Guy, I’m talking about people who say “I wish Trump was assassinated”, “All conservatives should be executed”, “liberalism is mental disorder and should be treated with a bullet”, “the only good liberal is a dead one”.
These opinions are legion. You may not see them, but they’re out there, and they’re •not •hard •to •find.
No fucking middle ground there.
I don’t know about the left of the Democratic Party, but most socialists (of all the various varieties) have never identified as liberals. They have formed alliances with them, but they never believed that they wanted the same things.
And they are not said in serious conversation as they will be attacked for being the counterproductive actions they are, and/or for the immorality of the actions.
The last two
I have only seen coming from the far right though. Nothing is coming up on a search of RevLeft, and they allow some pretty bad ideas on there as long as they fit with revolutionary socialism.
“Serious conversation” or not, if it’s said enough, it becomes serious. It’s Overton’s Window all day long.
I’m seeing it enough from otherwise normal people, in otherwise normal conversations to know it exists; I don’t need confirmation.
Clearly there is. See, election of Trump, Donald J. I just don’t think the folks the media labels as “the left” are really all that left, nor are they good at (or even trying to) argue the points from a truly leftist perspective. But there is a need to be able to make good arguments for leftist ideas, because we are heading in the wrong direction.
However, debating lousy ideas does not mean you have to hire a hate-filled extremist to an elite position in the media industry.
The problem is, many on the left seem to think the fact that they are more right about things, means they don’t actually have to make compelling arguments for their beliefs. I would love to see more thoughtful deconstructions of why the ideas of the right are wrong, and hurt pretty much everybody. We might win more elections…
I have a good number of progressive folks in my facebook feed who espouse some pretty extreme views – EVERYONE who voted for Trump IS a Nazi, and if you do not completely excommunicate friends and family who voted for Trump from your life, you are JUST as bad. Kind of ridiculous if you ask me, and certainly doesn’t help the situation.
I assume these people harbor a lot of damage, so I try to be as empathic as possible. That’s frankly how I tend to view most people who seem kind of messed-up. Funny how far away from basic empathy we’ve gotten as a society, although I guess humanity has always been tribal and a bit of a shit-show…
Who does identify as “liberal?” Not most of the so-called “liberals” I know. It’s a meaningless term at this point, and has really just been a dirty word (as propagated by folks on the right) for decades now.
At present? Most of the establishment wing of the Dems proudly self-identify as liberals. By international standards, it’s an accurate description; liberalism is centre-right, and so are the establishment Dems.
The Berniecrats tend to identify as progressives (although some of the establishment centrist Dems occasionally try to coopt that label). Some of the Berniecrats see “progressive” as a subset of liberal, some of them see it as moderate socialism. By international standards, most of them are social democrats, fairly centrist.
The socialists to the left of the Berniecrats strongly reject the label of liberal. But that isn’t because they see it as an epithet, it’s because they accurately see it as a capitalist ideology that is not in accord with their values.
.
American liberalism, as represented by the establishment Dems, is not particularly distinct from international or historical liberalism. It was originally an ideology of the capitalist middle class, and it largely still is.
There is ideological continuity; a focus on individual civil liberties, an endorsement of capitalism and a disinclination to empower the working class beyond support for minimal and paternalistic social welfare programs.
There’s also a tendency to neglect or deny the role of class conflict, and instead endorse a “marketplace of ideas” debate-based theory of politics. This brings with it a belief in the importance of forms and procedures as a means of preventing tyranny; hence all the pearl-clutching about violated norms under Trump.
See the bit at 2:05 in this:
The basic dynamics between the factions really haven’t changed that much.
I appreciate much of your explanation, but this slant seems off to me. The American liberalism of post-WWII is very, very different than it is today. So is the conservatism. Things on both “sides” have moved quite a bit toward the right over the past few decades, extremely so in my view.
Keep in mind that I’m mostly talking about the ideology of the party leaders. The motivations of the voters are much more diverse.
Liberalism shifted left in response to the competition posed by socialism during the 20th century. The move to social liberalism (New Deal etc) was basically guillotine insurance.
Once the threat of socialist revolution faded, the social liberalism began to shift back towards the laissez-faire economics [1] of the classical liberals.
Hence the current situation; the centre-right Dems aren’t abandoning liberalism, they’re returning to it. What they have largely abandoned is social liberalism.
.
[1] AKA neoliberalism.
I have no issue what-so-ever with civil discourse, exchanging different approaches to problems, or even honest debate. I draw the line at giving voice to hateful, petty, what-about-ism, far right ideas that have no place in modern society. Giving Richard Spenser a platform for his hateful speech is not helpful in making progress towards a better future for all. The same goes for this “maroon”. He is never going to change his mind about his approach to problems, dRumph is never going to “become presidential”, Bannon is never going to swing away from his hateful rhetoric. Why should we listen, why should we give them a wider audience?
They can spew their nonsense all they want on street corners, or elsewhere. But I still maintain, its fine with me if you want to punch a nazi.
I don’t think we disagree about what you’ve said here — as I said, I was responding specifically to your phrasing which, to paraphrase, said it’s not worthwhile debating bad ideas. I think they need to be debated, but also agree they don’t need a platform per se.
Yea, I’m not very articulate when it comes to this sort of stuff. Thanks for pushing me to get better at explaining myself.
I’ll acknowledge that I was being a bit pedantic, in order to emphasize my point. 
let’s put it another way, neoliberalism (new democrats, new labour) can infiltrate the left because it is a logical conclusion of classical liberalism. it can swathe itself in “left”-ish circles while having very little leftish policies, because there’s a strong strain of liberalism inherited from its enlightenment roots that doesn’t recognize the moral failings of its european imperialist setting.
it is hilarious that you keep saying: clinton democrats are not liberals, progressives are not liberals, sanders democrats are not liberals—who is left? is the atlantic a liberal institution? if it’s not, then why are its readers upset that this dude was hired? if it’s unuseful to define and then talk about liberalism, then are you upset that i’m “tarring” liberalism with a brush? you gotta talk about isms at some point.
This is clarifying. I recommend it:
Michelle Goldberg is so great. 
And another thing, it is some kind of basic error: waiting for someone to grow up. “10 year old appointed to head government agency.” And then waiting for 20 years for that person to evolve personally. Of course they hold the views they hold: they are IMMATURE. The very definition of it. Same with this guy. He’s emotionally stunted. Given enough time, a Great Ape could mature into the emotional fortitude of Mother Theresa.
Thanks. I think this part applies well to campus speakers, with “campus administrators” substituted for “Editors” and Williamson substituted with, say, Richard Spencer:
Editors can’t escape the fact that, even when they want to broaden the conversation, their choices make a statement about where the parameters of acceptable argument lie. I’d have thought that supporting the execution or mass incarceration of women by the millions would put a writer, even one capable of enjoyably caustic prose, well outside those boundaries. I’d like to hear a serious argument about why it doesn’t. Somehow, Williamson’s champions don’t seem to want to have that debate.
So true, quite analogous! Goldberg has given a cogent succinct argument I plan to borrow from moving forward, that’s for sure.
