A New Liberalism

[LBJ Revivalist]

I know many here have stated I'm a "concern troll" because of my posts with regard to the Democratic Party, and to Liberalism/Progressivism. I'd like to explain myself. The thing was, I had been spending time at some really radical right wing forums, as well as watching Glenn Beck--I was trying to open myself up to other views. The rabid nature of both towards Liberalism, Obama and the Democratic Party made me feel almost like a criminal of sorts for being a Liberal--Remember, in such venues, Liberals are presented as literally being evil.

Not only that, but I did see some undue radicalism on the part of Obama and his team--For example, Van Jones with his Socialist background and his statements about redistributing wealth to Native Americans. While I'm not opposed to a person with a Socialist or Communist background holding high office--If people want to elect someone like that, that's their business--I don't think having such a controversial figure in a President's circle does Liberalism or the Democratic Party any good. Also, I don't believe in reparations or in anything which could give rise to a further division of the races and ethnicities in this country--We should be past that on both sides.

The Fox News smear campaign on the President, and on Democrats and Liberals in general is very fierce, and it kind of effected me, and you'll know why in a bit.

I'm a Liberal, and I don't see myself as a Socialist, even though many right wingers will try to equate the two. I've down reading on Socialism, and Communism enough to know that they aren't the cartoons that the right purport them to be--For example, I've seen many on the right purport Communism to be a state wherein the State is huge and owns everything; But in truth, of course, Communism is stateless and classless. And once again, I don't believe Liberalism is either Socialism or Communism.

I'm only 20, and so I've not had the long experience of partisan, bitter politics that many here might have; I only started getting interested in politics around the 2008 campaign, and what was a passing interest became an intense passion in 2009--So I am very new to the game, and thus even though my dyed-in-the-wool nature is pretty Liberal on economic issues, I wasn't immune to the right wing's propaganda.

I know at times that my posts do come off hyperbolic, but that was due to that displaced feeling of anger--An anger borne out of the hate being directed towards Liberals (for example, hearing Liberalism is the ''cancer on America."), and also a frustration with the seeming radical right wing turn that the country has taken in the past year. It was also borne out of the right's "Us vs. Them" mentality--with Palin, for example, talking about "The Real America", and I was angry at the President for seemingly only adding fuel to these people's fire.

I kind of worry about a wave of anti-Intellectualism washing over this country, and of Palin types dominating the political landscape--I believe intellectualism does have a place in politics, and that intelligent men and women should inhabit high office, not divisive, folksy figures; I also feel a return to Laissez-Faire economics, which I find to be rather insane and morally abhorrent. So, I apologize for my threads and posts which came off hyperbolic.

Now, to get to the title of the topic, I'd like if we could have a sort of "Complacent Liberalism." What I mean is, an economic Liberalism which doesn't go beyond a certain point, or which takes the old ideas of the Roosevelts and LBJ and renews or reassembles them to fit the current times. I'm sort of complacent in my own views, and I greatly admire the said statesmen and their economic ideas. I'd like if we just kept to those sort of ideas--I love the idea of a grand platform--TR with his Fair Deal, FDR with the New Deal, Johnson with the Great Society. These were grand, all encompassing ideas; a package of legislation with a clear purpose and branding, if you will. I'd like a New Liberalism, a political environment of reform where we can have a sensible form of Universal Healthcare, a sensible form of Housing; More Government work programs (perhaps a new form of WPA); Environmental legislation; Legislation which promotes full equality for the LGBT community. More regulation, but not stifling--If we could go back to pre-1975 levels of regulation, that might work. Retool these sort of laws so that they are effective and have teeth without creating an overwhelming or complex bureaucracy. I'd also like if we saddled off the "flux" of the Great Society--Gradually getting rid of stuff like the NEA, NEH, NPR, etc, so that more money can be spent on helping people's lives, rather than art projects. Also, a softer stance on welfare--Maybe an emphasis on workfare and earned help. I do believe that social insurance and "social justice" should remain a cornerstone of Liberalism.

We also need to seriously get down to business with regard to saving and preserving Social Security and Medicare so that it's around when my generation reaches old age--Not in a privatized or stock form, but in the same form it is now, with a renewed trust fund. I'd also like if Liberals and the Democratic Party weren't so beholden to labor interests. I believe in labor, and worker's rights, and worker's comp, but I also believe labor reform is greatly needed in many areas--sensible reforms.

We should also try to limit the lobbyists, and abhor any truly radical or fringe elements. I don't want Communists in the Party or in any position around the Party--Let them join their own parties and stop polluting the Democratic Party--No more fuel for the right wingers.

I'd also like if the Democratic Party became more hawkish, especially on the matter of border control. We were once the part of men like FDR and Harry Truman--Presidents whom valued this nation's security and weren't overly sensitive to the cries of political correctness in achieving safety, and I believe we should go back to that--I'm a Democrat who for example supports Arizona's law. I'm a Democrat who also supports "Law and Order"--More police, greater and reinforced intelligence gathering resources and greater cooperation between the FBI and state and local law enforcement; I'm a Democrat who also supports the Patriot Act.

We should also never again seriously touch the subject of gun control--Let's become a very Second Amendment friendly party. On the flipside, I believe we should become a little more liberal with regard to social issues--I favor, personally, the legalization of Marijuana BUT it has to be regulated well as we do other legal drugs; I also favor legalizing prostitution, though this action would probably have to come from the state level and if it ever happened (not likely) it'd be a very gradual thing.

We should also try to untie Science from our politics. Al Gore made himself the symbolic figurehead of Global Warming by making that his pet issue, and inadvertantly turned a perhaps legitimate environmental concern into a divisive partisan political issue, with Gore as the target--Attempts to deligitimize even the concept of Global Warming were made not only to protect business interests, but to "get Gore" and the left wing in general. I've seen it on the right wing boards--Many of them don't even believe in any sort of Climate Change, man made or otherwise. We should try to divorce ourselves politically from Science, because otherwise one of the most valuable tools for mankind's growth and acquisition of knowledge becomes the fodder of political football, and that's dangerous to Science itself.

I'd like a tougher Democratic Party--One that doesn't buckle so easily to the right wing; One that isn't so "wimpy." FDR and Truman enjoyed a good fight with their opponents; Since McGovern we've been seen as the "weaker" party. Look at the way Clinton, and perhaps Obama have buckled to the opposition--You don't see Republicans giving up that easily, or buckling to popular demand.

I made a thread earlier about whether the Democratic Party should go more centrist--and in some ways, I do think some of my ideas would make it more centrist. That thread, however, reflects my realist opinions on political realities as they are at present, and as such it's subject to change; A centrist move is just a temporary pragmatic idea to fight the current tide of the right. My ultimate goals for the Democratic Party, however, lie in this thread, as well as the explanation for my hyperbolic threads made prior to today.

So with this written, I hope you can better understand, and please give me feedback on some of my ideas--I'd like to hear opinions.

[Phony Moderate]

tl;dr

[opebo]

You seem like a Republican to me.

[LBJ Revivalist]

You seem like a Republican to me.

Most of the key things I believe in Republicans don't agree with.
-More regulation of certain industries
-Retain SS, Medicare, Medicaid
-More enviromental legislation
-Pro LGBT equality
-Universal Healthcare
-Legalize Marijuana; Decrease War on Drugs
-Keep the Dept. of Education
-Keep welfare
-Pro Labor; Just not overboard
-Raise taxes on top marginal earners


Where I disagree with Democrats:

-Stronger border control needed
-More workfare
-Cut capital gains tax
-Pro Second Amendment
-Pro Law enforcement
-Hawkish foreign policy
-Stronger police forces on local, state and federal level
-Cut out fat and create better efficiency in departments so they work better
-Cut NPR, NEA, NEH, gradually.

If I was a Republican, I'd be a circa 1970s Republican.

