Liberalism and American Identity

Patrick M. Garry

• Publisher: The Kent State University Press
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9781612770581
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Since, 1968, liberalism as a viable political ideology has been under attack, with the most aggressive assault occurring in the 1988 presidential campaign. While conservatives denounced the "L-word" and proclaimed its death as a political ideology, liberals and Democrats failed to defend America's proud liberal tradition. Liberals have yet to take the ideological offensive. Indeed, without a clear ideological identity, it is not surprising that the Democratic party appears uncertain as to its future political message, particularly as it prepares for the 1992 election.

In Liberalism and American Identity, Patrick Garry presents a coherent and well-argued thesis of the meaning and importance of liberalism in American politics. His is the first work that attempts to rejuvenate political liberalism since the devastating attack on it during the 1980s. Presenting a workable definition of liberalism, Garry demonstrates the vital role it has played, and can continue to play, in American history. His examination of the liberal ideology and tradition in American politics reveals not only the nation's liberal identity, but also the conservative tendency to label liberalism "un-American" as a means to circumvent discussion of social problems.

Garry defines liberalism through historical examples and the beliefs and leadership of prominent Americans, namely Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy. He then applies these principles to a discussion of current politics and the problems of crime, poverty, and national defense. Although arguing that the conservative attack during the 1980s greatly misrepresented the American liberal tradition, Garry also acknowledges that changes within accepted liberal doctrines during the 1960s and 1970s led to a deviation of contemporary liberalism from its roots. This betrayal of liberalism and its degeneration into special interest politics, he asserts, caused an identity crisis among liberals and alienated large segments of the American electorate previously supportive of the politics of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.

In an effort to resolve the recent problems of liberals, Garry outlines a future direction for liberalism in America. For a public uncertain of its political course, and for liberals seeking a reinvigoration of their creed, this is an important and timely book.

CHAPTER ONE

The Decline of Liberalism in the Eighties

The Attack on Liberalism in the 1980s and the Closing of the American Mind

On the surface, the decade of the 1980s was a time of rediscovering America. The flag flew higher. Expressions of patriotic pride became more commonplace. President Reagan promised that America’s leaders would more forcefully defend American values. Allan Bloom wrote in The Closing of the American Mind that Americans reaffirm the values and ideals which have formed the national identity.

As the decade of the eighties came to a close, however, so did the American mind. The attack on the “L-word” (liberalism) during the 1988 presidential election closed the American mind to a vital part of its identity and to a rich source of its national ideals. Contrary to President Reagan’s promise, the leaders of the attack on liberalism struck a blow at the heart of a tradition of American values reaching back to the Declaration of Independence. The attack was more than a campaign against a political opponent; it was an attack on the American identity.

The crescendo of attacks building throughout the 1980s culminated in the 1988 crusade against liberalism. These attacks were more than just a sign of a resurgent conservatism; they reflected a deliberate attempt to remove the liberal tradition from America’s political identity. To the degree the attempt succeeded, it blurred the American memory to the inspiring ideals of its beginnings.

Liberal beliefs influenced the birth of America, and the liberal philosophy reflects the dreams and visions that such early Americans as Thomas Jefferson held for the new nation. From the time the pilgrims first arrived more than three centuries ago, America has been a nation identified with a mission and founded upon an idea. America was the land of the free. Unlike the nations of Europe, America was not just an area of land defined by geographic boundaries nor a location of a certain ethnic or racial group of people. The American dream defined America; and the liberal belief in freedom expressed that dream.

The survival of the American dream and mission depends on a respect for the liberal beliefs that have made up that dream and mission. The attack on liberalism in the 1980s demonstrated the need for rediscovering the true liberal tradition and the American identity based on that tradition. Despite all of the conservative claims in the 1980s that they stood for what was truly American, they rejected an important part of the American identity by distorting and ridiculing its liberal tradition. Critics of liberalism in 1988 weakened the historical connection between liberalism and the American identity and portrayed liberalism as the enemy and a threat to the American way of life. Yet throughout the twentieth century, liberalism had repelled America’s enemies and strengthened the American way of life. Liberals had guided America through the crises that threatened defeat of the American mission: two world wars, the Great Depression, the Cold War, and the civil rights struggles. If, as the conservatives claimed in 1988, liberalism was for all practical purposes politically dead, what is America to do when it once again needs liberal beliefs and values to sustain it through times of crisis?

