Recommended reading, to be sure. Lots to chew on in that essay.

Posted by MB on 9 November 2007 @ 3pm

“Prudent men and women do not espouse liberalism today to win votes.”

Could this be because prudent liberals know that if they espouse their values loudly that it will actually lose them votes?

“The liberal hears the call to defend the dissenter, to defend the weak, to defend freedom of opinion and speech for those whose thoughts and feelings do not coincide with the thoughts and feelings of the strong.”

These are all noble goals. The problem for liberalism comes when they talk about *how* they plan to defend these values. If modern liberalism tried to expand individual freedoms and liberties while making sound, logical cases, they would win many more hearts and minds than they do. Sadly, liberalism to too many means looking to the government for some program to defend these values for them. It is lazy. It almost always translates into higher taxes, a stronger centralized government (with those who “are noble” running it) and an inefficient delivery system that is not endorsed by a majority of citizens. Strong and weak has nothing to do with it. Liberalism usually tries to take the opinion of a minority (in the numbers sense) and force acceptance of it into a culture that does not support it. Modern-day Liberalism = Activism precisely because of this. There is no majority support.

“This makes the game of the anti-liberals easy. They can announce what the liberal position is—usually before the “knee-jerk liberal” has taken his chance to think about the matter. The anti-liberal will make the liberal look absurd by telling the world in advance what the liberal must believe. No matter how ridiculous it may be, the trap is set for the dullwitted liberal, who accepts what someone says is the liberal view, before he even thinks about it.”

Good grief. Poor knee-jerk liberals. Before they know how they think ‘anti-liberals’ tell them what to think and they can’t help but go along with it. These are mind-numbed robots then. Who or what, pray tell, created these folks if not Liberalism? The author is actually admitting that where liberalism has been most successful it has resulted in ‘knee-jerk’ views and opinions that are not desirable for the larger liberal movement. How can this be?

“Lamblike liberals have let their critics speak for them.”.
It is up to more level-headed liberals to take back the movement. We don’t disagree on this point. Don’t let the extremists in your movement define you.

It sounds to me like this author is urging liberals to become less knee-jerk, more thinking and more conservative in their views.

Liberalism today stands for a strong centralized government controlled by a powerful ruling class who hold the “correct” values. Sure, they sell it as looking out for the little guy and defending the poor and weak, but make no doubt about it, it is all window dressing as the real goal is to ensure that the right leaders hold the power and control to redistribute wealth how they best see fit. THIS is the real problem with liberalism. It is Socialism with a strong ruling class.

If modern liberals want to take back their movement, then they should encourage *individuals* to embrace liberal ideals and change hearts one at a time. They should not look to the government to do their bidding for them by enacting new laws and regulations.

Forcing it upon people is the least effective way to go about it.

Conservatism is on the advance because more and more individuals are listening, learning and asking questions that lead them to believe in what conservatism stands for.

I truly wish liberalism would take the same approach rather than force-feed it to people. Then we could have real debates in the arena of ideas.

Posted by Watts on 9 November 2007 @ 5pm

Watts,

Did you realize that the article was written in the mid-70’s?

That would be a lot different atmosphere and electoral attitude than today. And that comment of yours that conservatism is on the march? Where are you marching? Over a cliff?

Conservatism itself, not to be confused with what the government in power right now practices, is probably going to be OK. Republicanism, as a brand, is dead and will be for quite some time to come. It has been ruined by the current crooks in office, who can’t seem to realize they are ruining this country, and the idea that it stands for the rule of law. The rule of law for these clowns is a quaint notion, like the Geneva Convention. They stop at nothing to get what they think they need or want to be fascist totalitarians.

Nice essay you have there though. Maybe the reactions you have to this 1976 article should be revised taking into account the facts of today.

Posted by Mark Brooks on 9 November 2007 @ 7pm

While I’m reluctant to agree completely w/ Mr. Brooks, herewith are some of the highlights from my brand new edition of National Review - the conservative Bible:

“It’s almost impossible to exaggerate the Democratic advantage on domestic issues: If it’s an issue, they lead.”

“Too many conservatives have been doing what liberals always accuse us of doing: trying to recapture an imagined past.”

“While Republicans are depressed these days, their condition is actually worse than they think it is.”

On those notes, I depart for a local watering hole and wish everyone a good weekend.

Posted by Judge Smails on 9 November 2007 @ 7pm

Liberalism usually tries to take the opinion of a minority (in the numbers sense) and force acceptance of it into a culture that does not support it. Modern-day Liberalism = Activism precisely because of this. There is no majority support.

Now, lets do this word substitution:

NEOCONSERVATISM usually tries to take the opinion of a minority (in the numbers sense) and force acceptance of it into a culture that does not support it. Modern-day NEOCONSERVATISM = Activism precisely because of this. There is no majority support.

Isn’t that eerily prescient of our current situation? It’s because when Doug Feith, Richard Perle, and all their little “Liberal” buddies got dissed about time this thing was written (1970’s), they started looking for some pliable politicians. They found a home in the Republican party.

The Republican Party adopted the Liberal rejects. Now go take a shower.

