I said I wasn't going to talk about politics much anymore, but the election and the the postmortems are interesting to me for what they say about our present confusion. So I was interested this morning to see this YouTube of Greenwald on the Lawrence O'Donnell Show last night which, I think, provides a needed moment of clarity. Here's the clip, and I'll comment on it below.
O'Donnell's point needs to be addressed. He says it's not possible for Democrats to have a majority without conservative Democrats. Greenwald makes the point I've been making, which is that 'conservative' does not mean being owned by Wall Street.
You can be culturally conservative Democrat in a southern state and still support economic programs that are so-called 'liberal'. That's exactly the formula that needs to be promoted. And that's the idea that O'Donnell and others, even progressive types, don't seem to understand. It's all about how you define 'conservative Democrat'. Put in culturally conservative Dems in southern states, but culturally conservatives who are like Jim Webb, people who want to take on Wall Street not shill for them.
As Greenwald points out, It's not about the labels 'liberal' or 'conservative'; it's about the programs candidates support. The media narrative assumes that cultural conservatives must necessarily be also economic, corporate-interest-serving conservatives and that economic progressives must be cultural liberals. This is fundamentally wrong and at the root of all our confusion, confusing even "socialists" like Lawrence O'Donnell.
So Greenwald is correct. Dems can get majorities with a coalition of cultural liberals and cultural conservatives, but who share common ground on progressive economic issues.
BTW, O'Donnell's defense of the word "liberalism" is wrongheaded. The meaning of the word is historically rooted in what we now think of as Libertarianism, which is more associated with conservative economics and cultural liberalism. The typical Libertarian supports gay marriage and abortion rights, but also wants no taxes and minimal government regulation.
It's possible to be an economic progressive and a cultural conservative–this is a description of late 19th century Populism. Populism is the polar opposite of a Libertarianism. Libertarianism is the ideology of the power elite; populism is the ideology of the rural poor and working classes. Progressivism, a cousin of Populism, is the historical movement that brought us all the benefits that O'Donnell's Jimmy Smits character is claiming for Liberalism. It's agenda was to use government as a weapon on behalf of the non-rich in their struggle against the power elite.
Progressives and Populists oppose everything economic Libertarians stand for. Cultural conservatives have never aligned with Libertarians, but they do now, because the power elite working through Republican communication strategists like Dick Armey have exploited religious conservatives' anger over the Democrats' aligning in favor of abortion and gay rights. I'd argue that "Liberalism" is more associated with cultural-left ideas than it is with economic-left ideas.
When Main Street hears the word "liberal" it connotes "loose", "morally lax", "unprincipled", and conjures up Hollywood celebrities and self-absorbed yuppies who have no moral backbone or principles except to spout vague bromides about tolerance and diversity when it suits them. And that's pretty much the way they imagine the typical, spineless Democrat in congress right now–and for good reason. "Progressive" is a much better word; it's got a good pedigree, and it more clearly describes what it is we now need to work for.
Leave a Reply