What Went Wrong With Liberalism?

Last week Eric Alterman reviewed the book, What Went Wrong With Liberalism by Douglas S. Massey. I only know of this book through Alterman's review (actually a synopsis rather than a review) but it got me thinking.

First, this is an actual look at why liberals no longer control the country placing blame on the liberals. This is in contrast to the popular view following the 2004 election that people were voting against their own economic interests because of irrelevant artificial hot-button issues (gay marriage) created by Karl Rove. Massey's book assumes that liberals have a real problem, one that they created themselves.

Here's one example:

As the civil rights movement shifted out of the south, liberal democrats naturally encountered resistance from entrenched social and political interests in northern cities. Rather than acknowledging the sacrifices that were being asked of working class whites and their political bosses, and attempting to reach a political accommodation that offered benefits to counterbalance them, liberal elites treated lower class opponents as racist obstructionists to be squelched using the powers of government. Rather than outlining a political argument to explain why desegregation was in their interests and providing money to ease the pain of transition, liberals turned to the courts and executive branch to force working class whites and local political bosses to accept whatever changes they mandated from above.

Civil Rights always had a troubled existence in FDR's coalition. Neither FDR nor JFK never really cared for it but during the 1960s it became a core principal of the Democratic Party. By itself, this should not have been a problem but, as implemented, it has been a wedge issue splitting off voters ever since. That is because this is a two-fold approach. One is to assure equal rights and the other is to address past injustices.

Examples of poorly qualified individuals winning jobs/college admissions/contracts/appointments are too numerous to quote. Probably everyone who is white has either been passed over or knows someone who was passed over because of race. This goes beyond simply explaining policy. The surest way to alienate a voter is to hurt him through a policy that benefits someone else.

A related issue is how school desegregation was handled. In the old South, black students were bussed past the good schools to poorly maintained schools. In effect, two different school districts existed. This was wrong. But, that is not what happened in the North. I remember the court hearings in Columbus from 25 years ago. It was proved that Columbus always assigned students to the closest school regardless of race and that all schools were funded equally. However, some real estate agents had steered blacks to areas where they "would be more comfortable living with their own people". On this basis, desegregation and school bussing were ordered.

Since the 1960s, Democrats have expanded their Civil Rights agenda to include such groups as illegal aliens. The idea that people who should not be here should get taxpayer-funded benefits is another wedge issue separating Democrats from regular tax-paying citizens. In recent months Democrats have started supporting the rights of foreign terrorists detained on foreign soil.

Increasingly, Democrats offer very little for white, middle-class, straight males and not much more for white, middle-class, straight women. They are seen as the party of special-interests. Granted, whites are declining in demographics but they are still far too large to be ignored.

This posed a special problem for such candidates as Howard Dean and Wes Clark and even far-left Ralph Nader. Their appeal is mainly to white, middle-class men but this is no longer a big enough group within liberals to elect a nation-wide candidate.

More on Alterman's piece later.