the highest office in the land.
rick moran on April 4, 2008 at 10:20 AM
nothing like trying to rewrite history. typical liberalism. They want to blame others for their downfall. when in fact it was liberalism that detroyed itself.
unseen on April 4, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Nanny state liberalism has won. Every free democracy in the world moves ever closer to the ultimate nanny state that cares for every need of its citizens, and makes all the decisions for them.
Even such a small small thing as a one year moratorium on ear marks is soundly defeated, meanwhile the federal gov’t takes ever more power unto itself.
There is a rear-guard action by a small minority, joined unfortunately by nutjobs like Ron Paul, but they can at best slow down the momentum, not stop or reverse it.
Clark1 on April 4, 2008 at 10:23 AM
I’ve thought it was high time that “Conservatives” here rescue the term “liberalism.” It has been kidnapped by the radical left for a long time, and then we demonized it. It’s quite a good thing, at least classically. I think the term ought to be resurrected and owned by us.
RUSH, CAN YOU PLEASE ADOPT “LIBERALISM”, AND HELP TO RE-DEFINE IT FOR A NEW GENERATION? ALSO, I’M STILL FREE TO COME OVER ANY TIME. THANKS.
JiangxiDad on April 4, 2008 at 10:23 AM
I really wonder whether what Martin Luther king spawned was good for blacks or any Americans, for that matter.
Since he died, how many “civil rights leaders” have used his legacy simply to enrich themselves? Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are only the best known, but there have been hundreds of people who have used their positions to extort power and money.
What really did the “civil rights” movement, get American blacks? Liberalism destroyed the black family and it’s now to the point where young black males feel being sentenced to prison is a rite of passage.
MLK would be appalled at what’s occurred in his name. It probably would have been better if he had never existed.
NoDonkey on April 4, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Without bothering to read EJ Dionne’s lithping, thlobbering opinionth, I ask – if liberalism is dead, how does he explain himself? How does he explain the liberal dreck that we are inundated with everywhere, every day?
Jaibones on April 4, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Who spearheaded welfare reform on a national level in the 90′s? It sure as hell wasn’t the democrats; Clinton went along for the ride.
And closer to home for me, who drove welfare reform in Wisconsin? A Republican governor, that’s who.
Badger91 on April 4, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Conservatives DID come up with better ideas. Welfare-to-work, tax cuts, free trade, etc. We as a country are much better off with conservative ideas.
But I am amused at your assertion (without proof) that conservatives use “racial code words”. Just like Dionne, you assume something to be true because you want to believe it.
Badger in KC on April 4, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Well it’s not dead, of course. It just now has a robust intellectual opposition. Dionne is aware his words will receive the scorn they deserve in the blogs and talk radio. He’s spitting in the wind, and doesn’t like the faceful of phlegm that hits him every day. They played without opposition for so long that they whine about it now. In that respect, the glory days of Am. liberalism are over. If it progresses any further, it will be due to suspension of liberties, and a re-write/discard of the constitution–something they’re eager and willing to do of course.
JiangxiDad on April 4, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Unfortunately, stupid is forever.
saiga on April 4, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Dionne is a flaming ass and I have to bite both sides of my lower lip just to read is name. Anyone who believes this dolt is a hopeless leftist and a potential danger to the Republic.
rplat on April 4, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Great article, thanks! That’s pretty much exactly what I mean. In this internet day and age, the American use of the term is sadly starting to influence the European discourse as well. The Hayek article clears it all up, I’ll keep it handy for the next time I’m discussing with a European “internet-conservative” who “hates liberalism”. As you are probably aware of, European conservatism isn’t necessarily a good thing.
xyan on April 4, 2008 at 10:47 AM
If liberalism died 40 years ago, that would explain the putrifying stench of the left today. Something decomposing for 40 years won’t smell much good.
mountainmanbob on April 4, 2008 at 10:49 AM
“….We are dealing with issues that cannot be solved without the nation spending billions of dollars and undergoing a radical redistribution of economic power.”
—Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Yep. A Poor Peoples Campaign, 1968. Campaign until all Americans need government assistance. Sorry, Ed you and Dionne are just plain wrong.
The MLK’s concept of “social justice” pervades our government, courts, schools and media. The notion of “redistributing” wealth has won the ideological battle. Look at our choices for POTUS, each of the three who remain are class-envy populists. These are the victors and the government that Americans want. Liberalism has extinguished conservatism, not the other way around.
