What Is Liberalism?
Someone over at Forbes decided to define liberalism with the rather inaccurate brush of current events, which led me to ask myself if I could do a better job defining liberalism. So here goes.
Liberalism is the philosophy and practice of adhering to principles of freedom, fairness, kindness, and liberty over gut instincts.
I think that says it all, pretty accurately. Bill O’Reilly kinda nailed that one when he said, “I didn’t like the line in the speech about we don’t have to compromise our values to protect ourself [sic]. I think sometimes we do.” That, to me, speaks of the heart of conservatism–the deference to base instincts such as selfishness, fear, and vengeance when it contradicts values that the same people claim to hold in such high reverence. For example, liberals actually believe in turning the other cheek; conservatives say they value that philosophy, but quickly turn to “an eye for an eye” the instant a real-world application presents itself.
Cousin, are you saying that liberalism is New Testament and conservatism Old Testament? An interesting take.
I think that would not be an inaccurate way to pose things. Although the right wing certainly embraces Christianity more, at least in the U.S., and religious people tend to be more conservative, the fact remains that were Jesus categorized politically, he’d be a liberal. Anti-war, separation of church and state, help the poor–it’s hard to find a conservative policy that’s very Jesus-like, but not hard to find liberal policies he would have embraced (or at least would have tolerated more). Tax cuts for the rich? War in Iraq? Cutting social services? Against public health care? Social Darwinism? Doesn’t sound like him. And, as I have pointed out before, so many Christians claim that they worship Jesus but when it comes to acting, they fall back on Old Testament.
So, yeah, I guess that sounds about right.
I happen to agree with you -but it may not be very politically correct. Expect someone accusing you of antisemitism …
I don’t really think so; the Old Testament is the Old Testament–I don’t think it’s politically incorrect to point out that its philosophy, especially as expressed by many Christians, is more hard-line than the New Testament. Not that I’m an expert, or anything. Nor do I consider the label of “conservative” to be an epithet, just what many American conservatives do in its name.
Me, I think the word “generosity” or one of its synonyms belongs somewhere in the definition of liberalism.
John, maybe. But, if only for balance, let somebody expound also the negatives of liberalism: surely, it cannot be all goodness and holiness …
Good question. So, what are the negative facets of liberalism? Most that come to mind are only expressible through conservative filters: liberalism is too soft on crime, too ready to help those in need, too socialist, etc. Each could be argued as incorrect arguments, however, or at least wrong only subjectively. In terms of crime, for example, liberals focus more pragmatically–what leads to lower rates of recidivism, for example, as opposed to strict conservative ideas of “punish them and teach them a lesson.” Conservative views on crime are more viscerally satisfying, but ultimately are ineffective or even counter-productive–again, going with the gut rather than the brain. Conservatives believe that liberals are too quick to help those in dire straits–give food to the poor, a helping hand to those who have been knocked down, etc. Conservatism dictates a by-your-own-bootstraps philosophy, which says that if you help people, they will be dependent on you and will never succeed on their own. While that argument sounds good, it depends primarily upon anecdotal evidence to support it–stories of “welfare queens” and people “milking the system,” which, while true in sparse numbers, are not true when describing the system in general, overall terms. Most people who get such assistance want nothing more than to get up on their own feet and get off the “gravy train.”
So simple ideological criticisms cannot expose wrongness in liberalism, at least not objectively. Wrongness in conservatism is easier to spot because of internal inconsistencies and sharp contrasts with existing data, such as the data showing that the death penalty is not a deterrent, or that abstinence-only sex education is counter-productive, or that the incarceration-based “war on drugs” only enriches and encourages criminal behavior, while legalization and treatment, both abhorred by conservatives, has shown to be much more effective. Liberalism, contrary to popular stereotypes, tends to be more pragmatic, more willing to pay attention to science, studies, and solutions that work as opposed to those that feel good.
Perhaps it is because of my clear bias in favor of liberalism that prevents me from seeing any intrinsically negative features to it. So, I ask again, what are the negative facets of liberalism? Smugness?
Smugness? Well, maybe or maybe not. But your narrative is one of nuts and bolts, more of an engineer like me.
However, I was thinking more along the lines of a philosophical approach. For example, liberalism primes individualism: man as the measure of all things. Is this a sound premise? Is man not a social being? Does man make sense independently of society? Is it true that “it is my life”? Is it not also, to whatever extent, of those who love me? And so on and so forth.
I haven’t found yet a conclusive answer one way or the other.
