Free advice for liberals

[igloo]

December 07, 2005, 8:32 a.m.

Debate Amongst Yourselves

Free advice for liberals.

Jonah Goldberg

Liberals have been suffering from conservative envy for several years now. Oh, they don't envy us our evil ways, our penchant for extreme cruelty or the fact that we smell like cabbage. They envy us our toys and success.

The liberal Center for American Progress was founded explicitly to be the Left's answer to the conservative Heritage Foundation. The lefty radio network, "Air America," was launched to copy the success of Rush Limbaugh & Co. Today, deep-pocketed liberals are scrambling to copy conservative foundations, even though liberal foundations have always had more money.

Most conservatives I know snicker at all this. It's not that talk radio, think tanks, and foundations haven't been essential to the rise of American conservatism in the last five decades. They have been (see my colleague John Miller's excellent new book, A Gift of Freedom: How the John M. Olin Foundation Changed America, for a window into that effort). But liberals are emphasizing hardware because they don't want to question the validity of their very outdated software.

Look, conservatives would love to switch places with liberals. We'd get the universities, Hollywood, the Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie and Pew Foundations, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the New York Times, National Public Radio, Time, Newsweek, The New Yorker, CBS, including 60 Minutes and Dan Rather's thousand-fingers massage chair, and so forth. Liberals, meanwhile, would get the Washington Times and Fox News, along with a few conservative foundations. I guess National Review and The New Republic would switch offices, which is fine by me. It'd make my commute easier.

And that sort of makes the point: Not only does the Left have better stuff, but even if that weren't the case, the Left's problem isn't a lack of mechanisms to "get their message out." Megaphones matter, but not as much as what you say into them.

If liberals really want to emulate conservative successes, I have some advice for them: Get into some big, honking arguments — not with conservatives, but with each other. The history of the conservative movement's successes has been the history of intellectual donnybrooks, between libertarians and traditionalists, hawks and isolationists, so-called neocons and so-called paleocons, less-filling versus tastes great. Liberals would be smart to copy that and stop worrying how to mimic our direct mail strategies.

Liberals have a tendency to mistake political tactics for political principles, and vice versa. Exhibit A is the Left's fascination with "unity." Unity is often useful in politics, but it's often a handicap if you haven't figured out what to be unified about. Just as the Socratic method leads to wisdom, big fights not only illuminate big ideas, but they force people to become invested in them. Unfortunately, liberals define diversity by skin color and sex, not by ideas, which makes it difficult to have really good arguments.

Of course there are arguments on the Left and there are individual liberals with deep-seated convictions and principles. But most of the arguments are about how to "build a movement" or how to win elections, not about what liberalism is. Even the "Get out of Iraq now!" demands from the base of the Democratic party aren't grounded in anything like a coherent foreign policy. Ten years ago liberals championed nation-building. Now they call it imperialism because George W. Bush is doing it.

A good illustration of the fundamental difference between Left and Right can be found in two books edited by Peter Berkowitz for the Hoover Institution, Varieties of Conservatism in America and Varieties of Progressivism in America. Each contains thoughtful essays by leading conservatives and liberals. But while the conservatives defend different ideological philosophical schools — neoconservatism, traditionalism, etc. — the liberals argue almost exclusively about which tactics Democrats should embrace to win the White House.

Bill Clinton was the only Democratic president elected to two terms since Franklin Roosevelt. One of the reasons for his success was that he was willing to pick fights with his own party. One can argue about the sincerity of some of those fights. But we remember the Sista Souljah moment for a reason.

Right now Washington is marveling at how the Democratic party has simultaneously made the Iraq war the central and defining political issue of the decade while at the same time having no clue what it is they want to do about it. Worse, it's looking increasingly like the Democrats' position on the war is based largely on the polls, not principles.

One of the most important events in the rise of conservatism was the 1978 Firing Line debate over U.S. control of the Panama Canal. William F. Buckley favored giving it up. The governor of California, Ronald Reagan, favored keeping it. Reagan's side lost the argument, in Congress at least, but conservatives once again demonstrated our willingness to duke it out on such issues. And Reagan's career hardly suffered. If liberals were smart, they'd do something similar. Have Joe Lieberman debate Nancy Pelosi, or John Murtha. Make liberals get past their passion and explore what they think. My guess is it would be good for liberalism in the long run — and even better for America.

