The Future of Liberalism - Post 1

This is the first in a series of big posts (wheee!) that I'm going to be writing about the future of liberalism, my main topic of interest.

It's impossible to talk about liberalism as a philosophy without talking about the Democratic party. I don't believe that philosophies of government should be tied to political organizations...but if a new liberalism is going to gain any traction, the first politicians promoting it are going to be Democrats. So one important step in creating a new liberalism is to convince Democrats that a new liberalism needs to be created.

In this article, David Broder and Allison Hantschel debate the Democrats' path to power. Broder basically agrees with Clinton strategists Galston and Kamarck, who argue that Democrats have to accomodate Americans' shifting values on social issues, especially national security and religion in the public sphere, by moving to the "center" on these issues while keeping their basic policy prescriptions intact.

Hantschel disagrees, arguing that Democrats' main weakness is...weakness itself. She claims that Democrats have made the mistake of moving "closer to Republicans" on issues "since 1992", and that what is instead needed is more vigorous and united opposition to Republicans.

Who's right? In a sense, both are. Galston and Kamarck (and Broder) have a point when they claim that many voters perceive Democrats as being out of step with their values, and whether or not this is real or the result of Republican smear campaigns, it would probably be a good idea for Democrats to emphasize their "mainstream" values. Hantschel is similarly right when she says that Democrats needed unity and fearlessness in the face of the formidable Republican political machine.

But both of these arguments, I believe, are missing the big point. To Broder, I would ask: What do Democrats offer the country that Republicans don't, on values or issues? To Hantschel: Even if Democrats become strong and united, what are the main causes that they're fighting for?

Basically, these are the same question, and it's the question that no one can answer right now: What does it mean to be a liberal? For the last few decades, our political axis has been static - politicians have told the country what is "Right" and what is "Left", and so (warning: cheesy metaphor ahead) we haven't been able to move forward. That's why both Republicans and Democrats are out of favor with the general public.

What's needed is a redefinition of liberalism itself, focusing on solving the problems that Americans feel most acutely in their lives today.
In the 50's and 60's, that was social inequality at home and the ominous rise of the USSR overseas - so liberals brought the goods, with civil rights, women's equality, and Soviet containment.
In the late 70's and early 80's that was a stagnating economy - so "economic" conservatives brought the goods, with tax cuts and deregulation.
In the late 80s and early 90s, it was crime and the disintegration of the family - so "social" conservatives brought the goods, with a re-emphasis on religion and tradition.
In each of these cases, the party that backed the philosophy that "brought the goods" won big.

So what are the burning issues that are making Americans afraid to turn on the news these days? If I had to guess, I'd say they are:
1. The loss of American prestige and respect abroad,
2. Insecurity from the threat of terrorism, and
3. Economic insecurity related to globalism, especially the rise of China.

Currently, neither liberalism nor conservatism are "bringing the goods" on these issues. If we want a liberal resurgence, we liberals have to redefine the basic idea of liberalism so that it puts solutions to these problems at the forefront. Then, and only then, will Americans once again embrace liberalism as their natural, unifying philosophy.