[lbo-talk] second bill of rights

[sandia]

> I was going to respond, have a draft somewhere, to take issue with the idea
> that Liberalism is largely contentless, that it's pragmatic, simply swaying
> like a blade of grass swaying to whatever pragmatic possibility seems
> possible at the moment.  I don't agree with that at all. There is some
> substance to Liberalism. Obama is, quite obviously, not a Liberal, at least
> not the kind that I remember.

I think it's difficult to pinpoint, abstractly, what liberalism is. It
has been different things for over two centuries. Post-WWII US
liberalism sought to maintain a pseudo-welfare state and take a strong
anti-communist at home and abroad (or, really, an empire-maintenance
stance which used an anti-communist framework to gain legitimacy). It
fetishized market-driven progress, growth, abundance, mass consumption
and technical fixes to deep problems (racial oppression a case in
point). In the 1960s/1970s, the material and political basis for New
Deal liberalism began to unravel. I still wonder what "liberalism"
means in today's era, with its shifted economic, political and
cultural underpinnings. I think there is a battle within liberalism
between a wing that wants to be a lesser-evil operator of
neoliberalism, and a wing that will slowly gravitate towards a New
Deal-ish vision/coalition. Obama -- who so far has proven himself to
stand in the former wing -- and more shitty developments will probably
split the two wings wider, in a way that wasn't possible, say, five
years ago. Thoughts????

--

sandia