A Better Liberalism, Part III

This is the last of a three part diary on the current state of liberalism and what should be done to return this great philosophy to its rightful place of preeminence. In this last installment, the need for a new Centrist Liberalism is explained.

****

As the Right has been moving away from the vital center, a political vacuum is being created. Playing to its own radical base instead of to mainstream Americans, movement conservatism is now like an army that has chosen to march trough hostile territory, gambling that if it cuts itself off from its source of vital supplies it can forage off the land. However as the movement marches further and further to the Right it is headed into scrub-brush, territory barren of both popular provender and armaments.

Simultaneously the non-socialist Left—liberalism—has been coalescing more on more in the center of mainstream American policy. Whether intended or not, liberalism is finding itself in a fertile foraging ground, full of resources left behind and unguarded by the increasingly wayward Right. The center of American politics is opening up that a centrist liberalism is poised to fill. The question is whether liberals are willing to do some self-introspection and modify the framework of their message.

The New Right is becoming well aware of its attenuated position. So, in order to maintain political power their pundits spin a disguise of being representative of the mainstream. Straw-man crises are manufactured to stir emotions so as to override rational thought: Homosexuality is incredibly described “as a life-style choice� and thus a menace to the institution of marriage; potentially life-saving stem cell research is fraudulently linked to the creation of man-beasts; and the politeness of saying “Happy Holidays is maligned into a fictitious “War on Christmas.� All are examples of a virtual mob mentality of the mind designed to govern from a sense of emotion, not reason.

The New Right is also fueling an assault on the concept of merit. Many on the Right inaccurately claim to be the guardians of merit. But this is often quite misleading. Theirs’ is a claim for reward based not upon true initiative, but for privilege. They see profit distributed not pursuant to the contributed effort and special talent applied but more upon the very ability to control the wealth collection and distribution processes. The dignity of work has been replaced by the ability to gain superfluous wealth at the expense of others. Profit and authority have become disproportionately preeminent. Only those expeditions which can project either financial gain or national might have become worthy of America’s investment of treasure and activity. As a consequence the more aesthetic endeavors that truly great societies partake in have been mostly abandoned for profit and power.

Conservatism has given way to sloth. But it is a self-policing liberalism that can change this current malaise. The very recognition of reward for meritorious achievement that separates centrist liberals from those further Left. Merit is a word liberals must once again make their own. It is the commutative exchange between effort and satisfaction provided. A consistent liberalism demands that economic arguments be framed by its very definition.

Liberal democracy requires hard work and self-discipline. Each generation must earn the liberty and freedom America promises. A shining example of liberalism combined with effort producing meritorious results is the City University of New York educational system, especially during its first forty years. When it offered free education in exchange for a demanding standard CUNY was higher educational institutional system that produced more Nobel Prize winners than any other university. Liberalism must reclaim the mantle of merit.

And because liberalism has deemphasized such priorities it has left itself open to marginalization. Instead of reaching out to those disenfranchised and helping to lift them into the mainstream, too many of those who loosely identify themselves as liberals readily accept a more exclusionary approach, one that almost revels in pyrrhic victories; one that seemingly wants society as a whole to become sympathetic underdogs.

Those living on the margins are given enough to maintain their quasi-folk hero status but not enough to prosper by their own efforts. It is an approach that many on the Right will be gladly see continue. While it gives convenient cover to the New Right’s efforts to reward sloth and pay disproportionately excessive salaries to CEOs who contribute commutatively less to profit than their lower management and workers it also assists their effort to make liberalism appear to be a fringe movement.

Gone from our exploratory heritage is the great public works project, the bold effort to cure disease, erase poverty or to encourage the arts. These were all the earmarks of a vital centrist liberalism that dominated American politics from 1932 through 1968. It is a liberalism that allows the individual to excel so that he may contributes great things to the overall society.

