If liberalism is to reemerge as the dominant American political philosophy, its adherents must again embrace the lessons of its heritage. From this we learn that winning elections is as simple as sticking to basic liberal concepts: achievement, merit and contribution.
If democracy is defined by a people being able to govern themselves, then liberalism is its natural progeny. Both democracy and liberalism require hard work and self-discipline to function. It is when these two elements break down that the forces of reaction have the opportunity to reassert themselves.
This is what has happened to both American liberalism as well as American democracy since 1968. With the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, jr. and of course, Robert F. Kennedy liberalism ceased being centrist and became increasingly identified with the less disciplined movements. Any sense of achievement and reward for merit had been seemingly thrown overboard for a more emotional philosophies that no longer emphasized a common American dream.
Liberalism's adherents have become so undisciplined that they often let the New Right incorrectly define what they believe. Pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity falsely equate liberalism with Marxist socialism; it is not. If anything, liberalism is the heart of the non-Socialist Left just as mainstream libertarian conservatism is the heart of the non-fascist Right. Liberalism is not about the destruction of private property ownership, but instead it is about extending private property ownership to a greater number of individuals through distributive justice capitalism. Similarly liberalism does not call for the end of profit, only for its fair distribution pursuant to contribution. Liberalism is all about commutative justice, not state ownership.
The primary purpose of contemporary liberalism is to serve the common good of all. This is the sacred responsibility of maintaining American institutions upon which all citizens rely upon for individual self-development, the very mechanisms that encourage and enable every citizen to achieve the dignity of self-sufficiency that is found in living a reasonable life--a sound public school system, basic old-age and disability insurance. This is the concept of an affirmatively active government that prevents the economically powerful from using freedom as a license to acquire wealth in a reckless manner. It is a check against a recklessness that would needlessly harm both the small business owner as well his individual laborers.
As Reinhold Niebuhr observed, man is neither totally virtuous nor totally corrupt. Will-to-power self-interest when left unchecked by a countervailing force of justice will however, lead to the corruption of the individual. For example, poverty and racism alone do not cause crime. To accept that concept on its face denigrates the working poor who consistently practice good citizenship. But it is true that poverty and racism provides more fertile ground for evil to take root. The temptation to exert one's unrestrained will-to-power becomes greater when its exercise becomes one of the few avenues of escape from a bleak situation. Liberalism's task is to be that effective countervailing force of good by both lending a helping, but a firm hand to those who cannot yet create wealth while preserving order based upon true justice.
Thirty-five years after FDR's ascendancy liberalism needed a shake-up. Robert F. Kennedy in particular had recognized that many of the hallowed institutions of the New Deal era needed to be made more relevant to contemporary issues. Many federal programs needed increased local control in order to respond more effectively to problems not even imagined during the 1930s. Issues such as the environment and feminism had come to the forefront, each with its own economic implications.
Liberals who remember Robert Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign often tell stories about knowing people who were staunchly supporting RFK but who, after his assassination wound up voting for Richard Nixon or even George Wallace. Each recollection almost always ends with a sense of bewilderment as to how anyone who initially would support Kennedy could eventually cast his vote for either a Nixon or a Wallace.
But the answer to this enigmatic question is not so much about Kennedy's specific policies as much it was about which candidates were giving an impression of demanding responsibility and contribution. Clearly, none of the presidential candidates who remained after June 6, 1968 could speak as earnestly as Kennedy on the reciprocal relationship of rights and responsibilities. Vice-President Humphrey actually came the closest, but with the Vietnam War raging with no end in sight, American wanted change. Both Nixon and Wallace gave the illusion of speaking about duty and order, albeit, without the necessary sense of social justice and thus, Nixon, just barely, carried the day.
From that point forward American politics became more about receipt and less about contribution. Gone from both the Right and the Left agendas was any sense of a self-disciplined long-term vision. Liberalism began to focus more heavily upon what was owed to the disenfranchised individual, sometimes based upon attenuated liberty interests. Not that such focus was unjustified, but it was often done while seemingly putting the well being of the middle-class on the backburner. Consequently, many of these folks who paid the bulk of federal taxes began to feel forgotten, increasingly believing that they were only to be called upon to pay for social programs that would exclude them as beneficiaries.
Neither conservatism nor Radical neoconservatism truly advances the freedom of either the average individual or of the small business enterprise. Furthermore, the Right has an innate problem in presenting themselves as the guardians of the common good. Instead conservatism, especially the current socially radical form openly embraces an ethic of undisciplined economic self-interest that on its face is at odds with an objectively defined common good---maintaining institutions that benefit all members of society. The unmitigated pursuit of profit is given greatest glory.
Today's patrons of the radical New Right are vulnerable on issues of social justice because they have a natural tendency to empathize only with the mighty and privileged few who seek to further increase their existing fortunes; conversely liberals tend to empathize with courage and compassion of the individual whose goal is to attain a more modest level of personal economic security. And while might and privilege often gravitates to the wealthiest and most powerful members of our society, courage and compassion reaches into all economic strata, all races and all communities. Courage and compassion, unlike might and wealth are the more common American attributes. It is the combination of this conservative vulnerability and this liberal strength that makes liberalism, not conservatism the truer centrist philosophy.
Whether liberals realize it or not, they have the very power to derail the current radical new Right's agenda. There is much dissension and hypocrisy on the Right waiting to be exploited. Libertarians and neoconservatives fight over the same foundation funds, atheistic neoconservatives use the Religious Right to impose their orthodox society on us all--including upon less powerful atheists and agnostics. And while they all talk about "rugged individualism" in truth they worship the sloth of the overpaid CEO who is paid up to 450 times the salary of one of his average workers.
And that is where a reinvigorated centrist liberalism would be devastatingly effective. As liberals we must revisit what liberalism stood for when it consistently won elections from 1932 through 1968. We must emphasize a liberalism that rewards merit and requires contribution to the common good. There must be a return to a notion that this is not someone else's society or someone else's problem or someone else's responsibility; America is our society, our_problem and _our responsibility.
And as soon as liberalism comes to terms with its past it will be ready to go forward into the future.