I would say, in my mind, you would have to introduce the word courage in you definition some place (perhaps ‘…the practice of courage to …’).
You can’t be the land of the free if you are not the home of the brave.
But I would caution framing the discussion in the way that Forbes suggests. It’s a bated trap for liberals.
In my mind, I don’t think we should allow Forbes or other conservatives to define Liberalism, or in this case frame it.
In my mind, American “liberalism” comes from Anglo-American common law. After the Magna Carta, for nearly 1000 years, English Common law developed a bias towards liberty (liberalism). But it was only a bias.
This was perhaps the single greatest innovation in the field of civics ever.
Think of it. Prior to this development the concept of Liberty meant chaos at best or “might makes right” at worst, and the worst was the most likely out come.
In other words, after the fall of the Roman Empire in Europe (or at least, its authority), the ‘rule of law’ was suspended in some places. In those places people were truly free. In those places, War lords (the strong) assert their perogatives – and so in the absence of law you have might makes right. So in essence, prior to the development of a legal bias towards liberty and liberalism in law, the concept of liberty was mostly an abstract thought.
In post-Magna Carta England, there were actually many legal systems competing against each other for influence: The Kings Courts (common law), Cannon Law (the Church’s courts – usually family law and contracts, i.e. oaths), the Law Merchant (commerce), the Courts of Equity, the infamous Star Chamber, Local Baron’s court.
The Kings law became a means for the King to find away around, and undermining the power and influence of the local feudal lords (part of a long process of centralization in Western European Monarchies). His judges would ride circuit around the country hearing decisions.
Because of the competition, the courts had to be fair. Also any decision made by a judge had to be enforced. Enforcement can mean the application of coercive force. Coercive force is always expensive and thus a drain on the Kings purse. Decisions with a bias towards liberalism tended to be self enforcing, thus cheaper.
Over the centuries, then, the doctrine of liberalism evolved, in quite a sophisticated maner: Liberty subject to Pragmatism and fairness.
By the time of the American revolution the legal concept was ready to make the jump into becoming a political ideology, which in turn conflated with political and personal independence.
I would say then, that modern Liberalism involves Pragmatism first, and Fairness/Justice (second) and Liberty/Liberalism (third).
The propaganda, how we know these, is the reverse of this hierarchy. And liberty in itself is tolerated in our society because it is an important factor for Free Contract. In the final analysis America is based upon only that principle.
Another important point is differentiation between Common Law and Civil Code. There are two main legal systems: (English) Common Law and Civil Code. The Common Law exist in about 1/3rd of the world and Civil Code in about 2/3rds of the world (an important exception exist in Scandinavian countries which have their own Common Law).
The distinction I am about to make is extremely important to understand in regard to our politics.
Civil Code was developed in France by Napoleon. The Civil Code is a synthesis and modernization of Roman Law. France, at the time of Napoleon, had just gone through a revolution. Part of the reason for the revolution was the failure of French courts to evolve along the lines of English Courts. Unlike English courts which were progressive and evolved in a progressive and liberal manner, French courts were institutionally conservative and regressive. Louis XVI struggled to implement modernization which was often thwarted by the French judiciary.
As a result, Napoleonic Civil Code took the role of Law making away from the Judiciary.
In Civil Code Judges are not permitted to make law – in Common Law they are and they do.
This is of the utmost difference between the two systems and shapes our politics today.
As Oliver Wendall Holmes states, Common Law judges are free to choose from the “market place of ideas” for solutions to a question that the judiciary is trying to answer. What he means is, in a court case, a judge faces a question, and he’s free to answer it pragmatically, picking and choosing the best answer from the myriad of ideologies, but only for that narrow question.
As result, Anglo-American Common Law countries increasingly become a ‘patchwork’ quilt that stitches together a myriad of ideologies, in pragmatic fashion, where they work best, and ignoring ideologies where they work least.
In Civil Code nations, because law making is restricted to legislatures, ideological questions are force to battle things out in the political realm.
As a result, over the course of the 19th and into the early 20th century, Civil Code countries became increasingly traumatized by ideological struggles. When the international liberal system began to break down and fail, beginning with the first world war, then the Great Depression and World War II, ideological extremism (either of the left or right) asserted itself in Civil Code countries (and only civil code countries). First Russia (communism) then Italy (Facism), Japan (militant Nationalism), Germany (Naziism), Spain (Falangism), China (communism).
All of these were civil code countries. In the mean time, Common Law nations muddled through the crisis.