The 1988 election also demonstrated the close relationship between a political philosophy and the real world of American politics. Although political philosophies often seem unnecessary in today’s politics of glitzy media presentations, all of the millions of dollars of media spots in 1988 could not offset the impact of the attack on the “L-word,” which demonstrates the importance of ideology in American politics.

The political conflict between liberalism and conservatism has outlined the course of American history. Together, the two political ideologies frame the American political identity. Though they are competitors, liberalism and conservatism cannot exist independently. The identity of each depends upon that of the other. Therefore, the attack in the 1980s on the very existence and legitimacy of liberalism creates serious implications for the American political identity.

The Attack on Liberalism: Mudslinging the “L-Word” in the 1988 Campaign

The 1988 presidential campaign quickly became a referendum on the “L-word.” Its main focus centered on the ideological identity and popularity of liberalism. Besides recording the victory of George Bush, that election seemingly revealed the depths of public opinion—perhaps the lowest in this century—to which liberalism had fallen. Indeed, the election appeared as much a public judgment on liberalism as it was a preference poll on the two candidates. In that judgment, the public certainly seemed to give a thumbs-down to liberalism, though it really had no other choice.

Liberalism in 1988 had no advocates or defenders, just adversaries and attackers. Only a minority of the American public knew what the “L-word” really meant. Thus, on closer examination, the 1988 election may have reflected not a public indictment on liberalism, but the failure of liberals and Democrats to articulate and defend their ideology.

Despite the gloomy predictions of its critics, the American connection with liberalism is far from severed. Though the 1988 election ended with the defeat of Michael Dukakis, it did not extinguish the liberal tradition. To avoid such a fate, however, liberals must recover the spirit of liberalism that inspired the leadership and accomplishments of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy. The first step in that recovery requires an appreciation of the negative images and definitions currently associated with liberalism. Those negative images and definitions came to light in the 1988 presidential campaign.

The 1988 election demonstrated the fundamental role of ideology in American politics. The public was not concerned with discussing specific issues when the ideology question remained unanswered. The campaign involved more than issues; beliefs and vision were at stake. Therefore, within days after the Democratic Convention, an issueless campaign suddenly became a ping-pong game of the “L-word”: George Bush charging that Michael Dukakis was an “L” and Dukakis denying the charge.

The “L-word” subsequently became the scandal of the 1988 presidential campaign, and like all scandals the media played it in the headlines:

“L-WORD” BECOMES CURSE OF CAMPAIGN

BUSH PRESSES ISSUE OF RIVAL’S LIBERALISM¹

Ironically, the “L-word” scandal arose in a campaign that began with two Democratic candidates dropping out amidst such personal scandals as adultery and plagiarism. Dukakis, like anyone accused of scandalous activity, spent most of the campaign denying and running away from the dreaded liberal label.

While the story of the 1988 election was the “L-word,” the narrators were the conservatives. The Democrats let the conservatives do all the talking about liberalism, language that was not very complimentary. The Dukakis campaign correctly perceived that the liberal label can be dangerous. The danger, however, results not from an inherent deficiency in liberalism, but from the silence of liberals in the face of conservative attacks.

The only images and definitions of liberalism in 1988 came from the conservatives. They announced that liberals would cripple the national defense and let cop-killers, rapists, and drug-dealing thugs run free. George Bush proclaimed that “the ‘L-word’ and the ‘L’ has failed [and that] liberalism failed America because it lost faith in the people.”² He proudly stated that he was “not a big ‘L-word’ candidate” and that he was “more in tune with the mainstream.” Indeed, the 1988 campaign often appeared as a conservative effort to forever purge America of the memory and “mistake” of liberalism. The message was not just that liberal policies did not fit current problems. Conservatives went further and proclaimed that liberalism in the American system was fundamentally and morally flawed. Liberalism did not belong; it was “un-American.”