[ou812]

Stupid, elitist and arrogant article I think. When it comes to politics everyone thinks their shit don't stink, it's just as bad on the right as it is on the left. I really hate the way politics are driving a rift right through the middle of the people of this country. The 2 party system really does suck.

[igloo]

This is my take-away:

Look, conservatives would love to switch places with liberals. We'd get the universities, Hollywood, the Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie and Pew Foundations, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the New York Times, National Public Radio, Time, Newsweek, The New Yorker, CBS, including 60 Minutes and Dan Rather's thousand-fingers massage chair, and so forth. Liberals, meanwhile, would get the Washington Times and Fox News, along with a few conservative foundations.

I agree though, I am disgusted with the nature of politics today, and the level of discourse is disgusting, and it is not working for the benefit for us or the country

[igloo]

Or this:

Make liberals get past their passion and explore what they think. My guess is it would be good for liberalism in the long run — and even better for America.

[drlogic]

This is my take-away:

Look, conservatives would love to switch places with liberals. We'd get the universities, Hollywood, the Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie and Pew Foundations, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the New York Times, National Public Radio, Time, Newsweek, The New Yorker, CBS, including 60 Minutes and Dan Rather's thousand-fingers massage chair, and so forth. Liberals, meanwhile, would get the Washington Times and Fox News, along with a few conservative foundations.

I agree though, I am disgusted with the nature of politics today, and the level of discourse is disgusting, and it is not working for the benefit for us or the country

I think the mistake of equating the 2 is just that, A MISTAKE!

Only one side has been shrill, and it ain't Repz! I highly doubt that if the script were flipped, Demz would never offer the same "advise & consent" posts which Bush has offered. If today's demz had the power of majority which repz currently have, they would be unapologetically shoving their agenda down Repz throats. No congressional debates. No commission seats, etc.....

[ou812]

Or this:

Make liberals get past their passion and explore what they think. My guess is it would be good for liberalism in the long run — and even better for America.

Nahhh. You can say what you want but @ the end of the day it's all BS. That is that politicians will oppose anything the other party recommends purely because they are on the other side of the fence, which goes to show that they don't give a fuck about us but only about power. Way too much money in politics and fuck all honour and integrity.

And at the same time, especially for those who still take the Democratic/Republican categories seriously, sometimes the discussions here remind me of sports fans. Gotta root for your team! It's almost a matter of honor, like supporting your city's professional sports teams. Even when confronted with the most damning evidence to the contrary, you still gotta support the home team, and it doesn't matter which "team," the process appears to be the same for both.

[igloo]

Nahhh. You can say what you want but @ the end of the day it's all BS. That is that politicians will oppose anything the other party recommends purely because they are on the other side of the fence, which goes to show that they don't give a fuck about us but only about power. Way too much money in politics and fuck all honour and integrity.

And at the same time, especially for those who still take the Democratic/Republican categories seriously, sometimes the discussions here remind me of sports fans. Gotta root for your team! It's almost a matter of honor, like supporting your city's professional sports teams. Even when confronted with the most damning evidence to the contrary, you still gotta support the home team, and it doesn't matter which "team," the process appears to be the same for both.

I don't disagree with you, and I believe I already pointed out both sides sicken me....one side more than others obviously because of their shameless timimg and lack of understanding.......but in your quest to point out both sides suck, and politicians will say/do anything as long as it is against the "other", and people need to blindly "root" for their team, you are doing something that while I agree with it, diminishes, or even inadvertently justifies, something that is happening today that is absolutely 100% disgusting...and that is the awful rhetoric, blatant undermining, cheap political opportunism, etc that is being thrown around by the Dems.......

That is going on right NOW...I think this author made some very insightful points that you can not just discount by saying "both sides do it"....because while both sides do it, right now, the Dems, or the left wing of the DNC, is completely OUT OF CONTROL during a TIME OF WAR in which they do not have ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE to offer....period. End of Story.

With that said, I want the DNC to be strong, and offer alternative ideas, and constructive dissent and opinions. It is good for he President, it is good for the GOP, and it is good for this country. But as long as Dean, Kennedy, Pelosi, etc continue to drown out others, and as long as the DNC embraces clueless Hollywood, and morons like Moore and Sheehan, and media is so one-sided, than "liberal" will have a negative connotation, and true liberalism will be lost.