It was during the 19th century that Germany experienced a mini-Golden Age of philosophers, one of them being Nietzsche. Born out of this environment were legal and political philosophers who entire outlook were framed by the growing reality of ideological struggles in society. Nietzsche believed that as humans become educated they will become athiest and that will lead to rank selfishness, decadence and barbarism – and only Super Humans could avoid this decline.
A belated 20th century by-product of this was the German political philosopher Leo Strauss. Strauss, adhering to Nietzsche principles developed a philosophy that said only Uber Philosophy Elites could avoid the descend into decadence, and so Society should be ruled by those elites (neo platonic approach) and the masses should be controlled by religion (and any religion will do). The Nazi’s like Strauss’ Philosophy but not his Jewishness, so they allowed him to leave Germany. He ended up at the University of Chicago where he taught the men who would become Neocons. The Neocons, in practice, substituted philosophical elites with wealthy elites. From this, the modern rabid, right wing American conservative movement was born. You can detect them by their use of religion in politics.
This is most recognizable in right wing Christianity. As a youth, at the age of 11, I recall consiously deciding I could go along with the religion of my instruction, Catholicism, because of Christ’s famous commandment to separate church and state. In general mainline religions follow this practice in the United States as did the Catholic Church of my youth in the United States (though this is largely gone or dormant now) – only in evangelicals Christians do you find this heresy, though Neocons are doing their best to poison every religion (See Democracy and Religion Institute and their efforts to politicize mainline Protestantism).
What Strauss got wrong was the framing device he probably never realized: the ideological political struggle in the civil code countries. Those struggles don’t take place in MOST common law countries because most ideological decisions take place in the Judiciary.
Most modern Civil Code countries, following the out come of World War II have gotten hip to their structural problem and have imported various Common law characteristics. At the very least, most civil code countries have some form of judicial review or constitutional courts. As a result ideological struggles have lessened there.
The opposite pattern is occuring in the United States.
For Neocons political contract is ideologically based. Ideological systems never have been able to get much traction in Common Law countries because ideological battles are not restricted to the political field.
For the Neocons to succeed, politics has to become more ideological and less pragmatic. For politics to become more ideologically based, courts law making ability has to be restricted. As a result Republicans attack ‘judicial activism’ with a vehimence that takes on existential proportions because for them it is existential.
In short, the Neocon movement wants to back into the American system Civil Code practices. Part of that is to promote political framing in ideological terms.
So I’ve written all of this to try to get people to avoid the conservative bate of thinking of politics in strictly ideological frames.
I would say that the Democratic party stands for the ancient Anglo-American tradition (older than our nation and more deeply set in our bones) Pragmatism 1st, Fairness/Justice 2nd, and Liberty/Freedom/independence 3rd.
I would ad, the last thing the Republicans want us to espouse is Pragmatism (I mean pragmatism in the ordinary usage of the term, meaning common sense) – because pragmatism is antithetical to their entire framing device which implies ideological based politics.
When Clair McCaskill campaign across Missouri, she repeatedly espoused ‘good old fashioned midwestern common sense.’ Every time Obama uses the term pragmatism, the Republicans wince like they just heard fingernails being dragged across a chalk board. (They attack it as being rudderless ideology).
As I implied, ideology in politics is a johnny come lately to our political system. McCaskill was successful because pragmatism/justice/liberty cascade of ideas lies deep down in our bones.
The common laws great invention was liberty couched in law; liberty subject to law; liberty and law subject to fairness; and finally Liberty, Law and Justice subject to pragmatism.
I apologize for driving readers through this indepth discussion, but I find it to be of fundamental importance.
Tim, this seems to be a full-fledged lecture, although I am not sure exactly in what.
Obviously we learnt about liberalism in different text-books. In mine, it was Rousseau, Voltaire, and the French philosophers of the time the ones who first formulated the ideas of liberalism. Later, already in the U.S., I learnt that it was their ideas that inspired the Founding Fathers -as well as Simon Bolivar, San Martin, … and everybody else. Oftentimes, Anglosaxons have the quaint notion that they invented everything, law included: who cares about the Romans!
But your post makes interesting reading.
I’m not trying to sell Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism – I don’t have any Anglo-Saxon blood. I’m just trying to make a point.
Of course I am well aware of Rousseau, Voltaire and Montesquieu. These 18th century were French philosophers. They all made philosophical contributions during the Enlightenment and our founding fathers relied upon them alot, especially Montesquieu (3 branches of Government with checks and balances). There was a lot of thinking going on on the topic of that time, but one must also includ Locke and Smith (perhaps they were Scottish by blood, not Anglo-Saxon).
But the French talked, worked, philosophized more in the abstract. I would argue that that abstract was made more visible by the English reality. Liberty wasn’t invented in the 19th century. The notion evolved. The important thing being Liberty/Freedom couched in the law, meaning the idea that the individual should be allowed maximum liberty/freedom provided it doesn’t violate notions of Justice/Fairness and important other pragmatic notions (such as say military conscription during a time of national emergency).
Couching notions of liberty and freedom inside a broader legal system evolved out of the English common law. Continental (Roman) law, especially in France, was not evolving (my guess is because the Judiciary belonged to the aristocrats).
This had been evolving over many centuries in English Common law. What Rousseau, Voltaire and Montesquieu conceptualized, the English were parsimoniously, bit by bit, introducing into law – i.e. not just an abstract notion.
But the more important thing is to not think in terms of liberal versus conservative ideology. That’s the framing things the way that Republicans, Conservatives and especially Neoconservatives want. They want ideology to replace thinking, how else can you justify enriching the rich at the expense of all else?
The important thing of that diatribe of mine is to realize that the opposite of Repubican ideology isn’t Liberal/Democratic ideology, but instead non-ideological pragmatism (with a bias towards Justice/Fairness first and Liberalism/Freedom second).
The framing changes the argument on many levels.
The most important being that all politics takes places withing the framework of competing ideologies. That’s what the Republican’s want people to think, then they only have to sell people on their ideology – and soon they’ll be passing more tax cuts for the rich.
By denying the ideology frame work, they can’t sell their ideology.
The pragmatic frame work is our ancient inheritance and not one we should throw away. Civil Code (Napoleonic Refinement of Roman Law) countries have been busy incorporating aspects of common law to avoid the pitfalls of their past.
Obviously if you didn’t get that, I need to work on my explanations.
The idea that neo-cons (and conservatives in general) are in conflict with “judicial activism” – otherwise know as “the living constitution” or, in some sense, common law – certainly is apparent. The conservative instinct to revile any liberal interpretation of the (U.S.) Constitution is certainly real. Rights as outlined in the Constitution are interpreted as narrowly as possible by conservatives (with the odd exception of the 2nd Amendment). The modern conservative marriage to evangelical religion in the U.S. has seemed strange to me until I realized that both share a utter distrust for people having and being able to exercise common sense. Conservatives in this country are freaked out at the thought of judges interpreting the law… Whereas liberals seem quite comfortable with the thought. Conservatives don’t trust anyone to show common sense in government and thus want to cripple government as much as possible and let the free market do its magic. (The only exception to this is the president [assuming it’s a conservative])
Conservatives have a very low opinion of human nature as they think that the only thing that we can get right is selfishness and greed (thus, it is the only force they trust – and strangely enough they see such drives, completely unfettered and unwatched, as providing the only solution – through the free market). Evangelicals also have a low opinion of human nature – that is the common thread between them and the right-wing. Conservatives seem to see everything through this lens of distrust of human nature. If humans can’t be fair – of course they don’t want government to have social programs… people’s supposed inherent greed and sloth will cause such programs to fail every time. …and the Evangelicals, of course, provide the answer – it’s due to the “fallen” nature of man… the original sin… knowledge. Competition and unquestioning faith outside guiding principles (whether it be the bible or the civil code) are the conservative’s answers.
Liberals tend to have an optimistic view of human nature… if we give people a helping hand they will benefit, they will grow, they will succeed… and people can act for the benefit of all (not just for profit). Community and education and confidence in people (a humanism) are the liberal’s answers.
Tim,
In reference to pragmatism being the opposite of ideology – I certainly agree… though that would apply to any ideology – including liberal ones… (consider that the far left is hyper ideological – just as the neo-conservatives are in their way)…
So… you would have one axis where the end points are ideological arguments and pragmatic arguments and another axis where the end points are liberal view (faith in people, strength through community, fairness) and the conservative view (faith in doctrine, strength through leaders and force, greed is good).
—
Luis,
In reference to conservatives being “gut-level” and thus being willing to set aside ideals for expediency… that often seems to be the case – particularly if you are willing to consider extreme left-wing leadership such as Soviet Russia, for example, as conservative. Which certainly they were in some very basic ways.
Etoipi:
Some great comments, especially on conservative trends.
I would like to add one more. Conservatives always take a supply-side view towards things, liberals take the demand side, and it’s not just economics. As for instance, Abortion. Conservatives, in essence, want to prohibit the supply (availability of legal) abortion. While not all liberals see abortion as a vice, most would agree it’s a good idea to minimize the number of abortions that occur – but by minimizing the demand for abortions – through sex education, birth control, etc… That’s the only one that comes to mind, but I think I’ve stumbled over other issues like that.
Of course liberals have the better side of the abortion argument: Netherlands has the lowest abortion rate and in the Netherlands abortion is largely free and largely legal – supply has nothing to do with anything.
BTW I clicked through to the “25 most influential liberals” on Forbes list.
And there’s a lot to quibble with there.
For starters there are at least 5 conservatives on their who might occasionally come down as liberals: Andrew Sullivan (far right in economics and some social issues); Christopher Hitchens, far right except in regard to faith based topics (he’s a flaming athiest which I find provacative on several fronts, but still conservative these days); Fareed Zakaria; Fred Hiatt (really, he may have written or said something liberal but most of what I see from him is ridiculously conservative – although there would seem to be a good chance that he’s really a liberal acting as a conservative fifth column movement intended to make conservatives look ridiculous; Thomas Friedman (Friedman is nominally liberal – meaning he’s a card carrying liberal in name only – he married into billions of dollar level of money, so benefits enormously with each tax cut for the supply-side rich. He also sided with Bush so many times that he became a self paradoy with the ‘next six months are crucial (to the point that six months is offend mockingly refered to as one Friedman units – I have a birth day every two Friedman units).
While putting these questionable people on here, the author left off economist Bob Kuttner – who is as good as Krugman and sometimes much better, especially when the camera is on. I don’t see E. J. Dionne – perhaps the very best liberal writer, while clinging to Maureen Dowd, who barely qualifies as a liberal – her attacks of Al Gore for his fashion sense or John Edwards for his haircuts is overwhelmingy childish as is most of her essays.
Most glaring of all is leaving off Keith Obermann – the most penetrating liberal media stalwart.
A lot of the people on there I’ve never heard of before, but I figure that means they shouldn’t be on the list of top 25 liberals. A more debatable case would include Michael Moore, Randi Rhodes and perhaps even more representation from Air America. And putting Arriana Huffington at #2 is disturbing. We’ll see what that gets them darlings.
My big complaint of course is letting a conservative anything be allowed to define the frame work of what gets posted and what doesn’t.
Okay, new twist: I heard someone say a while back that liberals have always been on the right side of historical issues–it was the liberals who were pro-revolutionary, conservatives who were pro-British, liberals were pro-abolition and conservatives were pro-slavery, liberals were pro-civil rights and conservatives were against… when you think of it, in very general terms, liberals are usually for change, conservatives usually want to stay the same or go back.
Again, I am sure that conservatives would have counter-arguments; one popular one is to say that Lincoln freed the slaves and he was a Republican. That is misleading, because the Republican Party has changed–that’s why it’s galling to see social conservatives claiming credit for the work of past liberals. Another tack might be to say that liberals were pro-communist, for example. But again, there are counter-arguments–liberals were not “for” Stalin’s purge or Chinese re-education camps, but in pre-WWII days were more for the ideals of communism, before the abuses and totalitarian acts of Soviet and Chinese dictatorships became much more clear. In contrast, the “ideals” of anti-revolutionary stances, of slavery, of segregation were all up-front and clear, and were not things later corrupted and tainted.
Thoughts?
Kane, your point is made -and there is no point in argueing about points of grammar.
All cultures have their own “exceptionalisms”, but considering English common law a qualitative jump over Roman law may be too much of a good thing: I am no lawyer and no philosopher but, if that were the case, everybody would have followed English common law, as everybody followed “the invisible hand” of Adam Smith. I doubt that trials by jury represent a qualitative jump over trials by magistrates.
According to the English historian J.M. Roberts, the Spanish discovery of America and its subsequent colonizacion, and the French revolution, were the two historial facts that changed the history of the West, the consequences of which we live today. Mrs. Thatcher, however, kept harping about the English revolution. Locke is duely acknowledged, but liberalism is the product of French thinkers. It was them who inspired the Founding Fathers and not English common law.
It doesn’t matter whether you don’t have any Anglo-Saxon blood: you may be culturally Anglo-Saxon which, of course, is fine. It doesn’t mean however that one’s culture is “the mother of all cultures”: it only means that it is the one we know best. Your notion that Roman law “evolved” in England while it got stuck in continental Europe, is extremely debatable. In the XIX century it was England that was reactionary: the liberals were the French and those that followed them, like the Americans.
Beyond that, I am somewhat alarmed by the disqualifications I read in this blog about the conservatives: they are no so different from those of the neoconservatives about liberals. It would be fine if they apply only to neoconservatives. But neoconservatism is merely a doctrine, an extreme take of conservatism -in the same fashion as neoliberalism is an extreme take of liberal economic policy. We talk about Justice/Fairness as if they were objective notions, obvious to everybody: they are not. Pragmatism itself isn’t: obviously neither Socrates nor Christ were very pragmatic men.
Liberals should be more liberal …
Luis, the problem I have with this debate is its “holier than thou” tone, its conviction of having possesion of the Truth, its lack doubt: it sounds all very conservative to me. I grew up in Spain in a family of “republicanos historicos”, where liberalism was a badge or honor, but I do not remember such doctrinaire approach to it. Neither have I seen it later in your grandfather’s house in New York.
By the way, it doesn’t seem to be either Obama’s approach to liberalism.
What I am doing is less making a statement of belief, and more setting forth a supposition as a challenge to see what arguments come forth against it. In other words, I’d like to see some holes poked in it, so as to better understand the concept itself. Which is why I enjoy seeing the back and forth here, and wished to see reactions to a different take on the subject.
Ironically, it is the non-doctrinaire take, the predilection to self-doubt and questioning which is also a liberal trait–we know we are prone to error and need argument, assessment, and introspection to come out with the best answer.
The surest way to the right answer is to assume that you can be wrong.
Luis, as the Romans would say, “nihil obstat”: I am entirely with you.
Tim,
In regards to the supply-side approach of conservatives – yes, good point. Other supply-side approaches: War on Drugs, outlawing sex-toys, outlawing gay marriage… and there is a supply-side approach to their media… if they pummel us enough with their framing they are convinced it will sink in (per Luis’ initial post on the thread). Even the immigration issue… their solution is to restrict the flow of immigrants forcibly rather than helping Mexico economically so that the demand is lessened. Another: Cutting off funding for the safety nets of welfare and Medicare rather than investing in job training and preventative health care to reduce the demand for these safety nets. Yet another: Outlawing and restricting civil lawsuits to reduce claims rather than addressing why there is such a demand for justice.
If you swallow the conservative view that people are by nature greedy and lazy and only respond to fear and coercion, then the supply-side approach completely makes sense.
Luis,
If liberalism is the side that supports change – consider that if history is a journey and changes in direction are needed from time to time to keep on course that of course these changes will appear as highlights and as generally the right things to do… What about the intervening time? – are there times when keeping things steady is the best course? I suggest that there is only so much political change that human culture can withstand/assimilate at a time. If things come too rapidly there is a backlash from people that are not ready or don’t understand the change. Some of this are from people that will always be opposed to the change in question (Conservatives almost by definition – and these people need to be ignored as they will never be convinced), but some simply need some education and adjustment to the idea. …and to force issues too quickly would be to error on the side of a supply-side approach politically. We need to create the demand for change… by educating the public and engaging them. Thomas Paine understood this when he wrote and distributed “Common Sense”… we needed an educated and motivated populace in order to fuel and sustain the Revolution. TR understood this with his “Bully Pulpit” approach to the presidency. FDR understood this with his Fireside Chats. And clearly Obama understands this. Change will not stick unless you bring the center of society along with you.
I like your reference to the ideals of Liberalism. …and when Liberalism fails it does so when it overreaches – such as with Communism. I am hard-pressed to name what the Conservative ideals are… On the other hand, I get a truly baffled response when I posit to my conservative friends that Communism was idealistic.
Doubt and questioning is the long-term strength of Liberalism, but it’s short-term weakness. We lack party-discipline and unity… but we are more likely to come up with the larger changes that are needed precisely because of our lack of shyness in regards to debate. As you point out, Republicans have a short memory (ironic for an elephant) and proudly say that they are the party of Lincoln and TR… when at the time both were thought of as dangerous radicals by the conservatives of the day. The other day I heard that TR was known by conservatives as “the Mad Messiah” for his aggressive pushing of progressive agendas. Hardly the model modern-day Republican.
“The surest way to the right answer is to assume that you can be wrong.” Amen to that.