Saturday, November 20, 2010

The failure of liberalism

An interesing ananlysis of bo's failure. It is the failure of big l liberalism.


This contrasts with the far broader support for the familiar form of liberalism forged from the 1930s to the 1990s. Democratic presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Bill Clinton focused largely on basic middle-class concerns — such as expanding economic opportunity, property ownership and growth.

Modern-day liberalism, however, is often ambivalent about expanding the economy — preferring a mix of redistribution with redirection along green lines. Its base of political shock troops, public-employee unions, appears only tangentially interested in the health of the overall economy.

In the short run, the diminishment of middle-of-the-road Democrats at the state and national level will probably only worsen these tendencies, leaving a rump party tied to the coastal regions, big cities and college towns. There, many voters are dependents of government, subsidized students or public employees, or wealthy creative people, college professors and business service providers.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Liberals have become feudal or even tribal, which is why they are so sympathetic to Islamofascism. Liberals loath the idea of sharing power with the middle class which emerged after feudalism. Liberals want to return to a feudal 2-class system of elite (that includes hangers-on in behind the castle walls, especially government unions) and the rest of us peasants pulling their cart.

The problem is that there are almost as many elite in the cart now as peasants pulling it, so the whole thing is breaking down as witnessed with the Euroweenies.

nomdeblog

Anonymous said...

franklyn d was a progressive and statist. he did nothing for the middle class but remove a few more freedoms. he stacked the scotus to circumvent the constitution and spent lots of money the government didn't have.

I Support Lord Black