Reply #11: Your understanding of history must be different than mine... [View All]

[IrateCitizen]

Liberalism wasn't "dead" in the period prior to 1932 -- it had yet to be born. However, in the late 19th and early 20th century, you had populism, socialism and progressivism -- three movements that overlapped and converged in several ways that sowed the seeds for the birth of liberalism.

Religious fundamentalism was actually tied up in these movements as well. Many of the early leaders of the socialist movement were among the clergy. There were virulently nationalistic and teetotaler factions within the Progressives. And William Jennings Bryan, the chief prosecutor in the Scopes Monkey Trial, was the leader of the populists.

Much of the work of these groups was brought to fruition during the TR and Wilson presidencies. The 1920's were characterized by an economic boom (albeit one on false footing), so there wasn't nearly as much zeal for furthering those ideas. But we're really only talking about a lull of about 14 years here, which really isn't that long of a period, historically speaking. It could hardly be called an "era", like liberalism was.

Politics is ALWAYS about presentation. It amazes me that there are those among us who still believe that we can simply present the facts to people, and they'll eat it up. It also amazes me that many think that social norms simply remain static over time, and that there is no need to change approaches and strategies as the times change the political realities. IMHO, such approaches are doomed to failure, and apparently a few more losses are required to get this to sink in.

I'm reminded right now of the book The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith. The US emerged from WWII as a society in which want of basic needs was largely an uncommon phenomenon, unlike the way it had been prior to that. Up through the depression, people knew what it was like to go without basic needs such as food, clothing or shelter. Except for relatively small segments of the population, this is not the case anymore. I'm not saying that everyone is affluent, but basic needs are met for the majority of the population. This requires a different approach to politics, as Werbach identifies, based on fulfillment.

Fulfillment can come from a variety of sources. Of course, our society preaches that it comes from material possessions and pursuit of wealth. But this doesn't have to be the only narrative. It can also come from community and human interaction. If you ask me, there is a generation coming of age that is naturally coming around to this way of thinking. Unless the Democrats want to be doomed to perpetual minority status, they need to speak to this need for fulfillment -- otherwise the right will jump in and capitalize on twisting this need into selfish pursuit of wealth as fulfillment.