. : MatthewDallman.com : . The Official Site for Matthew Dallman's Music, Art, & Writing

I was listening to the Laura Ingraham radio show the other morning. As an avowed "ideas junkie", I'm always on the look-out for sources of good ideas, and smart commentary. I've found both on the Ingraham show. Not always, of course, but in practice, "always" never happens. I disagree with plenty of things I read or hear from all sources and personalities. Somehow, the idea that you must agree with people in order to advocate their radio show, column, or book has gotten into our culture. That is too bad; agreement comes and goes, almost like the weather. I look for people who think and reason clearly.

The reason I bring this up is because her guest the other morning was the esteemed George Will, political columnist and TV personality. Him and Ingraham talked, of course, about what's going on in the Middle East. Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and the U.S. all factor into a complicated situation that requires complex thinking through many perspectives.

They also talked about Will's recent criticism of "neoconservatives" and finished with a statement that struck me when I heard it, and still strikes me. He said (I'm paraphrasing), "all the action, ideas, and energy for real debate on this issue is within conservative circles". The implication was clear: liberal perspectives on the Middle East simply aren't bringing anything of substance to the table. Either liberal perspectives are naive, hell-bent on blaming America/the West/Israel, or simply silly.

The question is whether Will is right. I'd say he his. Mind you, I am a liberal by culture, and have voted either Democrat or Green for my life. Yet I still agree with Will's view, and I would go one step further. American liberalism, as the name of what is historically called "progressivism" is dead as a generator of new ideas; its truths have been swallowed by certain elements/circles of the American conservative movement; and to the extent that the Democratic party relies upon intellectual liberalism to influence policy, the Democratic party will suffer for a long time; and if such Democrats are in control of this country's executive and legislative branches, this country's sustainability will suffer over the long haul.

It is important to distinguish between political parties and intellectual movements. American conservativism truly is distinct from the Republican party, as American liberalism is distinct from the Democratic party. Either party can borrow from either intellectual movement. Though I have used the terms, I reject "Left" and "Right" due to meaninglessness. I'd rather talk about parties and movements, for both are far more complex and the investigation enriching than it all being reduced to directions.

Thus while I think that liberalism as an intellectual movment is essentially dead (that is, devoid of a debate that is alive with ideas that are being born, are in-progress, or are in full bloom), that does not mean the Democratic party is necessarily dead, as well. The Democratic party can be influenced by the debates going on in conservative circles just as the Republican party is and can be. I harp on this point because I think we are seeing a real shedding-of-skin in this country. Liberalism being the skin that we are shedding. It may be that liberalism, as this country's dominant movement for the 60s, 70s, and 80s, was required to fulfill the logical, and final, extension of the project to have some kind of wealth equity post-slavery, as well as ensure for eternity other rights for minorities and women.

If you look at conservatism, and do so with an open-mind, you see that there are great debates in that tent. There are small-government conservatives (historically called Libertarians); there are big-government conservatives (or "Compassionate Conservatives") who have adopted the Progressive's impulse towards socialism. There are those arguing for the Iraq war as well as against it. There are those sympathetic with the New Deal (the Neoconservatives) as well as those who think it the worst set of policies ever to be passed into law. If you go down the list of various issues, you will find disagreement within people who call themselves conservatives on every issue. Some more than others, but always disagreement. On particular divisive issues such as gay marriage and abortion, Andrew Sullivan and Dick Cheney sleep in the same bed on the former, while Rudy Guilliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger agree on the latter.

What inflicts what I think is a mortal wound on liberalism is its problems with religion, nationalism, national defense. On the first, it has lost touch with the average American (most are affiliated with a a church and believe in God); liberalism's religions lie rather in environmentalism, helping the poor and disadvantaged, and diversity for its own sake. On the second, liberalism simply has a tough time drawing national borders, and celebrating what is American; liberalism would rather think from a internationalist/cosmopolitianistic point of view that quickly slides into a critique of American military, cultural, and economic power -- in other words, necessarily "outside" of America. On the third (which leads out of the second), liberalism is not comfortable with a strong national defense, nor the budget required to maintain it, nor the resolve required to lead it. Overall, liberalism suffers from a lack of clear first principles, the roots that support any number of outgrowths.

I said before that I think elements and circles of conservative thought have swallowed whatever truths may linger in liberalism. I truly mean that; which is another way of saying that liberalism has run its course as a vibrant tent of ideology, and is ready to pass the reigns to the next contestant. If you follow, for example, The Corner (the staff blog for National Review) you will see various influences of liberalism pop up regularly. Emphasis on the contextuality of truth, of the limits of military power, of fundmentalism in religion (vs allegorism), of the possibility of top-down government solutions to social problems, of the nature of our media age, and much more. What must be realized is that, because American universities gave so many Humanities professorshipsto liberals, conservatives were forced towards private think tanks -- many of which have been rigorously focused for the last thirty years on understanding liberalism as a force to contend with and, eventually, transcend in influence in the public sphere, via the contemporary media. I believe 9/11, and the renewed sense of nationalism it brought on, was the catalyst for what now has become that transcendence of conservatism over liberalism, and the transfer of power in culture from the latter to the former. This is the effect of William F Buckley's famous strategy to stand athwart history, yelling stop.

If this all is true enough, then the question is what to do if you consider yourself a liberal. The answer, as I see it, is simple enough. It is to swallow your pride and start understanding the various viewpoints that are in play in conservative circles. The game is being played on a different court. More teams than you know are playing. Paleo-conservatives, Neo-conservatives, Theo-conservatives, Eco-conservatives, Crunchy-Conservatives are just some of the (admittedly obnoxious) names that people toss around, even if lightly so. There are more; including those yet to form but are awaiting your participation.

Also, it is vital to realize just what "Classical Liberalism" was and how it lives on in conservative circles, in various ways both simple and complex. In that way, liberalism is not dead. But that its tenents do not have much of a place in what we think of "liberalism" right now is instructive and damning. Contemporary liberalism (see sources such as Chomsky, Zinn, Air America, Salon.com, Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, The New Yorker, The Nation, Foucault, Pacifica Radio, and many more) is dead. The party is over. If you want to participate in the contest of ideas that will shape the future of this country, then you have to let "liberalism" rest in peace. Ideas that are authentic have consequences, and all the authentic ideas, and idea development, are in conservative circles. If you care about ideas in the political realm, quite simply, you have to go there. My suggestion: read The Corner often, understand the dynamics beneath the surface (why, for example, Derbyshire is different than Goldberg is different than York is different than Lopez is different than Kurtz, and so on) and then let your curiousity take you where it goes. I've done so for over five years now, and let me tell ya, it's been an 'effin instructive ride.

Addendum: This exchange from an early episode of The Simpsons both illustrates how far conservativism has penetrated pop culture, and how far liberalism is away from it. What shines through is the essential rightness of the following exchange:

Moe: Hey, you can level with me. You got a domestic situation?
Homer: You might say that. My wife's gonna leave me 'cause she thinks I'm a pig.
Moe: Homer.
Homer: What?
Moe: Marge is right. You are a pig. You can ask anyone in this bar.
Homer: What?
Homer: Hey, Barney, am I a pig?
Barney: You're no more of a pig than I am. (belches loudly)
Homer: Oh, no!
Moe: See? You're a pig. Barney's a pig. Larry's a pig. We're all pigs.
Except for one difference: Once in a while, we can crawl out of the
slop, hose ourselves off, and act like human beings.