The State Of Liberalism
From the NY Times
Michael Tomasky, the executive editor of The American Prospect; Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation; Peter Beinart, the editor of The New Republic, were interviewed by Barry Gewen, an editor at the Book Review, about the present state of liberalism in America, and its future.
In part:
"Why has "liberal" become a dirty word for so many Americans today?
VANDEN HEUVEL. I would begin with the unrelenting assault on the term liberalism by the right wing. It has been a project over the last few decades. And by failing to take their own side in the argument liberals have conceded -- to the point where John Kerry was wary of being associated with liberalism in one of the debates. Liberals have also paid a heavy price by allowing liberalism to be defined almost exclusively as social liberalism. So that you lost sight of economic rights, economic justice.
TOMASKY. I essentially agree with that. But liberal concepts still have more resonance than you might think. Polls continually show that people are rhetorically conservative and operationally liberal or progressive.
BEINART. Yes, the term needs to be defended. But I think one also needs to recognize that while people may be conceptually liberal, they're not voting for enough liberals. Liberals need to look at how they grew estranged from large numbers of Americans in the post-Vietnam period. And I think another estrangement has occurred since 9/11. Many Americans have questions about the degree to which liberals are willing to defend the country."
"What would a liberal foreign policy look like?
TOMASKY. A kind of principled realism. First, terrorism is a threat. It threatened our shores more directly than the Soviet Union ever did. And it must be the focus of a foreign policy. We need alliances, yes. But alliances are a means. The end is the isolation of terrorists and the states that harbor them. The end is the control of nuclear proliferation, an extremely serious issue that the Bush administration sort of ignores. And the end is bringing liberty to the places of the world where it doesn't exist.
BEINART. I would just add that the Bush administration's guiding principle is a belief in military power, not a belief in human rights and democracy. It is why there has been no Marshall Plan since 9/11 by this administration. It is why they consistently try to cut programs to deal with the loose nuclear materials. It is why they have not seriously engaged with trying to create liberal currents in civil society in the Muslim world. This is where liberals have a real opportunity. Conservatives today, like conservatives during the cold war in so many ways, do not have a sufficient appreciation of the nonmilitary aspects of American power in this struggle.
VANDEN HEUVEL. I don't think we understand the challenges of the 21st century if we make the "global war against terror" our organizing principle. How does military dominance -- and that is at the core of too much of the establishment liberal conception of security policy -- deal with the central challenges of insecure and decrepit nuclear arsenals in the former Soviet Union? Or pandemics like we've never seen? Or environmental degradation? Or global inequality? Or failed states? I would also argue that you need far more effective nonmilitary responses to the fight against terrorism, which may be lost if one pursues the kind of hawkish security policy you're laying out."
Other questions include:
"To move on to domestic economic policy, the Bush administration pursues a more market-oriented philosophy while liberals tend to pursue a more government oriented philosophy. Is there some meeting ground?"
"Can the Democrats become the majority party in America again?"
Complete discussion and debate can be found at the New York Times
Agree? Disagree? Let us know by posting a comment.
Michael Tomasky, the executive editor of The American Prospect; Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation; Peter Beinart, the editor of The New Republic, were interviewed by Barry Gewen, an editor at the Book Review, about the present state of liberalism in America, and its future.
In part:
"Why has "liberal" become a dirty word for so many Americans today?
VANDEN HEUVEL. I would begin with the unrelenting assault on the term liberalism by the right wing. It has been a project over the last few decades. And by failing to take their own side in the argument liberals have conceded -- to the point where John Kerry was wary of being associated with liberalism in one of the debates. Liberals have also paid a heavy price by allowing liberalism to be defined almost exclusively as social liberalism. So that you lost sight of economic rights, economic justice.
TOMASKY. I essentially agree with that. But liberal concepts still have more resonance than you might think. Polls continually show that people are rhetorically conservative and operationally liberal or progressive.
BEINART. Yes, the term needs to be defended. But I think one also needs to recognize that while people may be conceptually liberal, they're not voting for enough liberals. Liberals need to look at how they grew estranged from large numbers of Americans in the post-Vietnam period. And I think another estrangement has occurred since 9/11. Many Americans have questions about the degree to which liberals are willing to defend the country."
"What would a liberal foreign policy look like?
TOMASKY. A kind of principled realism. First, terrorism is a threat. It threatened our shores more directly than the Soviet Union ever did. And it must be the focus of a foreign policy. We need alliances, yes. But alliances are a means. The end is the isolation of terrorists and the states that harbor them. The end is the control of nuclear proliferation, an extremely serious issue that the Bush administration sort of ignores. And the end is bringing liberty to the places of the world where it doesn't exist.
BEINART. I would just add that the Bush administration's guiding principle is a belief in military power, not a belief in human rights and democracy. It is why there has been no Marshall Plan since 9/11 by this administration. It is why they consistently try to cut programs to deal with the loose nuclear materials. It is why they have not seriously engaged with trying to create liberal currents in civil society in the Muslim world. This is where liberals have a real opportunity. Conservatives today, like conservatives during the cold war in so many ways, do not have a sufficient appreciation of the nonmilitary aspects of American power in this struggle.
VANDEN HEUVEL. I don't think we understand the challenges of the 21st century if we make the "global war against terror" our organizing principle. How does military dominance -- and that is at the core of too much of the establishment liberal conception of security policy -- deal with the central challenges of insecure and decrepit nuclear arsenals in the former Soviet Union? Or pandemics like we've never seen? Or environmental degradation? Or global inequality? Or failed states? I would also argue that you need far more effective nonmilitary responses to the fight against terrorism, which may be lost if one pursues the kind of hawkish security policy you're laying out."
Other questions include:
"To move on to domestic economic policy, the Bush administration pursues a more market-oriented philosophy while liberals tend to pursue a more government oriented philosophy. Is there some meeting ground?"
"Can the Democrats become the majority party in America again?"
Complete discussion and debate can be found at the New York Times
Agree? Disagree? Let us know by posting a comment.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< E-Liberal Home