Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Liberal, Heal Thyself
Don't go by my excerpt alone. Robin Marie Averbeck makes a complex and nuanced argument defending New Left histories and historians.
Liberalism itself, it became apparent, was a part of the problem: Sincere liberals, no longer restrained by the South, still produced timid and ineffective anti-poverty policy. And in the enclaves that were supposedly liberalisms refuge, the more ambitious initiatives of the Great Society, such as the Community Action Programs, were not welcomed but rejected by urbanand yes, liberalpolitical elites. Indeed, by 1965 many mayors across the country had already organized to express to the Johnson Administration how deeply displeased they were with the practice and implications of Community Actionand many of the voters those mayors represented began sending letters to their Democratic congressmen, threatening to start voting Republican if a federal open-housing bill was passed. The passage of that legislationand other initiatives the Democratic Party made toward racial equitydrove the migration of many former Democratic voters into the Republican Party.
To be clear, the Great Society fell short not for lack of trying. Liberal think tanks, social-welfare workers, and policy experts inside the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations all worked on solving the paradox of poverty in the context of affluence. And yet those efforts were constrained from the outset by liberalisms flaws. What these liberal champions produced was a body of thought that treated poverty more as a cultural handicap, or psychological affliction, than as a condition resulting from structural inequality and racism. Unable to look directly at capitalism and racism, Great Society liberals mostly crafted social policy that assumed that mere tinkering with Americas political institutions and practices could end poverty and integrate the excluded. And as they did so, they relied on racist tropes and condescending assumptions about the urban poor that insisted that the primary problems rested elsewhere anyway. When Daniel Patrick Moynihan released his 1965 report on the dire state of the black family, his focus on matriarchy represented not merely a rhetorical flourish but deep-seated liberal assumptions about the causes of multigenerational black poverty.
The history of liberalism from this point onward is nearly too sad to relate, as any concerned progressive today knows. By and large, the Democratic Party responded to the new conservative mood in politics, inaugurated by Ronald Reagan, by capitulating to it. Fast-forward a dozen years after Reagans election and were witnessing Bill Clintonin the eyes of some a testament to everything great and good about contemporary liberalismfurther eroding the already meager social safety net and ratcheting up a racist war on drugs. Contrary to current popular commentary, Clintons presidency did not represent so much a betrayal of liberalism as the expression of some of its oldest impulses.
More: http://www.democracyjournal.org/36/liberal-heal-thyself.php
To be clear, the Great Society fell short not for lack of trying. Liberal think tanks, social-welfare workers, and policy experts inside the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations all worked on solving the paradox of poverty in the context of affluence. And yet those efforts were constrained from the outset by liberalisms flaws. What these liberal champions produced was a body of thought that treated poverty more as a cultural handicap, or psychological affliction, than as a condition resulting from structural inequality and racism. Unable to look directly at capitalism and racism, Great Society liberals mostly crafted social policy that assumed that mere tinkering with Americas political institutions and practices could end poverty and integrate the excluded. And as they did so, they relied on racist tropes and condescending assumptions about the urban poor that insisted that the primary problems rested elsewhere anyway. When Daniel Patrick Moynihan released his 1965 report on the dire state of the black family, his focus on matriarchy represented not merely a rhetorical flourish but deep-seated liberal assumptions about the causes of multigenerational black poverty.
The history of liberalism from this point onward is nearly too sad to relate, as any concerned progressive today knows. By and large, the Democratic Party responded to the new conservative mood in politics, inaugurated by Ronald Reagan, by capitulating to it. Fast-forward a dozen years after Reagans election and were witnessing Bill Clintonin the eyes of some a testament to everything great and good about contemporary liberalismfurther eroding the already meager social safety net and ratcheting up a racist war on drugs. Contrary to current popular commentary, Clintons presidency did not represent so much a betrayal of liberalism as the expression of some of its oldest impulses.
More: http://www.democracyjournal.org/36/liberal-heal-thyself.php
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 859 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Liberal, Heal Thyself (Original Post)
unrepentant progress
Mar 2015
OP
Leith
(7,814 posts)1. Nope, Sorry
Same old conservative nonsense, this time with $20 words and complicated sentence structure. The essay is filled with erroneous assumptions (when did Clinton become "a testament to everything great and good about contemporary liberalism?" , conservative talking points (liberals are the real racists), and flat out lies (there's a welfare state and it's racist).
It looks like Ms. Averback wants to be the new Buckley, but so far she is just following the propaganda pack.