This has allowed for JFK’s exhortation for America choosing to go to the moon “…not because it’s easy but because it is hard� to be replaced by George W. Bush’s butchered sound-bite about “spatial entrepreneurs.� Conservatism and its step-child neoconservatism have given us a society that now myopically measures merit only in terms of selfishness and hegemony, not by common effort or mutually shouldered responsibility.

Too many of the radical Left still view all authority as suspect. As Todd Gitlin observed, too many on the radical Left lash out at all forms of power, a tone more anarchistic than liberal. It is a radicalism that assumes that their movement could speak truth to power because it was incapable of internal corruption. Nothing could be further from the truth. Niebuhr illustrated how even the most noble of philosophies can become corrupted by undisciplined will-to-power. Even liberal institutions such as labor unions and social programs, failing to police themselves fell prey these same failures to self-discipline.

But a centrist liberalism corrects these disparities. It brings the non-socialist Left back to a point before the three assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy created the current leadership void. A reemphasis upon contribution and merit as a means to achieve personal security will resonate with the American mainstream, the vital center so necessary to win national elections. A centrist liberalism, unlike the more radical Left emphasizes respect for a power that is derived from the governed. In short, centrist liberalism will allow a great political philosophy to resume its mission without compromising its soul.

If liberalism has had a basic fault over the last forty years it is that its adherents have strayed from some of the basic principles of distributive and commutative justice—the ethical cornerstones of modern liberalism. Centrist liberalism reminds us social justice must be balanced by law and order; that sometimes the only option is the military action; and that when a policy has exhausted its usefulness or has served its purpose, it can be put aside. Centrist liberalism maintains that patriotism is not illiberal and that our flag is both a symbol of uniting citizens of diverse backgrounds into one people while signaling the triumph of the Enlightenment. In short, centrist liberalism restores the philosophy’s lost sense of historical context and flexibility.

And that is why the answer is still liberalism. We do not go forward by going backwards past the point of progressive activist government. Modifying and adjusting a successful political belief is very different from completely abandoning a proven philosophy. Yes, liberalism has made mistakes, but they were mistakes resulting from a good-faith attempt at finding solutions, not from, as FDR noted, “icy indifference.� Who would you hold in higher esteem, the surgeon who tries to save a dying patient with a bold, new procedure or the surgeon who makes no attempt at all?

Flexibility allows us to tolerate each other while giving us that greater creative spark. Along with empathy, it is the heart and soul of liberalism. It enables us to use boldness to create enduring testaments to progress. Wilson’s Federal Reserve Bank, Federal Trade Commission and the Adamson Act which established the eight-hour workday; FDR’s Security And Exchanges Commission, Social Security and Tennessee Valley Authority all still function as intended; a non-communist Europe thrives because of Truman’s twin policies of containment and financial aid; JFK’s Peace Corps still brings American goodwill to poorer nations; and Lyndon Johnson’s Project Head Start still prepares more children for education than had it not existed. These are all centrist liberal accomplishments that resonate with the average American.

And for the sake of our nation, liberalism must become the alternate voice to neoconservatism. Until recently it seemed as if only mainstream, more libertarian conservatives displayed the backbone necessary to question the new will-to-power of these uni-polarists. But their criticism will not be enough because in the end many will surrender their moral indignation to an inclination of a shared economic agenda with those further Right. Only a vibrant centrist liberalism has the ability to be a truly popular alternative to the economic policies of libertarian conservatism as well as the harsh religious orthodoxy and international uni-polarism of a New Right based upon neoconservatism.

There are triumphs yet to come, but the necessary battles preceding them must first be fought. Harry Truman’s dream of universal healthcare still remains unrealized and potentially life-saving stem cell research is being denied by subjective moralities. There is work to be done, but first we must clearly define ourselves, identify the force aligned against us and then choose our battles more shrewdly. Only then, can we resume the march forward and achieve FDR’s long cherished goal “…to make this Nation greater in a better world.