Angry Dumbo on April 4, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Sorry, I didn’t quite get around to reading any of the rest of the article.
But collectivism was completely discredited around a hundred years ago as an economic theory. Now it is a religion. And it’s not going to die any time soon.
logis on April 4, 2008 at 10:52 AM
I love how the left always claims to have passed civil rights laws when they fought against them when Ike was in office. Of course they’re never called on it. Big surprise!
kongzilla on April 4, 2008 at 10:53 AM
jon1979 and Rick Moran: Bingo!
Interestingly, today Juan Williams has a column in the WSJ about the distortion of MLK’s message by Obama and those hearing what they choose to believe in Obama’s message of “hope” and “change”.
The race-hustlers and race-baiters who followed King after his assassination, starting with Jackson and Sharpton all the way up to the Wrights and Farrakhans, having been stoking divisiveness and hatred while lining their own pockets and destroying the Black family.
onlineanalyst on April 4, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Liberalism lives on in China.
dougless on April 4, 2008 at 10:54 AM
The election was also three months after the Gulf of Tonkin and the economy was on fire after the Kennedy tax cuts.
Harpoon on April 4, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Yes, I am indeed. And I find that article very helpful as well. I’ve referred back to it many times.
JiangxiDad on April 4, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I’m not sure when this change took place, but what was called “liberalism” is now called “classical liberalism”, and is sometimes identified with libertarianism.
Bigfoot on April 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM
It’s interesting to consider the whining of a 1960s liberal in looking back at the big picture over a long stretch of time. In the light of today’s politics, I see the harm being done to our minority communities by affirmation action and the soft bigotry of low expectations that is the bread and butter of the liberal community. They are our worst racists, and actually seem to believe that blacks (especially) and hispanics are inferior, something that I don’t think that even white supremecists every really believed.
I am reminded of this again as my daughter gets her letters back from the liberal college admissions departments. Inferior students — not as smart, not as hard-working, not as accomplished — from wealthier families getting into colleges that denied her, only because of the color of their skin. This is the world that liberals always claimed existed, but exactly in reverse.
The white supremacy racists mostly seem to think that blacks are inherently immoral, and that hispanics and other brown skinned immigrants will simply breed white Americans into obscurity, a la Steyn and the Muslim hoards. But liberals actually seem to think that these minorities are not as good as them, and both need and deserve special consideration in order to function. They claim this is because Americans have created an inherently racist social structure, but liberals have had more to do with the social structure than conservatives, in my opinion.
Now, after the cultural storm is over and we see the wreckage, it seems to me that the only ones who truly do view our world with a clear eye and a single set of rules are the conservatives, of all colors. We can quote King’s lofty speeches with a straight face; we can hear Wright’s racist and Marxist language and call it what it is; we can point to the blacks who stand and cheer this nonsense and say “really? You’re applauding this crap?”, while the liberals have to quietly stew over it, afraid to admit what they are thinking. Generation after generation people from all over the world clamor to come here and experience the opportunity that we take for granted, and liberals stand on the sidelines and yell “No! It’s not what you think! This country is racist and evil!”
When we point to the failure and discrimination of affirmative action, we are quoting Ward Connerly, Shelby Steele and John McWhorter – black Americans who know the reality of the issue, and can point out that injustice without hesitation, and without a vested interest, or even against apparent interest, knowing that they will be ostracized by the great majority of American blacks as “Uncle Toms” and self-hating “Oreos”. Nonsense. Connerly has seen the issue as a university board regent, and as a parent of top students, whose every achievement is denigrated as being the product of affirmative action, when they are the product of brains and hard work.
Distilled down into the quotes that we hear from King’s public speeches, without the anger and Marxism of his black church rantings, I believe that those ideals are what inform conservatives most in our thoughts on public policy. And I believe that we – conservatives – are alone in that struggle.
Jaibones on April 4, 2008 at 11:07 AM
(Sorry; that was long)
Jaibones on April 4, 2008 at 11:07 AM
You are correct xyan. Leftists co-opted the term “liberal” for themselves in the 1930′s. Now that liberal means political death to leftists today, they are running to the term “progressive”, which in the 30′s meant socialist/communist. So we may be getting back to where we belong.