And with respects to the Iraq War, if Bill Clinton was leading this charge, the so called "liberals" would be calling him a visionary and humanitarian for liberating the Iraqi people, no matter the costs. They would label him a visionary for the long-term objective of bringing Democracy to the Middle East, the only true chance to end Islamic extremism. TIME magazine would call Clinton the man of the year for his vision. Hollywood would me making pro-war, pro-military movies and statements. The NYTimes editorial board would be drowning in positive opinion. Womens rights groups would be tripping over themselves lauding the efforts of Clinton to bring human rights to women in Iraq. ANd the media would say "car bombing in Iraq, but 10 news schools in Iraq and here is another story on teh brutality of Saddam Hussein and his Oil for Food scam"........

And perhaps the GOP would be taking a page out of the Dem playbook of today...perhaps, but I doubt very much at the same level of the Dems....but the bottom line is we are opearting in TODAY, and TODAY the Dem leadership is a fucking disgrace.......

[drlogic]

And perhaps the GOP would be taking a page out of the Dem playbook of today...perhaps, but I doubt very much at the same level of the Dems....but the bottom line is we are opearting in TODAY, and TODAY the Dem leadership is a fucking disgrace.......

Well put Igloo, and that was my point. Not that Repz are all right and Demz are all wrong...NOT AT ALL WHAT I MEANT. Simply put, like you said "TODAY".

The critics who privatly disagree w/ their Dem leaders seem to find comfort in implying "Repz are no better and "IF" the script were flipped, they would be doing the same as the Demz currently are doing. Personally, I find that too "convinient" for the critics. From what I've seen as of late, Repz in D.C. DEFINITLEY demand higher standers of themselves than do Demz. Just look @ the self-imposed Rep. rule in the house that the Demz exploited to force Delay to step down. Demz DON'T DARE do that to themselves. I think it's because of arrogance, but that's just me.

Bottom line, Demz in DC are definitely doing a diservice to our country. I too agree w/ Igloo about today's Demz claiming all sorts of postitive stuff if this were a Dem. in office rather than a Rep.

What's despicable is the timing. The denial that 9/11 changed EVERYTHING! The lack of class and repugnant, unproven rhetoric they spew during this time of war. I think we'd be so much further along in the war had the Demz acted like Americans first and Demz 2nd. They have not and the end result is a country divided. Then as they always do, they blame our prez. for the division when it's they who've gone to extreme measures to bring down a president they despise for their own selfish political gain. Shame on them! If not for talk radio, FoxNews and the internet, these scumbag Democrats would be getting away w/ all of their bullshit, as they always have in the past. Liberal arguments never hold any water. They can NEVER stay on topic. They bring up one argument, it get's nuked on the spot and they morph the argument into a completely different topic. Hence, chronic complainers w/out a plan or vision to better the country. It always takes a Fox News or talk radio host to CHALLENGE Democratic politrixta's when they go off on their tangents. Republican plitrtixta's are ALWAYS challenged, ON THE SPOT, be it CNN, ABC,CBS,NBC, etc.....They NEVER follow that template for their own. Their arrogance and elitism blinds them from even acknowledging their behavior.

Just turn on the tv to anything other than FoxNews and tell me if Bush or conservatives have EVER done ANYTHING right? Not one person or group gets EVERYTHING wrong. That is, unless you're a kool-aid drinking liberal analyzing the conservative agenda.

I think you get my point. Which is why I say it's a mistake to lump both parties into the same boat. Maybe in the future, but RIGHT NOW, NO WAY! Demz CLEARLY have Repz beat as far as being SCUMBAGS is concerned!

[igloo]

The critics who privatly disagree w/ their Dem leaders seem to find comfort is implying "Repz are no better and "IF" the script were flipped, they would be doing the same as the Demz currently are doing. Personally, I find that too "convinient" for the critics.

I think we'd be so much further along in the war had the Demz acted like Americans first and Demz 2nd. They have not and the end result is a country divided. Then as they always do, blame our prez. for the division when it's they who've gone to extreme measures to bring down a president they despise for their own selfish political gain.

Just turn on the tv to anything other than FoxNews and tell me if Bush or conservatives have EVER done ANYTHING right? No one person or group gets EVERYTHING wrong. That is, unless you're a kool-aid drinking liberal analyzing the conservative agenda.

Excellent points........