Not included is Southern Populism's "Jim Crow laws of the 1890's... Not on the Liberal agenda but done by the then "Progressive" Populists...
On Aug 19, 11:20 pm, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[email protected]> wrote: > Why is American liberalism bankrupt? A history lesson for New York > Times columnist Bob Herbert > By Tom Eley > 19 September 2008 > New York Times columnist Bob Herbert’s September 9 column “Hold Your > Heads Up” is a lamentation of US liberalism’s cowardice. > > Herbert, himself a liberal, is far from alone in noting the > submissiveness of liberalism in the face of the Republican right. The > current campaign of Barrack Obama for the presidency is a case study > in just such spinelessness and duplicity. > > Herbert writes, “Liberals have been so cowed by the pummeling they’ve > taken from the right that they’ve tried to shed their own identity, > calling themselves everything but liberal and hoping to pass > conservative muster by presenting themselves as hyper-religious and > lifelong lovers of rifles, handguns, whatever. > > “So there was Hillary Clinton, of all people, sponsoring legislation > to ban flag-burning; and Barack Obama, who once opposed the death > penalty, morphing into someone who not only supports it, but supports > it in cases that don’t even involve a homicide.” > > The obvious question that arises from Herbert’s description of a > prostrate liberalism and supine Democratic Party—a question that tens > of millions the world over who hate the Bush administration are asking > themselves—is why. Why is US liberalism incapable of waging a struggle > against the right? Or, as Herbert rhetorically puts it, “Why liberals > don’t stand up to this garbage, I don’t know.” > > But Herbert doesn’t tarry on this dilemma. Posing it, he throws up his > hands and changes the subject—to history. Addressing himself to fellow > liberals, he presents a version of history in which liberalism has > been the sole vehicle of social reform. > > This reveals a serious misunderstanding of US history. Herbert omits > the most important elements of historical development: the role of > economic and social change and the centrality of the independent > struggles of the working class. > > According to Herbert, liberals “from the mightiest presidents to the > most unheralded protesters and organizers” have been responsible for, > among other things, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights > and the end of segregation, always fighting tooth and nail against > conservatives. Where has this golden age of liberalism gone? Herbert > seems to ask. > > In fact, it never existed. The limited reformist achievements that > Herbert outlines were not the result of liberalism, but of the mass > social struggles of the working class to which liberalism, under > certain historical conditions, adapted itself and made grudging > concessions. > > From its origins in the late 18th and early 19th centuries in Europe > and the United States, liberalism was the ideology of the bourgeoisie. > Its early political legitimacy rested on its claim to speak for the > productive elements of the entire nation—in France this was called the > “Third Estate” of bourgeoisie, peasants and workers—aligned in social > revolution against feudal elements in society: the royalty, the clergy > and the landed gentry. Yet, in spite of its claims, from the beginning > liberalism expressed in politics and economy the aims of the > bourgeoisie. What this meant in practice was the domination of the > state by capitalism, the breaking down within the nation of feudal > barriers to the capitalist market, and the subjugation of the working > class. > > As opposed to European nations, liberalism in the US over the course > of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century gradually took on a > social-reformist coloring. After the defeat of the South in the Civil > War, the liberal vision of the national market triumphed. > > This was not precisely a “free market,” but the protection and > domination of the domestic market by US capitalism. But liberalism’s > political purchase on middle class elements—the small farmers, > shopkeepers and professionals—allowed it to simultaneously present > itself as the defender of democracy against the tyranny of the market, > a tendency that manifested itself in both the farmers’ Populist > movement of the 1890s and the Progressive movement of the early 20th > century, whose ranks were filled with middle-class professionals and > technical experts. > > At the same time, liberalism reacted with hostility to the development > of the working class and its epic strikes, union movements and > struggles for socialism which unfolded from the 1870s through the > 1930s, and which placed a serious challenge before the bourgeoisie and > a question mark over its political control. The liberal state’s > response of choice to this challenge from the working class was force: > the use of private guards, strike-breakers, police, militias and the > courts to crush strikes and imprison, terrorize or kill the leadership > of the working class. The class struggle in