Once Liberalism becomes part of the establishment, it can no longer be called Liberal.
US Democrats have done a good job of opposing the GOP's reactionist policies in the fields of civil rights and environmentalism, but neo-Liberal economic policy is a huge setback for our social democracy.
Twentieth-century Democrats recognized the need for a regulated financial sector, as well as a strong social safety net. These policies are the backbone of the social ladder, and help lessen the negative effects of economic inequality. Thanks to the policies of Reagan and the acquiescence of Clinton, much of those policies have been dismantled.
Once Liberalism becomes part of the establishment, it can no longer be called Liberal.
If you could elaborate on this it would be appreciated. What precisely do you mean here?
US Democrats have done a good job of opposing the GOP's reactionist policies in the fields of civil rights and environmentalism, but neo-Liberal economic policy is a huge setback for our social democracy.
If you're referring to the unfortunate economic policies of the last thirty years I agree. But they're the consequence of allowing conservatives to pull our politics to the extreme right, to the point where even our "centrists" are to the right of where Republicans were in Nixon's day. There's no way Ronald Reagan could get nominated for anything in the modern GOP.
I was paraphrasing someone else. It simply means that the definition of a Liberal movement is one that strives for social progress. If a Liberal movement achieves its goal and no longer strives for progress (only defending the new status quo), then it can no longer be called Liberal.
..they're the consequence of allowing conservatives to pull our politics to the extreme right...
I would say that neo-Liberalism is the result of corporate influence, not the GOP. Clinton was the first Democrat to put the election results ahead of the mandat, and his campaign staffers recognized that corporate donors were the key to winning modern elections.
I was paraphrasing someone else. It simply means that the definition of a Liberal movement is one that strives for social progress. If a Liberal movement achieves its goal and no longer strives for progress (only defending the new status quo), then it can no longer be called Liberal.
Ah, then I certainly agree.
I would say that neo-Liberalism is the result of corporate influence, not the GOP. Clinton was the first Democrat to put the election results ahead of the mandat, and his campaign staffers recognized that corporate donors were the key to winning modern elections.
As a result of Clinton's pivot, Progressivism has lost its voice in the national conversation. Liberals need to oppose the GOP, obviously, but they also need to oppose the neo-Liberal influences in the Democratic party.
Once Liberalism becomes part of the establishment, it can no longer be called Liberal.
US Democrats have done a good job of opposing the GOP's reactionist policies in the fields of civil rights and environmentalism, but neo-Liberal economic policy is a huge setback for our social democracy. Twentieth-century Democrats recognized the need for a regulated financial sector, as well as a strong social safety net. These policies are the backbone of the social ladder, and help lessen the negative effects of economic inequality. Thanks to the policies of Reagan and the acquiescence of Clinton, much of those policies have been dismantled.
If you could elaborate on this it would be appreciated. What precisely do you mean here?
If you're referring to the unfortunate economic policies of the last thirty years I agree. But they're the consequence of allowing conservatives to pull our politics to the extreme right, to the point where even our "centrists" are to the right of where Republicans were in Nixon's day. There's no way Ronald Reagan could get nominated for anything in the modern GOP.
I was paraphrasing someone else. It simply means that the definition of a Liberal movement is one that strives for social progress. If a Liberal movement achieves its goal and no longer strives for progress (only defending the new status quo), then it can no longer be called Liberal.
I would say that neo-Liberalism is the result of corporate influence, not the GOP. Clinton was the first Democrat to put the election results ahead of the mandat, and his campaign staffers recognized that corporate donors were the key to winning modern elections.
Ah, then I certainly agree.
I think we can safely pin corporate influence over government on modern conservatives. Clinton's "pivot" was a reaction to conservative victories in an attempt to catch up to the change in demographics.
As a result of Clinton's pivot, Progressivism has lost its voice in the national conversation. Liberals need to oppose the GOP, obviously, but they also need to oppose the neo-Liberal influences in the Democratic party.
We're working on it.