Harpoon on April 4, 2008 at 11:09 AM
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
RONALD REAGAN, Reason Magazine, Jul. 1, 1975
Angry Dumbo on April 4, 2008 at 11:10 AM
onlineanalyst –
You’re right about the co-opting of King’s message. People forget how much in the period from 1966 through early 1968 King was reviled by the more militant Black Power movement for his refusal to engage in the sort of rhetoric Rev. Wright now sells on DVD from his sermons. But just as JFK was too valuable as a martyr post-assassination for Democratic politicians (including Teddy) to let his actual words and actions as president to get in the way of using his name to get their way, so it is today that the race hustlers and separatists within the African-American movement see Dr. King’s image as being too powerful not to use to their own ends.
Like JFK, once King was dead he could be invoked by people like Jackson as the reason to support whatever their latest cause was, because they knew to invoke him was to silence many of their critics. Add the volubility of people being afraid of being branded as racists if they don’t support the cause — even if the cause is opposite what MLK actually preached — and you have the perfect icon for these politically correct times.
What makes the left mad is that, while many are reluctant to call people like Jackson or Sharpton on their deceptions in public, they have done it in the voting booth by not giving the left carte blanche to carry out their social agenda. It may sadden E.J. Dionne, but it’s the left’s own fault for not realizing what their post-68 radicalization did to their public image that has led to them only being able to get their agenda past now by denying what they’re really trying to do and what they really believe.
jon1979 on April 4, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Marty King was rousing the rabble at labor rallies in his final days. That’s why he was even in Memphis – a sanitation workers’ strike. His best friend, Ralph Abernathy, wrote that King beat up his girlfriend the morning he was shot. Pardon me for bringing that up.
King’s FBI records and surveillance tapes were sealed by a judge until c. 2030. Why’s that? Why do the facts about a national “hero” have to remain unscrutinized? Do the dead have privacy concerns?
Bobby Kennedy warned him to stop fraternizing with known Communists so as not to harm the civil rights movement, meaning that he was detrimental to it in the eyes of a consumate liberal. King accompanied Rosa Parks to the Highlander Folk School training site, a known Communist-run outfit, where they were photographed. He plagiarized his thesis. And so on and on. What a disgrace that he has been apotheosized. It’s a national embarrassment.
The whole of liberalism has been a sad parasitic joke of which this sad sack’s story is just another chapter that needs to be sanitized in an ongoing game of make believe.
Liberalism didn’t die in Memphis. It was born an idiot and remains institutionalized, unable to care for itself.
Akzed on April 4, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Once someone is murdered–for example, JFK or MLK–it’s considered anathema to criticize him. So we forget about MLK’s flirting with all the chicks & with Communism.
jgapinoy on April 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM
The USA isn’t trying to ward off liberialism, its trying to export it to every country around the world. Go back and read Bush’s State of The Union addresses.
aengus on April 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM
You are both correct with these facts.
The blurring about MLK derives in large part from the role the media played in creating the narrative of our history.
onlineanalyst on April 4, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Anyone believe LBJ was connected with the JFK assassination?
Red Pill on April 4, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Thats the silliest thing I have ever heard, and I don’t believe that is the meaning of the passage. It is commonsense to realize that all men, of course, are not created equal. Many are gifted, some are burdened, and most are average, but all have the same opportunity to achieve, and this opportunity is the best that we can hope to accomplish. It is God’s province to gift or burden a man, but it is our responsibility to give all men the opportunity to make the most of their gift, or inspire us with their ability to overcome their burden.
DFCtomm on April 4, 2008 at 11:53 AM
yep you’re absolutely right. If there’s one thing to admire about conservatives it’s that they’re far better politicians. Conservative demoagoguery on welfare and crime issues forced Clinton to attempt to own them through his triangulation strategy. Despite the fact that cutbacks to welfare in the 70′s til today probably helped increase crime and most people didn’t stay on welfare very long anyway, as Reagan frequently implied.
what do you think of when you hear those words? When conservatives came up with “welfare queen” do you think they were confident it would stir up anger towards those darn white women on welfare? You’re either laughably naive or willfully ignorant. During the war on crime why was there a focus on “street crime” by the “underclass” rather than white collar crime which has a monetary cost many times that of other crime?
crr6 on April 4, 2008 at 11:56 AM
The premise is denied. Nevertheless, black on black crime is very serious. Your inability to empathize is disgusting.
JiangxiDad on April 4, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Just in case no one has caught on:
1. Martin Luther King’s Lincolesque “I have a Dream Speech” speech, gave hope to Blacks. The Democrat Party couldn’t have that as they were crafting the Welfare State as an experiment in Social Engineering hopefully leading to a wider application in future years. King died a martyr for Individualism.
