Defining 'Patriotic Liberalism'
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
In his new book on the Bush presidency, "The Right Man," former
Bush speechwriter David Frum offers an analysis of "compassionate
conservatism" that includes a nice throwaway line about liberals.
"Bush described himself as a 'compassionate conservative,' " Frum
writes, "which sounded less like a philosophy than a marketing slogan:
Love conservatism but hate arguing about abortion? Try our new
compassionate conservatism -- great ideological taste, now with less
controversy."
Then came Frum's line on liberals: "Conservatives disliked the
'compassionate conservative' label in the same way that people on the
left would dislike it if a Democratic candidate for president called
himself a 'patriotic liberal.' "
Frum's point is fair enough: Conservatives hate having to add the
adjective "compassionate" to their label, because doing so implies that
they once lacked compassion. Liberals presumably would dislike
adding "patriotic" to their label because doing so would imply that
they once lacked love for their country.
Nonetheless, Bush was smart to embrace the compassionate
conservative idea. He knew perfectly well that a large number of
Americans were suspicious -- for good reason, I'd argue, but never
mind -- that conservatives really didn't care much about the poorest
in our midst.
Compassionate conservatism was a brilliant slogan that did three
things at once. It acknowledged that conservatives had a problem. It
insisted that conservatives really did care about the poor. And it tried
to change the debate about poverty by claiming that advocates of
programs outside government, especially church-based programs, had
better ideas about how to help the poor.
By the same logic, it is time to proclaim loudly and without apology
that there is such a thing as "patriotic liberalism."
Of course there should be no need to do this. Liberalism, the
philosophy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman, waged and
won America's war against Nazi Germany and imperial Japan and laid
the groundwork for the successful battle against Soviet communism.
Jimmy Carter's campaign for human rights created the ideological
underpinning of Ronald Reagan's successful Cold War policies.
But contemporary liberals should acknowledge they have a problem.
Yes, some of it is a problem of demagoguery by their opponents. On
Tuesday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay accused the Democrats of
being "the appeasement party" because of Democratic presidential
candidate Howard Dean's opposition to a war with Iraq.
If opposing a war proposed by a president automatically makes
somebody unpatriotic, then Abraham Lincoln was an unpatriotic
appeaser for opposing the Mexican War as a young congressman in
the 1840s.
In fact, liberals are split on this war, and most opponents of Bush's
policies share the general revulsion toward Saddam Hussein's regime
and do not engage in reflexive anti-Americanism.
But whatever the cause may be, the fact is that the link between
liberalism and patriotism is not as automatic in the public mind now as
it was in FDR's day. In the wake of 9/11, that's a genuine problem for
liberals. The solution is not defensiveness but an aggressive attempt
to define patriotic liberalism.
It would include a strong emphasis on service to the country.
Congress should pass the bill proposed by Sens. John McCain and
Evan Bayh to expand service opportunities for young Americans so
that 250,000 slots would be available for those who want to give a
year to their country. Short-term enlistments in the military should be
encouraged.
Patriotic liberals would support the call of a commission convened by
CIRCLE, the Center for Information and Research on Civil Learning and
Engagement, and the Carnegie Corp. to have our schools place a new
emphasis on civic education. This would include a genuine rigor in the
teaching of government and history and a new emphasis on
extracurricular activities now endangered by budget cuts.
A patriotic liberalism would contrast itself to a radical individualism
that rejects any idea of a "common good." It would emphasize both
rights and responsibilities. It would tell corporations moving offshore
to escape taxes that they have obligations to their country at a time
of war and domestic threats. It would urge that we spend what's
needed to defend ourselves at home against terrorism.
It would argue that the preservation of freedom is a common project
requiring a commitment of citizens to one another across the lines of
class, race and gender. It would insist that a free republic will not
prosper if too many of its citizens feel deprived of opportunities.
Patriotic liberalism would declare that we are all in this together.
That's old-fashioned. At the moment, it would also be a radical
challenge to the status quo.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>