Re: social liberalism

[Rosser Jr, John Barkley]

Max,
     I had not realized that "Old Democrats" were calling 
"New Democrats" "social liberals."  I think your point 
about the racial question falling between the cracks is of 
some interest.  At least with respect to established 
African-American groups there seems to be a tendency to 
line up with the "Old Democrats," more protectionist, more 
focused on economic issues, less interest in environmental 
issues, at least until recently, some tendency to 
"conservatism" on some "social" issues, etc.  OTOH, a 
strong focus on race per se rather than worker identity 
becomes de facto another brand of "identity politics."
Barkley Rosser
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 22:10:04 +0000 maxsaw 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Whatever liberalism came out of FDR's time has 
> now split between a quasi-social democratic view 
> which is oriented to labor and living standard 
> issues on one side, and a more middle-class
> focus on 'the poor,' ecology, reproductive 
> rights, civil liberties, and at its worst, 
> 'identity politics'.  Race gets lost somewhere 
> between the two.
> 
> To confuse things even more, the latter is often 
> called social liberalism by partisans of the 
> former.  Partisans of the latter, in contrast, 
> think of partisans of the former as either labor 
> hacks or unrealistically radical.
> 
> The poster-boy for social liberalism in this way 
> of thinking is Robert Rubin--favors taxation of 
> the rich, but using the money for deficit 
> reduction; favors free trade; favors social 
> spending to programs narrowly targeted to the 
> poor (sic).
> 
> Robert Reich is mostly the other kind, though he 
> founders on the rock of free trade and, to some 
> extent, privatization.
> 
> An article by EPI denizens Ruy Texeira and David 
> Kusnets referred to the labor-oriented type as 
> "worker liberalism," though I favor the more 
> bombastic terminology, "proletarian liberalism." 
> PL is a logical reaction to the failure of PS, 
> but I fear it doesn't go far enough in reckoning 
> with the culture and values of the working class. 
> For that, we need to reinvent American populism.
> 
> 
> > From:          "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> >     This message is going to several lists simultaneously.
> >      Some time ago on several lists there was a discussion 
> > regarding how it came to be that in the US "liberal" came 
> > to mean someone who favored government intervention in the 
> > economy, in contrast to "classical liberalism" and how the 
> > word "liberal" is viewed in most non-English speaking 
> > societies, and even in Britain to some degree.  Without 
> > doubt it had come to mean this in the US by the time of 
> > Franklin D. Roosevelt, a view that might be called "social 
> > liberalism."
> >      About a month ago there was an essay in _The 
> > Economist_ by Harvard's Samuel Beer on the roots of "New 
> > Labour" that argued that the key turning point was the 
> > British Liberal Party Convention of 1906.  Prior to then 
> > British liberalism had been "Gladstonian," that is 
> > "classical."  Lloyd George dominated the 1906 convention, 
> > which was in part responding to the formal founding of the 
> > British Labour Party that year, and supported a variety of 
> > proposals including a minimum wage, protection of union 
> > funds, eight-hour working day for miners, health and 
> > unemployment insurance, and old age pensions, among other 
> > familiar items.  He also supported removing the veto of the 
> > House of Lords that was implemented in 1911.  Keynes was a 
> > supporter of Lloyd George and along with Beveridge became 
> > an acolyte of this new "social liberalism" that would 
> > eventually spread into the US, especially after WW I, such 
> > views prior to then being labeled "progressive."  That 
> > Hayek and Keynes debated over a variety of issues in the 
> > 1930s thus can be seen as a debate between these two kinds 
> > of "liberalism."
> > Barkley Rosser
> > James Madison University
> > 
> > -- 
> > Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> ==================================================
> Max B. Sawicky           Economic Policy Institute
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]         Suite 1200
> 202-775-8810 (voice)     1660 L Street, NW
> 202-775-0819 (fax)       Washington, DC  20036
> 
> Opinions here do not necessarily represent the
> views of anyone associated with the Economic
> Policy Institute.
> ===================================================

-- 
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]