2. Hayek’s essay only serves to illustrate a ‘Third Way’ in which Classic Liberalism is subsumed by American Conservativism which, itself, continues to move towards Nationalism as a means of protecting Constitutional Rights.
3. Socialists now control Public Education, Universities and most Federal, State and Local Governments. Individualism is reviled as being sociopathic.
Sorry, I don’t buy one ounce of this specious Bravo Sierra dreck. I was created a unique Individual and I choose to treat everyone else in the same manner. In my mind Group Thinkers like Neo-Liberals are Socialists, Conservatives are becoming Nationalists and Libertarians can’t agree on anything.
SeniorD on April 4, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I’m old enough to remember 1968, and my small-C conservative father, a Democrat turned Nixon supporter, wasn’t upset by blacks. For him, it was those “commie-loving” hippies that were his pet peeve. He was generally supportive of equal rights for blacks. Just not for “crazy drugged-out hippies.”
RBMN on April 4, 2008 at 12:04 PM
That’s right. You’re unique just like everyone else.
Akzed on April 4, 2008 at 12:07 PM
xyan on April 4, 2008 at 10:15 AM
When Americans say “Liberal,” people in the rest of the world, need to think “Leftist.” Kind of like the Soccer/Football thing. Since I participate in a couple of blogs with an international audience, I’ve learned to always say Leftist so that I am understood.
Kafir on April 4, 2008 at 12:08 PM
“And finally, in November 1979, we reached the nadir of American power when we allowed the Iranians to sack our embassy in Tehran without offering any appropriate response. The collapse of American prestige continued for 444 days while the liberal administration of Jimmy Carter floundered for a solution short of military action. Religious fanatics held our diplomatic personnel — and our credibility — hostage for well over a year, during which the Soviet Union felt emboldened enough to invade Afghanistan and set off a series of events that plague us to this day.
That was the end of liberalism as a credible political force.”
Ed makes me wish I had conservative parents so that I would have seen these events clearly when they happened.
As long as I’m wishing for stuff, I wish my brother wasn’t still clinging to his worn out liberalism as if he needs it to survive. Even Hilly has traded her Liberal label for Progressive one. Actually, she is/was way too much of a facist (with a ‘socialist’ veneer) to ever have been a true liberal. After all, she was a Young Republican before she decided to switch sides. We all know that right-wingers are all facists. ;-)
Thanks for the history lesson, Ed, I appreciate it.
Christine on April 4, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Oh I’m sure you’re sooo concerned about urban crime issues. I grew up in the inner city and saw it first hand, I don’t have to empathize, I’ve experienced it. When Reagan and others focused on street crime it wasn’t to help solve the problem of black on black crimes in the ghetto. They just wanted a scapegoat. If they did have the attention of alleviating crime in the inner city boy did they fail.
crr6 on April 4, 2008 at 12:13 PM
EJ is just channeling liberal Catholic dogma. He wouldn’t be a columnist with the Washington Post if there wasn’t significant audience of liberal Catholics from which to draw.
His problem is that even the liberal Catholics now recognize that a political campaign to “enforce the laws and prosecute the offenders” is a popular position. Conservative Catholics have supported these political views for as long as they have arrived in the United States.
gabriel sutherland on April 4, 2008 at 12:20 PM
crr6 on April 4, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Do you suggest turning criminals loose.
Johan Klaus on April 4, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Some of my best friends are black. blah, blah, blah.
You are so much better than we are. You care crr6.
Crr6 for Pres. blah blah blah.
See, liberalism isn’t dead yet, ur still here. It’s just BORING.
JiangxiDad on April 4, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Law and Order code for racism? That is just silly liberal projection.
pat on April 4, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Hillary is speaking now in Memphis. She talks about a time she saw Dr. King. She was a “young woman” and was taken to the rally by a youth minister.
She’s learning. No specific date, no specific names. No way to fact check another lie.
BacaDog on April 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Name? Is he dead? Did her mother know she went? How did she get there? Who did she go with? Is anyone alive who saw her there?
JiangxiDad on April 4, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Crime does not have a color or care about the victim’s color.
Johan Klaus on April 4, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Liberalism has reached it’s expiration date…
In an analogous way it has. It’s like something that have been sitting in the refrigerator for several weeks and now has turned into some bizarre socialist science experiment.
Green with envy, hairy with a foul oder and spreading like a strain of poisonous bacteria.