the US in this period was > among the most sanguinary in the world. > > It must never be forgotten that it was the liberal icon, Woodrow > Wilson, who imprisoned the leader of US socialism, Eugene Debs, then > an elderly man, for opposing American entry into World War I. The > Wilson administration whipped up the first Red Scare in the aftermath > of the war, and was responsible for the imprisonment and deportation > of thousands of immigrant radicals. > > But, utilizing its democratic elements, liberalism relied on the > carrot as well as the stick, advancing a limited reformist agenda— > increasingly through the political mechanism of the Democratic Party— > and relying upon middle class layers for its social constituency. > > During the Great Depression of the 1930s, American capitalism faced a > mortal crisis. Workers waged massive unionization struggles and > strikes, very often led by socialists and communists. As an ideology, > socialism had significant influence on the thinking of workers, > intellectuals and artists. Given these conditions—the growing > organized strength of the working class, the threat posed by > socialism, the economic disaster wrought by the Great Depression— > Franklin Delano Roosevelt dragged the ruling class, kicking and > screaming, along a path of a quite limited reformism. > > At the height of this crisis, the failure of liberalism was laid bare > by its own leading philosopher and intellectual, John Dewey, who > penned a series of lectures delineating its fatal contradiction—that > between the economic “liberty” of monopoly capitalists to exploit and > the liberty of the masses to live a full life. What Dewey described > was in essence the polarization of the Third Estate, or the shattering > of the bourgeoisie’s claims to speak for the nation. > > Dewey recognized that “the tragic breakdown of democracy is due to the > fact that the identification of liberty with the maximum of > unrestrained individualistic action in the economic sphere, under the > institutions of capitalistic finance, is as fatal to the realization > of liberty for all as it is to the realization of equality.” Dewey > could think liberalism out of this dilemma, proposing a system of > public ownership, but he rejected the very existence of a class > struggle and was opposed to the independent movement of the working > class. His plans never got off the drawing board. > > There is a colossal irony in Herbert’s column. He laments the > reactionary political climate before which Democratic politicians like > Obama and Clinton now grovel. However, this climate of reaction and > ignorance is the end result of a process that liberalism itself set > into motion with the anticommunist hysteria of the late 1940s and > early 1950s. > > After the end of World War II, US liberalism turned against its allies > in the Stalinist Communist Party and began a purge of left elements in > government, organized labor, culture and academia. > > This was not because liberalism had become disgusted with the crimes > of Stalin. On the contrary, during the blood purges of the late 1930s, > in which Stalin exterminated the entire revolutionary generation in > the Soviet Union, US liberalism—including its journalistic flagships > the Nation and the New Republic—defended Stalin and his show trials. > > What had changed were the imperialist interests of the United States. > Liberalism and the Democratic Party broke their alliance with the > Communist Party and its fellow travelers because the Soviet Union was > now viewed as the primary obstacle to the unfettered projection of US > imperialism abroad. This shift caught Stalin and the Communist Party > in the US unawares. As a token of good faith, they carried on the > Popular Front-style class subordination of workers to the bourgeoisie > that had prevailed in the Roosevelt years, even as the earlier > political alignment came crashing down all around them. > > President Harry Truman, another liberal icon, launched the Red Scare > in 1948 as a means of banishing domestic opposition to the program of > US imperialism abroad and taming the American working class, which > emerged in the immediate postwar period more combative than ever. A > substantial section of the liberal intelligentsia adapted itself to > the Red Scare and contributed its ideological labor to the project of > US imperialism, many of its ranks joining the American Committee for > Cultural Freedom, which was associated with the CIA-funded Congress of > Cultural Freedom. The role of these organizations was to provide > intellectual legitimacy to anticommunism, which had hitherto been > considered a marginal or reactionary outlook. > > The enlistment of liberal intellectuals’ labor was not accidental. It > reflected their class position and the extraordinary wealth of US > capitalism, which was busy hiring intellectuals in the state > bureaucracies, saturating the universities with money, and founding > anticommunist “think tanks” and endowments. > > The anticommunist campaign created a toxic cultural and intellectual > environment. It appealed ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