While dictionaries define liberals as reform-minded activists committed to individual freedom, politics in the 1980s has provided different definitions. As one voter said, “When I think of liberal, I think of socialist—a kind of anti-American feeling.” Polls showed that the public’s sense of liberalism “tracked pretty close to George Bush’s definition of liberalism.” One political observer admitted that his sense of “what a liberal is today is pretty much what George Bush has defined a liberal as.”³

Though praising the liberalism prevalent in the first two-thirds of this century, conservatives defined modern “liberals” as outsiders to that tradition. President Reagan, while defending Roosevelt and Truman, claimed that Dukakis was not in their mold but instead was pursuing the “Carter-Mondale liberal agenda,” even though Jimmy Carter had been the most conservative Democratic president since Grover Cleveland. Therefore, besides negatively defining liberalism, conservatives in 1988 identified liberalism with the least popular of the Democratic presidential candidates of the last twenty years.

While the Republican path to victory in 1988 was a crusade against liberalism, the Democrats sought to ignore political ideology and particularly their own liberal traditions. Although John Kennedy won the presidency in 1960 proudly proclaiming his liberal beliefs, Democrats in 1988 avoided even the slightest mention of liberalism. Consequently, the full story on liberalism was never told; and most of the American public had no idea what the “L-word” really meant. Despite the constant disparagement of liberalism, the Democrats seemed uninterested in educating or persuading the public, simply arguing that ideological labels served no useful purpose.

The Democrats’ avoidance of the liberal label only seemed to give credibility to the conservatives’ attack on the “L-word.” According to one writer, “When Mr. Bush bullied Dukakis about being a liberal, the latter seemed to imply that the charge was very unfair because he … really stood for nothing.” During the campaign, George Bush “had painted a big ‘L’ on [Dukakis’s] forehead, and absent some positive credo of Dukakis’s own, it was likely to stick.”⁴ It did. But it was not the definition of liberalism that Dukakis’s mentor, John Kennedy, would have accepted. And so, in the midst of a year in which our nation celebrated the anniversaries and accomplishments of national heroes like John and Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Harry Truman, and Franklin Roosevelt—all well-known and respected liberals—Americans heard from the politicians that liberalism was a failure and disgrace.

Even though the Democrats were running away from the “L-word,” a ground swell of support arose from a diverse segment of the American population still proud of the liberal label. Editorials advocated the value and power of liberalism.”⁵ Others recounted the historical tradition of American liberalism. Yet this defense came too late and without sufficient depth. The attack on liberalism was succeeding. In a New York Times—CBS poll conducted shortly before the election, 15 percent of the voters considered themselves liberals, the lowest figure in decades. This low point in the popularity of liberalism culminated the political drift of the eighties.

The Plight of Liberalism in the Eighties

For liberals, the decade of the eighties was a long decade of disappointment. The assault on liberalism seemed to gradually intensify throughout the decade, with the final blow clearly coming in 1988, which came as no surprise. Though liberals had experienced similar but less severe attacks in 1980 and 1984, by 1988 they still had prepared no response or defense. This passivity resulted from Reagan’s liberal-bashing campaigns, after which liberals became increasingly tentative and defensive. These campaigns seemed to convince Democrats in 1988 that any association with liberalism would be fatal. So instead of redefining and defending their beliefs, many Democrats avoided ideology and retreated to wage strictly an “issues” campaign. Consequently, despite the conservative failures and problems of the eighties, the liberal ideology was so unclear and negative in the public perception that liberalism was the philosophy on the defensive in 1988. Even though conservatives had occupied the White House for sixteen of the twenty years since 1968, Reagan and Bush succeeded in convincing the voters that all the national ills arose from liberals and liberal policies.

