Read on Twitter
*sips coffee*
It strikes me that we need more capacious and nuanced understandings of what "liberalism" is instead of making broad sweeping statements about it.
It strikes me that we need more capacious and nuanced understandings of what "liberalism" is instead of making broad sweeping statements about it.
I know, I'm a repeat offender here, but still.
There's a lot of strands across space and time that certainly have a lot in common with each other and are often interlocking, but... collapsing them into a single unified analytical category seems too simplistic.
This is one of the reasons I adopt a "popular front" framework to understanding the right in 20th century:
It's a way to understand various overlapping bits and pieces of the right that are often at odds with one another but do coexist within the framework of a broader politics.
It's a way to understand various overlapping bits and pieces of the right that are often at odds with one another but do coexist within the framework of a broader politics.
To use a specific example: I've been thinking a lot recently about how the civil rights veterans who are currently senior congressional leaders ran to the right of their primary opponents when they first got elected in the 1980s.
Think John Lewis vs. Julian Bond in '86.
Think John Lewis vs. Julian Bond in '86.
Surely these are two guys who can credibly claim to be "liberals" but had bitter differences on a variety of different issues.
And there are practical considerations for the left in adapting a more nuanced framework for understanding "liberalism":
Because like it or not, if you want to win, you've got to have at least the tacit support of citizens who consider themselves "liberals" to do so.
Because like it or not, if you want to win, you've got to have at least the tacit support of citizens who consider themselves "liberals" to do so.
Another spicy take from me:
the monolithic focus on “liberalism” from many quarters of the left is dressed up in power analysis but actually stems from a quasi-liberal belief in “reform,” if only under a revolutionary label.
the monolithic focus on “liberalism” from many quarters of the left is dressed up in power analysis but actually stems from a quasi-liberal belief in “reform,” if only under a revolutionary label.
It stems from the belief that the way to gain power is through radicalized liberals.
Engaging with the right is, under this framework, considered to be a waste of time.
Engaging with the right is, under this framework, considered to be a waste of time.