Kini on April 4, 2008 at 12:41 PM
When I hear “welfare queen” I think of a woman who has never worked a day in her life using the generosity of the American people to fund her lazy lifestyle. But hey, if you want to believe that it’s a black woman, that’s your problem, pal, not mine.
As for “street crime” being the focus, it’s just possible that people don’t get killed by white collar criminals, but you can get killed by street thugs for a dollar. But again, if you want to see street thugs as being only black, that’s your problem.
What you fail to understand is that conservatives see “street thugs” and “welfare queens” as people who live off other people’s means, and offer nothing constructive in return. We’ll celebrate anyone, black, white, Native, whatever, who works to better their lives, not blame the Man for their problems. It’s only Leftists who turn it into a race/class/gender argument. Reagan never blamed black people. He blamed people who were shiftless and demanded that government feed, clothe, and house them. It was the democrats who said that argument is racist. It was democrats who have told minorities over the last 40+ years that they can not get ahead on their own accord.
So, who’s more racist- the man telling you that you don’t need constsnt help because he believes you can do it on your own, or the man who belittles you and tells you that you can never do anything because of your race?
Badger in KC on April 4, 2008 at 12:44 PM
True, but there seems to be a lot of
idiotspeople out there that will eat it because somebody told them that it is good.brtex on April 4, 2008 at 12:46 PM
I seriously don’t understand why we even listen to the likes of EJ Dionne anymore… They’ve no idea how Orwellian they sound. I spent over 20 yrs listening to “both sides” so that I could make an informed decision on most issues, and now I don’t even bother. He and those like him can’t even offer us a legitimate argument. Marxist liars ALL.
Gartrip on April 4, 2008 at 12:48 PM
In its proper context that statment means that King George III (a man) does not have a divine right to rule over the colonies. (I would argue.) There’s no reason to interpret this statement as an appeal to liberal universalism.
aengus on April 4, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Can I get an ‘Amen!’?
Real liberalism is a valid and honorable ideology. The left should consider it. Free speech & human equality are liberal ideals. Which side of the aisle advocates for them today? The right.
Again, Amen.
fluffy on April 4, 2008 at 1:05 PM
It was being killed by people like President Eisenhower, long before democrats ever thought of taking credit.
Sometimes, real history and truth gets lost in the rush to take credit or place blame.
It took a riot to have JFK follow the example of President Eisenhower (wasn’t he just a military guy?).
right2bright on April 4, 2008 at 1:12 PM
I don’t know about liberalism dying, but what we’re facing today is not liberalism, it’s neo-Marxism. All the genuine liberals I know are Republicans, and call themselves “conservative.”
I was actually pleased when I heard Clinton start calling herself “Progressive.” Nothing about her or the tyrannical control impulse she represents can properly be described as “liberal.” “Progressive” at least notes that they intend radical change. We simply have to note that all progress is not beneficial, as noted in a favorite children’s book of mine: “We’ve seen such progress in an egg. In Narnia, we call it ‘going bad.’”
philwynk on April 4, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Um… when I think of “Welfare queen” I think of the woman I saw in line at a 7-11, mid-30′s, dressed in a housecoat, cigarette hanging out of her mouth, 4 kids, missing teeth, buying Cheetos and lottery tickets with her food stamps.
She was white.
crazy_legs on April 4, 2008 at 1:16 PM
BTW, that was when I was in my teens (during the Reagan years)
crazy_legs on April 4, 2008 at 1:16 PM
But did modern liberalism evolve organically from classical liberalism?
Free speech predates classical liberalism.
aengus on April 4, 2008 at 1:17 PM
“Progress is a comfortable disease”
- e.e. cummings
aengus on April 4, 2008 at 1:19 PM
It’s possible to survive liberalism, the French finally got fed up and voted most of them out.
Redteam on April 4, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Yes Richard E. Nixon was a lot of things but a conservative he was not.
Hilts on April 4, 2008 at 1:23 PM
I can’t answer your questions. I haven’t thought through the issue enough yet. I suggested to Jonah Goldberg at NRO via email that he write his next book about it. I think it’s right up his alley, and I think it’s a provocative topic whose time is due.
JiangxiDad on April 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Agreed, JiangxiDad.
aengus on April 4, 2008 at 1:30 PM
I think ironically that today principled Conservatives are actually the true (classic) Liberals and that (todays) “Liberals” (think Alan Colmes, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, crr6, etc.) are merely Socialists.
