Monday, July 23, 2012

Is Liberalism Dead?

As I was doing some Internet surfing, I came across an article about the possibility of Liberalism being dead. The article also led to R. Emmett Tyrrell's upcoming book titled The Death of Liberalism.

At this point, I have not read a summary or the actual book, yet I plan to do both, At this point, I'm going to answer the question I posed in the title: Is Liberalism Dead? Shorthand answer, no, but it is on life support.

In my lifetime, liberalism has always been portrayed positively by popular culture. Whether television, movies or news, there has been a strong liberal bend in American society. Furthermore, as a child, I remember the "Weekly Reader," from elementary school, which had a liberal bend to it, featuring articles about Reagan's homelessness issue and the belief that having his finger on the nuclear trigger could cause World War III with the Soviet Union. I'm glad I had parents who were smart enough to tell me that was crap, and then the older I became, the more readily able I was to read on my own to disprove it. On a larger stage, this country is also fortunate Ronald Reagan was able to allow Conservatism to rise above these naysayers. With the rise of Conservative alternatives to the "Big 3," as well as the major newspapers, liberalism did not rule the airwaves anymore. In 2012, the liberal sources in the news and popular culture still think they rule the roost, but Americans must remind them, especially with their wallets, that they're not the 'end all, be all' anymore!

The first time in my lifetime where I thought liberalism could actually die, once and for all, was in the wake of the events following September 11, 2001. The country was united and finally put its collective foot down, not allowing a stateless tinhorn terrorist regime like Al-Qaeda to kill Americans anymore. And to George W. Bush's credit, the United States was not attacked by Al-Qaeda on her home soil again, during his administration. Americans en masse began to realize the Carter way and the Clinton way in regards to National Security, did not work, and instead, caused more problems than it solved. During those two administrations, the rise of a fundamentalist Iran, as well as an active Al-Qaeda took place. And as a result of the crimes of Sandy Berger, we may never know the full truth of the priority and "battle plan" regarding terrorism in the Clinton Administration.

I believe George W. Bush had many successes in putting liberalism on the ropes, but he failed to give it the death knell it so deserves, and he could have clearly done it on a National Security basis after 9-11. Not only his Justice Department's lax treatment of Berger to find out exactly what was stolen, but his lack of fight in responding to the scurrilous attacks from many in politics, the media and popular culture about Iraq, the War on Terror and the Patriot Act, throughout his administration, allowed liberals to get back into the game and the good graces of some Americans. The left was clearly beaten, but George W. Bush's lack of fight allowed them to come back. George W. Bush's steadfast resolve is a commendable quality, but he should have viewed himself as the leader of the Conservative movement, as in this position, one must consistently defend and educate, while also sticking to their guns. As I have said before, you throw enough against the wall, some of it is surely to stick if you continue to let it get thrown. It may not have stuck in 2004, but stick it did, in 2006 and 2008 where Democrat/liberal victories took place.

To the naked eye, these victories seem sweeping and overwhelming, but there was one notable characteristic about these wins. Liberals did not truly define their views, instead, hid from them by pretending to be moderates. This is why I believe Liberalism is again on the ropes. If these politicians would have run to the left of where they did, there's no way they would have won. This occurred from the presidential election on down the ticket. With the one-party passage of ObamaCare and the defeat of many Democrats and fake moderates (the Blue Dogs ARE liberals in disguise) in the Midterm elections of 2010 in the House and Senate, the head fake of the left was exposed.

To win in 2012, Liberals need to do another 2008 head fake, run from their record and run on nothing but attacking Republicans. They have already started to do this, breaking Americans into political blocs; be it women, Hispanics, African-Americans and homosexuals to tell them how much Republicans think they suck. The onus of leading Republicans, namely Mitt Romney, is to use these few months as a teachable moment to articulate why liberalism under Obama has failed and Conservatism is the better way for America; uniting these blocs that Obama has split up, focusing on issues that will allow Americans of all colors and creeds to have a better life, and do so with no fear. Mitt Romney has struggled at times, but it seems he's been getting some wind in his sails this past week. It is a long way to November and while he'll pick up at least Florida, North Carolina, Indiana and New Hampshire, he needs a few more, and maybe once and for all, liberalism will be dead.

No comments:

Post a Comment