LIBERALS VERSUS CONSERVATIVES: THE DIFFERENCE IS MUCH LARGER THAN YOU EVER IMAGINED

 

…HARDBALL host, Chris Matthews

 

The conservatives are in total disarray, and are at serious risk of disappearing as a major political party.

Many of you may have seen the TV promo by the political pundit, Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC’s, HARDBALL, Matthew’s daily political show.  In the promo, Matthews, while he is visiting the Independence Hall in Philadelphia, he relates that “Liberalism always wins…eventually,” and he goes on to use: Abolition, voting rights, women’s suffrage, equal pay for men and women and marriage equality as his proof of that statement.

The fact is, that I pretty much agree with the statement that, “Liberalism always wins”.  But to be fair, I also decided that I would do my homework in seriously trying prove why that statement is true.

I have been saying for years that historically, the Republican conservatives have no clue about how to, “govern the country”.  And if you just go back to the mid-1800’s, after the era of the “Robber Barons”; after the “Gilded Ages of the late 1800’s”; after the Great Depression and WWII; and now, after the financial disaster of 2008; as usual, the conservatives get the country into various economic troubles and it then takes the liberals to pick up the pieces and make everything right, or at least, “to get the car out of the ditch” and to take the car keys away from the conservatives.

 

…Liberalism Author, Paul Starr

In doing my research, I came across the Pulitzer Prize winning author, Mr. Paul Starr, whose impressive book, Freedom's Power: The True Force of Liberalism, which is the publication that seems to be the recognized publication on the subject of “Liberalism”.  Mr. Starr is the expert on the subject and he is also the likely individual whose writings convinced Mr. Matthews that, “Liberalism always wins…eventually”.  Mr. Starr is also the founding co-editor of The American Prospect, a bi-monthly American political magazine dedicated to American liberalism. 

 

Mr. Starr is currently a teaching professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University.

In my research of this liberal statement, I have learned that the definition of, “Liberal or Liberalism”, does in fact take a whole book such as professor Starr’s, just for breaking down exactly what those two words actually mean.

As an example, in one sense, the term “liberal” has been used to describe a sprawling profusion of ideas, practices, movements, and parties in different societies and historical periods. It often becomes a philosophy of opposition, whether opposing feudal privilege, absolute monarchy, colonialism, theocracy, communism, or fascism.  Liberalism has served, as the word suggests, as a force for liberation, or at least liberalization, for the opening up of channels of free initiative.

OK, that’s one specific idea for liberalization.

Then, from another point-of-view, one liberal area is the obvious equal right to freedom, where freedom has been successively understood during the past three centuries in a more general way.  First, as a right to civil liberty and freedom from muscular political power; then, as a right to political liberty and a share in running the government.  Finally, as a right to basic requirements of human development and personal security that are necessary for assuring equal opportunity and an individual’s personal dignity.

The reality is, that in any case, Liberalism is deeply rooted in American soil.  So much so that in the years after World War II, many historians and social scientists regarded America’s liberalism and the American civic creed as being more or less, one and the same.

In other words, the proposition that each of us has a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" remains to this day as good a definition as anyone has ever come up with, of liberalism's first principle and of America's historic promise.

But for the purposes of this article, one of the best ways to define today’s “Liberalism” in its simplest form is to compare it to what is today recognized as American, “Conservatism”.

And nothing does that better than bringing up the past 8 years of the George W. Bush administration.

Shrewd as the Republicans were in the 2000 election for achieving their political power, especially right after the 9/11 attack, the Republicans of the Bush era showed very little of that genius in using their said, power.

As was proven then and as is being proven today, “conservatism”, both then and today does not want to hear about the nation’s income inequality or the sinking fortunes of the middle class.  They for sure don’t want to hear about the dangers to the global environment, or about unsustainable fiscal policies, and also for sure, about the gaping flaws in their failed plans about their wars in the middle east. 

These realities for the future of conservatives will sooner or later make themselves felt again, as they did back in 2000 through 2008. 

But a great nation cannot long be governed by wishful and simplistic thinking.  In addition, it cannot dole out denial, obfuscation, and deceit, as has been the situation under the past conservatives.

As always, under a conservative administration, costs will continue to mount, as they did with their tax cuts and the two past wars in the middle east.  Grievances will continue accumulating, and eventually there will always come a reckoning.  As stated, when you don’t have a clue about governing, at some point, the American public will catch on and it will be the liberals that will then take the reins and get the train back on the track.  Or at least, that’s what has happened over and over again in the past 150 years.

That’s exactly what happened when President Obama won in 2008 and again in 2012.  Once again it took the Obama administration to attempt to do what FDR did after the conservative’s Herbert Hoover failed to rescue the nation after the stock market crash of 1929, and after the Great Recession of the 1930’s. 

 

…A caricature of “Conservatism” from the 1950’s

Unfortunately, after the conservatives decided on President Obama’s day of inauguration to not support any of his programs and to work on making him a one-term president.  From that point and going forward, they have stuck with their goals against this first Black American liberal president.

Even with the president’s current approval ratings today in the mid 40’s, his liberal approval is still well above that of the conservatives “Do Nothing” congress approval ratings of 14%, and their ratings have been stuck in the “teens” going back to 2011.  America’s latest generations are once again having to re-learn that the conservatives have no clue about governing and that their austerity programs are not the appropriate ways for investing in the nation’s future.

The reality is that the statement, “liberalism always wins…eventually”, is because the average American has become aware that conservatism is now in deep trouble.  It is divided within itself, it is uncertain of itself, and it has a lot of explaining to do for all of the fiascos of the past.  Unfortunately for them, the conservatives have no explanations for their past fiascos.

Yet this exhaustion of conservatism should not be misconstrued as a subsequent liberal revival. The past conservative’s manifest failures and the liberals subsequent triumphs have created a new opening for the liberal argument. The question is now whether liberals can make their case not just for specific policies and candidates, but for the obvious alternative public philosophy.

It is expected that in the long run, “liberalism will win again…eventually”, but each generation has to continue re-learning the basics.  And the lure of the conservatives, which is a much simpler approach to dealing with complex issue than are those of the liberals.  Unfortunately, those lessons tend to be hard lessons to learn from American generation to generation.

But fortunately, as has been the case in the past, as Chris Matthews has stated, “Liberalism always wins…eventually.”

Copyright G.Ater  2014