The New Republic Online: An Argument for a New Liberalism (to read):
Today, three years after September 11 brought the United States face-to-face with a new totalitarian threat, liberalism has still not "been fundamentally reshaped" by the experience. On the right, a "historical re-education" has indeed occurred--replacing the isolationism of the Gingrich Congress with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's near-theological faith in the transformative capacity of U.S. military might. But American liberalism, as defined by its activist organizations, remains largely what it was in the 1990s--a collection of domestic interests and concerns. On health care, gay rights, and the environment, there is a positive vision, articulated with passion. But there is little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda--even though totalitarian Islam has killed thousands of Americans and aims to kill millions; and even though, if it gained power, its efforts to force every aspect of life into conformity with a barbaric interpretation of Islam would reign terror upon women, religious minorities, and anyone in the Muslim world with a thirst for modernity or freedom.
When liberals talk about America's new era, the discussion is largely negative--against the Iraq war, against restrictions on civil liberties, against America's worsening reputation in the world. In sharp contrast to the first years of the cold war, post-September 11 liberalism has produced leaders and institutions--most notably Michael Moore and MoveOn--that do not put the struggle against America's new totalitarian foe at the center of their hopes for a better world. As a result, the Democratic Party boasts a fairly hawkish foreign policy establishment and a cadre of politicians and strategists eager to look tough. But, below this small elite sits a Wallacite grassroots that views America's new struggle as a distraction, if not a mirage. Two elections, and two defeats, into the September 11 era, American liberalism still has not had its meeting at the Willard Hotel. And the hour is getting late.
Via InstaPundit and PoliPundit.
Update: Also see this response from a Democrat (via IP). Scroll down to "the voice of the Democrats".
Update: Roger Simon has comments, and Glenn has accumulated much more on his post linked above.
Update: Patrick Spero has excellent comments:
Beinart's equation completely misconstrues his variables. During the Cold War, dropping the communist elements strengthened the public's view of the party. In other words, the public writ large was anti-communist, while the Democratic Party was ambivalent towards a minority faction of their party. Today, a large portion of the party is what would be the equivalent of 'communist' in Beinart's equation. Take away Michael Moore and MoveOn, and you take away a major portion of your party and potential strengthen the Green Party or other party.
Another substantive point to consider is that Beinart treats liberalism as ascendant once they dropped their ambivalence towards communism. But considering history, such a narrative belies his argument. Just think McGovern and Carter versus Reagan. Just think that since Truman only one Democrat won a second term. Certainly Democrats dominated the Congress, but it strains the imagination to consider all these Democrats as traditional 'liberals.' Lastly, Beinart's argument that Democrats argued for a strong defense build-up is just flat wrong when you consider their opposition to Reagan's defense plans.
All in all, Beinart paints a nice story and I do hope the Democratic Party considers reshaping their foreign policy. I absolutely agree with the argument that Michael Moore hurts the party more than helps it. However, I do not know if Beinart's history matches the reality that played out the past 25 years.
Thursday, December 2, 2004
Permalink
Feel free to post a comment below. Please see my comment policy.
Formatting Rules (No HTML):