From Time Magazine, Peter Beinart’s take on the Obama Presidency: it is “just the beginning… Shifting attitudes about government will make Democrats the ruling party for a generation”
The death and rebirth of American liberalism both began with flags in Grant Park. On Aug. 28, 1968, 10,000 people gathered there to protest the Democratic Convention taking place a few blocks away, which was about to nominate Lyndon Johnson’s Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, thus implicitly ratifying the hated Vietnam War. Chicago mayor Richard Daley had warned the protesters not to disrupt his city and denied them permits to assemble, but they came anyway. All afternoon, the protesters chanted and the police hovered, until about 3:30, when someone climbed a flagpole and began lowering the American flag.
“Police went to arrest the offender and were pelted with eggs, chunks of concrete and balloons filled with paint and urine. The police responded by charging into the crowd, clubbing bystanders and yelling “Kill! Kill!” in what one report later termed a “police riot.” Across the country, Americans watching on television gave their verdict: Serves the damn hippies right. Democrats, who had won seven of the previous nine presidential elections, went on to lose seven of the next 10.
“Forty years later, happy liberals mobbed Grant Park, invited by another mayor named Richard Daley, to celebrate Barack Obama’s election. This time the flags flew proudly at full mast, and the police were there to protect the crowd, not threaten it. Once again, Americans watched on television, and this time they didn’t seethe. They wept.
“The distance between those two Grant Park scenes says a lot about how American liberalism fell, and why in the Obama era it could become — once again — America’s ruling creed. The coalition that carried Obama to victory is every bit as sturdy as America’s last two dominant political coalitions: the ones that elected Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. And the Obama majority is sturdy for one overriding reason: liberalism, which average Americans once associated with upheaval, now promises stability instead.”
Rather than a brittle “order” of government-imposed rules, is America now turning to the idea of “orderly progress”, both social and economic?
Beinart calls it the “intersection of two public yearnings” – freedom and order – and it’s here that American elections are decided.
Here in Britain, with our polarised political system, are we standing at a similar intersection? Labour’s attempts to order our lives get barmier by the day, while the Conservatives offer no reasonable alternative.
The analogy I often use is that of a pair of 3-D glasses, with one red lens and one blue, which gives an artificial view of the world – only useful for seeing a pre-distorted picture. As Liberal Democrats we have the chance to show the world as it actually is and give realistic solutions.
Recent weeks have shown that Liberal Democrat thinking (on the economy, local services and civil liberties) has been more relevant and appropriate than the hurried sticking-plaster approach of the other parties.
Here in Britain too, more people are starting to see it.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
8 Comments
It’s ‘liberalism’ Jim but not as we know it.
Lets not forget that even in California on the same day people went out to vote for Obama many also voted to take away the right of gay people to mary. In Arkansas despite pleas from the Governor and the child welfare department voters supported measures to ban gay adoption. I don’t think Liberalism has ever been Americas ruling creed as it is a term lazily applied to describe anything to the left of the lunatics that dominate the modern Republican party so covers all the shades of authoritarian and protectionism that are anything but liberal.
I agree that we are standing at such a intersection in the UK, but I have to say that our own party is a. only very marginally less statist than the others (and Obama certainly will not be less satist – which seems more or less the definition of “liberal” in the US – big state I mean) and b. languishing making very little progress at least in the polls.
There is an opportunity “to show the world as it actually is and give realistic solutions” but we need to be far more radical. ID cards are a symptom of the Leviathan state; taking a stand against that particular symptom is all very well, and very necessary (though the Tories are also pledged to scrap them of course) but we need to go after Leviathan itself.
In my opinion there is very little point in being a little better here or there, proposing better managament of government. That’s not what people want to hear from a third party – they’ve got as much difficulty deciding between the two behemoths on the basis of perceived competence of their management.
We need to be clear that what we propose is not just a change in manbagement but substantially less management, less power for politicians to meddle in peoples’ lives. And to propose, and help develop, especially locally, the sort of institutions we might expect (but not decree) would replace bureaucratic state monstrosities in a Liberal world.
This would get us over our “third party/third choice” image. We would not be just incrementally improving on, slightly differing from the others but proposing a new social contract. I fear we don’t have the balls however to do that.
The Vietnam protestors brought down a President whose liberal record (if you ignore Vietnam – which I accept is a big thing to ask!) was as good as anyones.
In return they got Richard Nixon.
Ironically one of the protest songs of the era ran “you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone” 🙂
Possibly, but we have to start thinking and talking to people about the big issues. We have a tendency to talk down to people about politics because that’s where we assume people are at. Time to find and relentlessly publicise a clear vision of where we see Britain going, including the size of state, the type of thing that is funded, and how.
After every change of government (here and in USA) we get hyperbole about fundamental shifts and realignments in politics.
Obama won by a decent margin, that’s the good news. History shows that he was almost bound to win. Only once since WW2 has any party retained the White House for more than two consecutive terms (Regan/Bush Snr.), and he had just about the most favourable political climate an opposition could have. If history repeats itself, the Republicans will be back in 8 years.
For all the good things about Obama, let’s not forget the not so good, and not so liberal. He has favoured protectionism, he is pro death penalty and he would consider the unilateral bombing of Western Pakistan.
A bit of balance is in order:
Beware of the Obama hype. What ‘change’ in America really means:
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=511
A slight problem: Obama is not a liberal.
Not in the British sense at least.
Being nice about minorities does not make you a liberal. Being opposed to one aggressive war does not make you a liberal.
Obama is a nice sounding right wing social democrat.
Control is still his message, not freedom. Granted, some of his reforms will be welcome – closing Guantanamo is a must, getting out of Iraq another (but he will stay mired in Afghanistan).
Those tempted to follow Jim’s link should also read this rebuttal by Sunny Hundal.
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/2483