Hilts on April 4, 2008 at 1:34 PM
By the way I think a good term for Barack Hussein Obama should be “The Mahd1″ i.e. The Expected One (see Muhammad Ahmed 1844 – 1885).
Hilts on April 4, 2008 at 1:39 PM
crr6 and E.J.Dionne are such ‘victimized’ little whiners,
crr6 a common one, E.J.Dionne an elitist one.
Indeed. Add also the term “progressive”, because liberals are nothing close to progress. See ignoring of treatement of women and abuse around the world, in the name of PC.
Entelechy on April 4, 2008 at 1:43 PM
You can’t reclaim the word progressive. Its comes straight from Communist directives of the 1920s. Its a Stalinist phrase. Lucky for Hillary not too many people know this.
aengus on April 4, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Why do people always say this like its a good thing?
aengus on April 4, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Clasic liberalism was a good thing.
It stressed individual freedom, responsibility for ones own actions, and limited government. It did not support quotas, identity politics or any of the sociologist mumbo jumbo crap of the last 45 years. It was naturally anti totalitarian and anti Communist and anti Nazi. It was not isolationist either.
Hilts on April 4, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Those are all unfair questions to ask of Hillary Clinton. She claims that all black people look alike to her.
logis on April 4, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Yes, we can! This is what I had in mind, and “liberal” in the link should be interpreted as in the true sense of the word, and yes, JiangxiDad is right. We must not let them keep both words, as they don’t exhibit any behaviour to deserve them.
Entelechy on April 4, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Yes but what I meant was if theres one modern liberal party and one classical liberal party then where do traditional conservatives fit in?
aengus on April 4, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Hm I wouldn’t go by grammarians when it comes to loaded political labels. “Progressive” is a Marxist code word. I’m sorry I don’t have any examples to hand.
aengus on April 4, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Well, maybe this is just me, but I value human life and health over money. It’s better to be embezzled from than to suffer death or permanent physical and psychological injuries from a violent crime. Also, the primary victims of black “street crime” are, overwhelmingly, other blacks, so it would be racist NOT to crack down on it.
juliesa on April 4, 2008 at 2:25 PM
crr6 on April 4, 2008 at 11:56 AM
There are more whites on welfare than blacks.
Johan Klaus on April 4, 2008 at 2:40 PM
I’d like to nominate this as the Captain’s best post since moving to Hot Air!
Al in St. Lou on April 4, 2008 at 3:03 PM
It sounds as if Hillary! is Sleep-deprived in Memphis.
onlineanalyst on April 4, 2008 at 3:07 PM
So, Liberalism died in 1979.
It will be reborn in 2009 onder the new label of Progressivism under the New Messiah, Prsident Obama.
Then the Deluge and the End of America (as we know it)…
pseudonominus on April 4, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Badger in KC on April 4, 2008 at 12:44 PM
I second that.
Johan Klaus on April 4, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Read all about Nixon’s efforts vis a vis Civil Rights here.
Buy Danish on April 4, 2008 at 5:37 PM
I am not sure, but traditional conservativism was/is definitely not ‘reactionary.’
Hilts on April 4, 2008 at 5:57 PM
I’ve come to understand that one is best to describe themselves as a classic liberal when trying to make the distinction. Using it in that way sure does fire up someone who does call themselves a “liberal.”
CTDeLude on April 4, 2008 at 8:10 PM
And of course reading below that post it seems that what I said has been already brought up.
Always late to the party it seems.
CTDeLude on April 4, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Excellent points Ed. That was an education.
Montana on April 4, 2008 at 8:14 PM
It’s interesting how the left was able in their heyday to control the very language we use to discuss issues. Liberalism was redefined to mean its opposite in many cases, and we wind up having to re-educate ourselves. Now we’re at the point that the conservative beliefs are almost identical with classical liberalism.
That effort still exists on the left. They’ve tried to make “swift boating” a synonym for “treacherous and deceitful attack” when it was clearly Kerry who had lied about his record. They invented the word “homophobe” to impugn anyone who wasn’t politically correct on Gay Rights. They successfully hung “Star Wars” on Missile Defense.
So when they accuse conservatives of using “code words”, I think that could be a classic case of projection.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 4, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Not really. We’re at the point where conservative beliefs have been banished from the public square and classical liberalism is served up as a consolation prize to disenchanted conservatives.
I find the celebration of classical liberalism on HA ridiculous. What about “classic” conservatism? You know, Burke and all that.
aengus on April 4, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »