Liberals at the Crossroads:
A Time to Re-Awaken and Re-Define
by Keith Shirey
1/27/06


Liberalism in the United States has been virtually asleep for the past 30 years.  The right-wing media has done a masterful job of demolishing the credibility of those identifying with that political ideology.  Liberals have been equated with radical extremists, left-wing nuts, supporters of terrorism, tender-hearted idiots, amoral and godless disbelievers, etc., in the daily diatribes of media gurus such as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and numerous others in the arch-conservative media stable.  Liberals have aided in their own demise as they have sabotaged some of their own causes and have been extremely weak in defending themselves against unjustified attacks.  As a consequence, "liberal" has become a bad name, as progressive-minded politicians run from the term and opposing politicians can gain points just by branding their opponents with that label.  How liberalism became transformed from a valued part of our political heritage to a term signifying disrepute deserves further consideration, as does the question of how and whether those who honor that part of the political spectrum can rehabilitate that label to once again be fully accepted and respected. 

Liberal political ideology has a long and distinguished history in the United States.  Our country was established by people who wanted freedom from the rigid political and social traditions which were prevalent in Europe.  Liberty, freedom, openness to change, people actually having the right to determine how and by whom they were being governed, were all hallmarks of liberal political thinking.  Once our founding fathers showed that such a system was a viable alternative to more traditional autocratic forms of government, similar systems developed elsewhere.  Our very foundation was based on liberal political thinking, and triggered the spread of democracies throughout the world. 

While our nation's creation was based on political thought that was very liberal for that time period, we were also saddled with many remnants of archaic, conservative, oppressive ideation and practices that stayed with us, in some cases for centuries, and have been extremely difficult to replace.  Overcoming slavery and segregation, granting voting rights to all citizens, honoring the rights of native Americans who we were displacing, and establishing laws protecting worker's rights, were among the battles that had to be fought.  At key moments in our nation's history, when significant change was necessary for the country to adapt to new needs, rectify old problems, and strive to best serve the interests of all its people, it has been liberal leaders who emerged to pave the way, typically having to fight entrenched conservative factions to allow the progressive changes to occur.  This was evidenced, early in our history, by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson in their battles with established interests to allow the benefits of a democratic form of government to spread to ever-increasing numbers of people.  Later, Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were both distinctly liberal political leaders who were vilified by their conservative opposition and had to fight dramatic battles to win their respective goals, ending slavery in Lincoln's case, placing some limits on industrial monopolies and granting employees some basic rights with Teddy Roosevelt. Other major issues, such as women's right to vote, child labor and workplace safety laws, free public education, and conservation of natural resources have all been liberal priorities fought for against formidable conservative opposition.
During Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency, liberal thinking was at the height of its power.  Changes he instituted, like Social Security and the government's role in providing a safety net for its peoples basic needs with subsistence, employment, healthcare, disability, etc., were all opposed vehemently by conservatives, even with the dire needs that existed during the depression of the l930's.  Since a majority of the public now fully accepts the value of the programs that were adopted, conservatives are forced to accept their existence but continue to fight extension of the programs when they are needed.  Many conservatives periodically endeavor to roll back the social, economic, and environmental protections that have resulted from these liberal programs, especially when they have been in control of the legislative or executive branches of government.

The difference between liberal and conservative thinking is perhaps nowhere greater than in the arena of international relations.  Conservatives have consistently opposed being in international organizations, first blocking our entry into the League of Nations, and now holding major reservations about our involvement in the United Nations. Conservatives opposed the Marshall Plan, a landmark success of the Truman administration through providing aid to countries in the aftermath of World War II and strengthening their ability to remain free of communist influence.  Conservatives typically accuse liberals of being weak internationally, "soft on communism", "weak on terrorism", etc.  Many conservatives would have extended the Korean War into China, or backed Barry Goldwater's consideration of using nuclear weapons in response to the cold war with the Soviet Union in the l960's.  It was liberals who insisted that the Vietnamese War was a mistake, that we had unwittingly gotten involved in what was essentially a war for national independence and that the domino theory of communist advancement was a fallacy.  Because of the conservative charge that liberals were soft of communism, the one foreign policy success of the Nixon administration was when he did something that he and other Republicans would never have allowed a liberal president to do-recognize Communist China.

During the past 40 years, the public's acceptance of liberal political thinking has been in marked decline.  Our failure in Vietnam could legitimately be blamed on Democrats, the major escalation occurring under Lyndon Johnson, with his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, previously a leading liberal, being forced to defend the war.  The public had a strong reaction to our tragic losses in Vietnam, and combined with the social excesses of the l960's and early l970's, had little tolerance for continuing any of the patterns that could be associated with international weakness or domestic free expression. Repeated elections led to fewer liberals being elected to office, and legislation became distinctly more conservative, with prevalent societal needs being deferred until street protests demanded that they be addressed.  Conservatives marshaled their considerable resources to form some major media outlets, and a parade of right-wing commentators became very adept at blaming liberals for any of the social, economic, or moral faults that were evident in society.  The strong revitalization of fundamentalist religious thinking that occurred late last century gave political conservatives a large new audience to exploit, and a powerful coalition was formed that was opposed to the distinctly liberal concept of separation of church and state.
With liberals having lost their nation-wide acceptability (they still have considerable acceptance on the west coast and in the northeastern states), the political spectrum has become very skewed to the right.  Carter and Clinton won their elections running as centrists, with agenda which were moderate at best, and their have been no landmark advances in legislation to meet growing societal needs since the Great Society programs promoted by the Johnson administration in the l960's.  The groundwork is ripe for paramount change in some basic programs, and only liberal-based creativity is likely to meet the needs.  The middle class has been shrinking, and not able to keep pace with increases in the cost of living.  The upper-income groups are adding to their wealth, but a larger number of citizens are falling below the poverty line and the disparity between the wealthy and the poor is increasing markedly.  Our healthcare is excellent for those who can afford it, but increasing numbers are unable to afford insurance, and we lag far behind other advanced societies by not having any system of universal healthcare.  The list could go on indefinitely.  The "compassionate conservatism" of George W. Bush has proven to be a fraud and a farce, and the Bush-Cheney foreign policy has been a disastrous failure. Initiating war or threatening war against enemy nations has replaced working steadfast with allies to form cooperative alliances to contain and control threats and raise pressure to negotiate.  War should obviously be a last resort, in practice as well as in words. Bush's version a "war on terrorism" is clearly failing—extending it into Iraq was misconceived in concept and in execution with tragic results for all, and the threat of world-wide terrorism in greater now than when his policies went into effect.  Both domestically and internationally, change is urgently needed. Whether called liberal, progressive, populist, or whatever, our nation has a dire need for courageous leadership that can correct the course taken in recent years.   A conservative bias has stymied our ability to deal with pressing existing problems, and is creating momentous new problems which can't be dealt with in narrow traditional ways.  The time is optimal for forward-thinking political leaders to re-emerge, to vigorously assert the value of liberal causes, to re-define liberal values and purposes as much broader than the narrow target issues such as birth control, marriage, and gender rights that conservatives tend to focus upon.  Liberal leaders have risen to the task in the past, at crucial moments in our nations history. It is time for them to do so again.