[Earth]

This is very weird conception of liberalism; it is already complacent, and already centrist as if it were a hot, new disease to catch. Your conception of liberalism essentially wants to offer nothing besides what the Democratic Party is already known, and reviled for; pragmatism, lukewarm democratic socialist ideas filtered through a veneer of capitalism-friendly policies. Modern American Liberalism wants to exist within a vacuum, but it's not something we can afford, it's a remnant of post-war middle-class idealism.

My main question to you is why should liberalism even be taken seriously when there are ideologies better suited for people? Modern liberalism can't even stem the tide of the right wing, let alone be a shining example of American politics.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Liberalism as a political creed and project has been kaput since 1914, though, paradoxically, it greatly influenced almost everything else in the run-up to that point to the extent that almost everyone is at least a little bit of a liberal, in a broad sense. If you think that's nonsense, try to draw up a list of points that would determine (roughly) whether or not someone is a liberal. You'll get my point soon enough.

American Liberalism is different, obviously. To misquote Herbert Morrison, American Liberalism is what Democratic Administrations do. And, in reality, not a lot else.

[Beet]

Liberalism as a political creed and project has been kaput since 1914, though, paradoxically, it greatly influenced almost everything else in the run-up to that point to the extent that almost everyone is at least a little bit of a liberal, in a broad sense. If you think that's nonsense, try to draw up a list of points that would determine (roughly) whether or not someone is a liberal. You'll get my point soon enough.

American Liberalism is different, obviously. To misquote Herbert Morrison, American Liberalism is what Democratic Administrations do. And, in reality, not a lot else.

What about Thatcherism?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I will never tough the Democratic party if it remains the party of abortion, pure and simple.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

What Al and Earth said, basically.

Also I will note that it seems to me that no matter what the Democratic party does or who is in charge it will be forever accused in the current political enviornment as being "extreme". Come 2040 when the GOP is trying to reintroduce slavery, there will no doubt those "moderate democrats" who will celebrate those senators who support only a gradual reintroduction as slavery as moderates and more in touch with the American people against the "extremists".

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What about Thatcherism?

Low Toryism mixed with certain post-war/cold war economic/sociological/etc fads carried out by people who deluded themselves into believing that they were, in fact, liberals after all. There's been some great work on this subject over the past decade or so.

[opebo]

I will never tough the Democratic party if it remains the party of abortion, pure and simple.

Bad spellers might be better off keeping their views to themselves.

[Free Palestine]

tl;dr

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I will never tough the Democratic party if it remains the party of abortion, pure and simple.

Bad spellers might be better off keeping their views to themselves.

Fine. I meant "touch". Okay? And don't tell me you've had perfect spelling since you learned how to type.

[fezzyfestoon]

Blegh, I only read like one paragraph because the problem jumped out immediately.  Stop learning politics from the TV.

[Earth]

What about Thatcherism?

Low Toryism mixed with certain post-war/cold war economic/sociological/etc fads carried out by people who deluded themselves into believing that they were, in fact, liberals after all. There's been some great work on this subject over the past decade or so.

I have to stress Thatcher's neoliberalism, and neoliberalism in general, are liberal ideologies. Liberalize the market, essentially. They come from the same ideological pool. Considering this, it's not nearly a stretch to see the Obama administration in the same light, albeit with a veneer of social consciousness, which is liberalism.

Modern corporatist liberalism, and it's offshoots are the extensions of the paradigm shift in the age of enlightenment applied to modern social conditions. All the good, the permissiveness, the subtle anti-binary thinking, the focus on welfare, plus all of it's evils.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

the only reason to defund NPR, NEH and NEA are if you believe the government should not be involved in those projects. i do think they end up politicizing the arts, like you addressed in  terms of the politicizing of science. but they make up a very small portion of the budget, and it is not as though some large anti-poverty program could be funded from the money saved. in terms of the federal budget or taxes, no one would really notice if these endowments disappeared.

[Mercenary]

I don't like your brand of "New Liberalism"

It sounds like some of the worst of the left and right, it sounds like Obama or Bush.