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 + 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]
