HPRgument Blog — January 5, 2011 4:29 pm

From the Bookshelf: Liberalism’s Retreat

By Max Novendstern

This is from George Packer’s The Fight is For Democracy:

For the past century, the political philosophy of collective action on behalf of freedom and justice has been liberalism. For most of that time, it was an expansive, self-confident philosophy, and history was on its side. Since around 1968, liberalism has been an active participant in its own decline. A creed that once spoke on behalf of the desire of millions of Americans for a decent life and a place in the sun shrank to a set of rigid pieties preached on college campuses and in eccentric big-city enclaves. It turned insular, defensive, fragmented, and pessimistic. The phenomenon of political correctness, which fora  period during the 1980s and early 90s became the most visible expression of liberalism, amounted to a desire to control reality by purifying language and thought, to make the world better by changing a syllabus, or a name, or a word. It was a kind of cargo cult. At bottom, it represented a retreat from politics…

While liberalism slept, the country became more corporate, less democratic, less equal, more complacent. Liberalism has been a kind of enzyme in America’s democratic system, periodically catalyzing reactions, speeding up change, making the organism more vital. Without it, our democracy tends to get fat and sluggish, as the pursuit of happiness guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence becomes a wholly private matter. In the tension between individual and community that every democracy has to negotiate, what we saw in America in the years leading up to September 11 was the triumph of market individualism, without commitments. The polis was routed. As Todd Gitlin argues in his essay, the sense of civic responsibility died on both the left and the right. Instead, they offered a choice of hedonisms.

From earlier in the essay:

The mood that came over New York after September 11 — for me, it will always be tied to the “Missing” picture posted on my subway stop of a young woman named Gennie Gambale, and then all the other pictures that appeared overnight around the city; the flags sprouting in shop windows; the clots of melted candle wax on sidewalks; the bitter smell of smoke from lower Manhattan; the cluster of people gathering in Brooklyn Heights Promenade or Union Square to sing or write messages or read them; the kindness on the subway; the constant wail of sirens for no obvious purpose; the firemen outside a station house in midtown accepting flowers at midnight; the rescue workers at the end of their shift trudging up West Street with gray dust coating their faces and clothes; the people waiting at barricades on Canal Street with pots of foil-covered food; the garrulousness of strangers; the sleeplessness, the sense of being on alert all the time and yet useless — this mood broke over the city like a storm at the end of a season of languid days stretching back longer than anyone could remember. People became aware, as if for the first time, that they were not merely individuals with private ends. Whitman’ spirit walked down every street: “What is more subtle than this which ties me to the woman or man that looks in my face?” The embarrassment of strong emotions felt by sophisticated people in peaceful times dropped away, and strangers looked at one another differently. We became citizens.

Related posts:

Biden and Gibbs Mad Libs
Social Studies Walkout: Video
Google Sells Out
Breaking Down The Super Committee
  • Alex

    “As Todd Gitlin argues in his essay, the sense of civic responsibility died on both the left and the right. Instead, they offered a choice of hedonisms.”

    It’s interesting how strikingly similar this “choice of hedonisms” sounds to Joshua Hawley’s article about “Epicurean Liberalism” in National Affairs:

    http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/americas-epicurean-liberalism

    They seem to be getting at the same thing, though I have to say, based on this excerpt of Packer, that I think Hawley does it better.

    Also, if “Left and Right” offered a “choice of hedonisms,” and materialism for private ends, what about the Religious Right? Packer only seems to have the Right’s economic program in mind, but religion may be the most powerful antidote to the kind of materialistic hedonism he decries.

    I’d also be interested to know what Packer/Gitlin think about the Tea Party. You can disagree with the political aims of the Tea Party but it is hard not to see it as an expression of civic responsibility.

  • Max Novendstern

    The defining commitment of the left, to my mind, is to the freedom of ordinary people to create meaningful things and live big lives.

    This commitment is highly contextualized. Adam smith was a liberal because he fought for market freedom when the alternative was feudal tyranny.

    Likewise, a good deal of what the “epicurean liberals” did during the Vietnam war was — in the final analysis — very good. They fought for psychological freedom and the effective social emancipation of women, minorities, gays and all sorts of marginalized people, when the alternative was a more closed and vaguely stagnant society.

    Today, however, the fight is different. The left’s preoccupation with words and culture, “political correctness” and “gender neutrality,” has become a type of hedonism: as if the greatest task we should fight for is the right of everyone to JUST BE LEFT ALONE, to be free from society, to just live (and buy!) in peace.

    I’ve written in praise of the Tea Party before: “As a leftist, I disagree with just about everything the Tea Party believes; but that’s not the point. The point is that in the “body politic we call America,” the Tea Party is what has a pulse.”

    But the jury is still out. If the Tea Party helps to fix our government, then they’ll have done their civic work. If instead, they continue shrieking about their rights to be left alone, and to spread lies and hatred — shooting at Americans and congresswomen, for example(?) — then they’re a big part of the problem, not the solution.

    Civics is, ultimately, about a love for the community that verges as close to — and sometimes greater — than your love of yourself. What follows is tolerance, self-sacrifice and hard work. Not sure if I see that from the Tea Party.

  • Sam Barr

    I strongly agree with Max’s point about liberalism’s relative success in achieving the “effective social emancipation” of women, gays, racial minorities and other groups who, fifty years ago, were in a much worse place in American society and are now in a much better one. I recall Matt Yglesias making a similar point a week or so ago, but I can’t find the post.

    Of course, this business is not done. Women still don’t get equal pay for equal work. Gays just last month earned the right to serve openly in the military, and still face a ton of formal and informal discrimination. African-Americans generally still encounter many severe disadvantages: terrible schools, a destructive “war on drugs,” astronomical unemployment, de facto segregation.

    I don’t like political correctness as I define it, but let’s be clear how we define it. If political correctness is “purifying language and thought,” then I think that that movement was influential in academia, but not terribly influential in politics. If political correctness is fighting for marginalized groups, then I think that’s pretty much another name for liberalism itself. If Packer’s point is that academia’s focus on (the first) political correctness distracted them from serious engagement with politics, I guess I’d make two points: 1. Do you think academia is THAT influential in politics to begin with? … and 2. Haven’t a lot of liberal academics done really significant work on other things? Obama’s financial reform bill, for instance, was the brainchild of a Harvard professor.

    I don’t necessarily disagree that the left has “slept” for the last few decades in some ways, but I don’t think it’s fair to pin this on radical race and gender theorists, which is what Packer seems to be doing.

    What Packer and Gitlin seem to be getting at is that liberalism has become individualistic rather than communitarian. It’s become about everyone getting theirs, distinguished from conservatism only because it defines “everyone” more broadly, rather than about all of us living together.

    I think I agree with that assessment, but the whole debate seems rather abstract and academic, which is odd considering Packer’s evident disdain for academia. I’d be curious to know what actual policies, rather than attitudes and emphases, Packer and Gitlin think distinguish their liberalism from individualistic hedonism.

custom writing