Posted by Bubby on 9 November 2007 @ 8pm

Ah, you are confusing Republicanism with Conservatism.

The Republican party is losing because they are drifting away from Conservatism.

Crooks, neocons, oh my!

Drivel.

Posted by Watts on 9 November 2007 @ 8pm

Here’s some of that modern-day liberalism. Good to see there is now free thinking and nobody telling anyone else what to say or think like what was happening in 1976.

“On Tuesday Nov. 6, the Clinton campaign stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton as part of a weeklong series of events to introduce her new energy plan. The event was clearly intended to be as much about the press as the Iowa voters in attendance, as a large press core helped fill the small venue. Reporters from many major national news outlets came to the small Iowa town, from such media giants as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and CNN.

After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. “They were canned,” she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. “One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],” she said.

Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan.

But the source of the question was no coincidence—at this event “they wanted a question from a college student,” Gallo-Chasanoff said. She also noted that staffers prompted Clinton to call on her and another who had been approached before the event”

Posted by Watts on 10 November 2007 @ 11am

Watts, President Bush hasn’t taken an unscripted question since he was elected. He doesn’t even allow non-supporters into his events. Clearly planting questions does not correlate to “modern-day liberalism.”

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 10 November 2007 @ 3pm

Are you telling me that David Gregory is shilling?

You must be joking.

Posted by Watts on 10 November 2007 @ 11pm

President Bush hasn’t taken an unscripted question since he was elected. He doesn’t even allow non-supporters into his events.

and you know these things how?

Posted by I.Publius on 11 November 2007 @ 9pm

It’s so widely-known and well-published that I couldn’t see any need to document it. Last I checked, the White House has not just admitted that they do it, but been proud of it. It’s made news when Bush has been asked a real question because it’s so hugely rare that anybody slips through. It was just a week or two ago that the feds lost a lawsuit brought by a couple who were barred admission to one of his speaking engagements because they were wearing some sort of a pro-troops pins. To find out more, just google it.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 11 November 2007 @ 11pm

“It’s so widely-known and well-published that I couldn’t see any need to document it.”

Good God.

With this logic it is impossible to have an honest debate using facts of any kind. The vacuousness of this place just became too much for me.

Enjoy your libero-fest.

Just remember a couple of things:

1) Bush Derangement Syndrome is real. Seek help.

2) George Bush is not on the next ballot.

Maybe MoveOn.org ought to be re-purposed for those who just can’t seem to move beyond their irrational hated of Bush.

Posted by Watts on 12 November 2007 @ 2am

Political screening is not news, nor is scripting questions. The Clintons were masters of both practices. I’d find some sources to back that up, but, hey — it’s so widely known and well-published that I don’t see any need to document it.

You no doubt know that saying he hasn’t had an unscripted question since he was elected and doesn’t allow non-supporters at events is simply false, besides sounding pretty dumb. How many questions has the president answered in the past nearly seven years? And ALL of them were scripted? (See how dumb that sounds?) And I suppose he’s interrogated every attendee at every event during that span, too, and kicked out all but the true believers.

Posted by I.Publius on 12 November 2007 @ 6am

Bush’s problem isn’t that he doesn’t answer questions, it is that he can’t answer them correctly, or answers questions that no one was asking. From his zenith boo-boo of invading Iraq, through any meaningful address to health care costs, 65% of Americans can’t decide whether he takes bad advice or is incapable of reasoned analysis - whatever, he’s a lousy president.

What I’d like you 32 percenters to do is to make up your mind - is Bush’s unpopularity the cause of Republican election problems, or is his genius just misunderstood by a deranged majority? I’m hearing it both ways.

Posted by Bubby on 12 November 2007 @ 11am

Once again, Bubby espouses the notion that politicians and ideas are best judged by how popular they are. You must’ve voted Yes on #1 last year, eh?

Posted by I.Publius on 12 November 2007 @ 3pm

Political screening is not news, nor is scripting questions. The Clintons were masters of both practices. I’d find some sources to back that up, but, hey — it’s so widely known and well-published that I don’t see any need to document it.

Uhhmmm…so you’re agreeing with me?

You no doubt know that saying he hasn’t had an unscripted question since he was elected and doesn’t allow non-supporters at events is simply false, besides sounding pretty dumb.

I’d like to hope that you’ve been reading my blog long enough to know when I’m being literal. It’s pretty rare that I’ll ever claim that anything is entirely true (or false) every time and, when I do, I’ll back it up. So if I say “Virgil Goode has never met a pork project he didn’t like,” or “President Bush has spent every spare minute at his ranch,” I think it’s pretty clear that I don’t actually mean that Goode has voted for every single pork project ever (or that he’s voted for hog subsidies), or that President Bush has taken a six-hour round-trip plane ride in order to spent 60 seconds there. Neither I nor anybody else could possibly substantiate the claim that every single question that President Bush has ever answered in his 15 year political career has been pre-arranged.

I can’t believe I’m explaining this. We are all dumber for this experience.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 12 November 2007 @ 10pm

why dont you people get that you cant justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior?

Posted by anon on 15 November 2007 @ 5am