Mediaboss Marketing

To be a liberal, in this account, is in some sense to be a fake. Its to shroud an ambiguous, even reactionary agenda under a superficial commitment to social justice and moderate, incremental change. American liberalism was once associated with something far more robust, with immoderate presidents and spectacular waves of legislation like Franklin Roosevelts New Deal and Lyndon Johnsons Great Society. Todays liberals stand accused of forsaking the clarity and ambition of even that flawed legacy. To call someone a liberal now, in other words, is often to denounce him or her as having abandoned liberalism.

Liberal-bashing on social media has reached a kind of apogee, but its targets have not yet produced much real defense of the ideology. This means the word liberal is, for the moment, almost entirely one of abuse. It is hard to think of an American politician who has embraced it, even going back two or three generations. If liberalism is dead, then, its a strange sort of demise: Here is an ideology that has many accused sympathizers, but no champions, no defenders.

Americas version of liberalism has always been a curious one. In Europe, the word has traditionally meant a preference for things like limited government, separate private and public spheres, freedom of the press and association, free trade and open markets whats often described as classical liberalism. But the United States had many of those inclinations from the beginning. By the 20th century, American liberalism had come to mean something distinct. The focus on individual liberties was still there, but the vision of government had become stronger, more interventionist ready to regulate markets, bust monopolies and spend its way out of economic downturns. After the end of World War II, this version of liberalism seemed so triumphant in the United States that the critic Lionel Trilling called it the countrys sole intellectual tradition. Its legislation legalized unions and, with Social Security, created a pension system; a health plan for older Americans, Medicare, was on the way.

But as these same liberals initiated anti-Communist interventions in Korea and Vietnam, or counseled patience and moderation to civil rights activists, they quickly found themselves in the same position we see today: under heavy abuse from the left. In a landmark speech at an antiwar rally in April 1965, Paul Potter, the president of Students for a Democratic Society, asked: What kind of system is it that justifies the United States or any country seizing the destinies of the Vietnamese people and using them callously for its own purpose? What kind of system is it that disenfranchises people in the South? The first step, as he saw it, was clear: We must name that system. In a speech later that year, his successor as S.D.S. president, Carl Oglesby, did precisely that, calling it corporate liberalism an unholy alliance of business and the state that was enriching to elites but destructive to working-class Americans and the worlds poor.

It was the 1980 victory of Ronald Reagan and his brand of conservatism that set in motion the villainizing of American liberalism from the right this time not for warmongering but for supposedly being soft on crime and communism, bloating the government with ineffective social programs and turning American universities into hothouses of fetid radicalism. Many demoralized liberals responded by abandoning the label completely. The nasty 1988 presidential campaign may have been a watershed. In one debate, Bush demanded that his opponent, Gov. Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts, explain some of these very liberal positions. Dukakiss reply, a weak Lets stop labeling each other, only confirmed the word as an insult. A few weeks before the election, dozens of distinguished figures from novelists to editors to former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara bought a full-page ad in The Times to print a letter titled A Reaffirmation of Principles, expressing their alarm at the use of liberal as a term of opprobrium. But their own definition of it was oddly vague: They called it the institutional defense of decency. All those attacks on liberalism seemed to be weakening peoples sense of what liberalism even meant.

As the insult gathered steam in the 90s, Bill Clinton was studiously aiming for the political center, ending welfare as we know it and pushing through a tough-on-crime bill. In 2011, Barack Obama made a deal with Republicans to adopt a program of fiscal austerity, prompting the left-wing critic William Greider to declare, in The Nation, the last groaning spasms of New Deal liberalism. Conservatives will fight one another to the death over whos the truer conservative, but the people most accused of being liberal have often seemed as if theyre the ones most ambivalent about actual liberalism.

If liberalism really is Americas core, hegemonic intellectual tradition, its easy to see how it has become the word we use to deride the status quo. For the left, thats a politics in which government cravenly submits to corporate power and cultural debates distract from material needs. For the right, its one in which government continually overreaches and cultural debates are built to punish anyone who isnt politically correct. But in both cases, liberal points to the consensus, the gutless compromise position, the arrogant pseudopolitics, the mealy-mouthed half-truth.

Each side has drawn tremendous energy from opposing this idea of liberalism. At the same time, the space occupied by liberalism itself has shrunk to the point where its difficult to locate. Different strands of it now live on under different names. Conservatives have styled themselves as the new defenders of free speech. Democrats have sidestepped liberal and embraced progressive, a word with its own confusing history, to evoke the good-government, welfare-state inclinations of the New Deal. Some of the strongest defenses of liberalisms achievements come from people who identify as socialists. And free-trade advocates, with no more positive term to shelter under, are now tagged, often derisively, as neoliberal. The various ideas to which liberal has referred persist, in one form or another, among different constituencies. Liberalism may continue. But it may well end up doing so without any actual liberals behind it.

Nikil Saval is an editor at n+1. He last wrote for the magazine about the trend of turning abandoned railways lines into urban parks.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of The New York Times Magazine delivered to your inbox every week.

A version of this article appears in print on July 9, 2017, on Page MM11 of the Sunday Magazine with the headline: Off Center.

Originally posted here:
Hated by the Right. Mocked by the Left. Who Wants to Be 'Liberal' Anymore? - New York Times