If Reagan was “the teflon president,” liberalism in the 1980s was the adhesive political philosophy. Every liberal criticism of Reagan’s policy slid off the teflon coating and instead adhered to the liberal label. When fighting the record budget deficits, the liberals were stuck with the charge of being big spenders. They were further stuck with the criticism of being weak and timid on national defense when they questioned the U. S. role in Nicaragua; and when they spoke out for the unemployed and the children living in poverty, they were stuck with an antibusiness label. Though they may have been correct on the issues, liberals had not articulated a clear vision of their own ideology. Without this vision, and handicapped by the distorted definition of liberalism offered by conservatives, the liberal positions on the issues went unnoticed at best and lacked credibility at worst. When they do recover the liberal vision, they will also see that the modern conservative ideas—from flag-burning amendments to further tax cuts—are increasingly losing power and credibility.⁶

Throughout the 1980s, liberals reacted to the conservative attacks by believing that Reagan’s victories were primarily a sign of his personal appeal—the popularity of “the Great Communicator.” Never in their debate with Reagan conservatives did liberals face the American public to assert and defend the principles of the liberal tradition that have been so powerful and influential in American history. Instead, liberals withdrew from the political arena and fought their battles within the courts and federal agencies. Therefore, by the time of the 1988 campaign, the American public had not been given any positive image of liberalism for at least a decade.

The combination of liberal retreat and conservative attack naturally produced a steady loss of popularity for liberalism. Throughout the 1980s, the number of persons calling themselves liberals continually declined. Moreover, the slide in popularity of liberalism has continued for the last two decades. From 1955 to 1978, the percentage of self-described liberals among the voting public fell from 53 to 23 percent.⁷

The plight of the Democratic party during the 1980s has also contributed to the identity crisis of liberalism. Of course, the Democratic party and the liberal label are not automatically synonymous. Policies of the Democratic party are not always liberal policies, nor does the party platform always express the liberal philosophy. Likewise, Republicans are not always adversaries to liberalism. Throughout the party’s history, many prominent Republicans have been liberals; and the party itself has sometimes followed a liberal philosophy. Undoubtedly, however, Democrats today are far more likely to be liberals than are Republicans.

The dilemma of the Democratic party and its search for a national political message and strategy ties in with the quest to define and defend the liberal philosophy. Since 1980, the Democratic party has been nearly paralyzed by its continuing search for its own direction. This paralysis naturally followed in the wake of the steadily declining popularity of liberalism. During the last decade, Democrats have approached each presidential election seemingly convinced that they have at last redefined their ideology. And after each loss, they have set out once again to rediscover their vision. Following the Carter/ Mondale loss in 1980, for instance, the party sought to redefine and reinvigorate its message and sponsored numerous study commissions. All these studies, however, have failed to produce a clear direction or identity. Caught in an identity crisis somewhat similar to the one they faced in the 1950s, both liberals and Democrats have appeared stymied by an unresolved introspection.

The solution to the public-opinion beatings liberalism has taken in the campaigns of the 1980s, as it did in the campaigns of the 1950s, is not to hide from the liberal label and hope it goes away. It will not. Conservatives will not let it, or at least they will not let their negative image of liberalism go away. Moreover, liberalism can be a strong ally, as it was to liberals like Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy. But it does not automatically exert its influence; it requires strong spokespersons. As liberalism is a more dynamic philosophy than conservatism, its advocates must work harder to keep arti...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Halftitle Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Introduction: The Task Ahead—Rediscovering the Liberal Tradition
• 1. The Decline of Liberalism in the Eighties
• 2. A History of Attacks on Liberalism: Patterns of Hysteria and Reaction
• 3. The Liberal Political Philosophy
• 4. The Liberal Tradition in America
• 5. Liberalism and Affirmative Government
• 6. Lessons from History: A Comparison of Liberalism and Conservatism
• 7. The Recognition and Role of Values in the Liberal Tradition
• 8. Liberalism and Community
• 9. A Liberal Approach to Four Contemporary Issues
• 10. The Crisis of Liberalism and the Challenges for the Future
• Conclusion: The Importance of Ideology
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index