The Failings Of Liberalism

Let's take another look at “family values”, how it got started and its link to the demise of the liberal reform movement. You probably don't remember the easily forgettable and barely adequate Republican Vice- President who served with Bush Sr. in 1989. His name was Dan Quayle, a hopeless dipstick. If anyone cares, I am preserving a few of his inane quotations for posterity: “ The future will be better tomorrow.” “We don't want to go back to tomorrow, we want to go forward.” “ I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.” “ Republicans understand the importance of bondage between mother and child.” There are many more just as cockeyed.

I am remembering him today because he was the one who introduced the BS called “family values”into Republican politics. He cited the TV program “Murphy Brown” featuring Candice Bergen as a single professional woman who derided the importance of fathers and bore a child alone. Quayle attacked the show as an example of the “poverty of values” and the rejection of the “nuclear family” characteristic of American culture.

Over the years the concept became an important part of the conservative political platform, namely the endorsement by the U.S. Government of Christian values and Biblical truth. The Christian Right picked up the ball and are still running with it. The liberals, on the other hand, have been totally unable to counter effectively this right wing ploy. But there is a reason.

It all started in the 1970's when the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the organization which eventually became associated with Bill Clinton and Al Gore, decided to increase the flow of money by switching their concentration from the poorer blue collar union worker to the more affluent white collar professional particularly those who were liberal on “social issues”, for example pro-choice, universal health care, living wage, family planning and many more.

The next step then was to seek the support of corporations for their campaign contributions. Financial support from this source far exceeded what was possible from trade unions. It was the former Senator, Bob Dole, who once said that poor people do not contribute to political campaigns. So the Democratic party became more friendly to business interests confident that the “working class voters” had no other place to go. After all, the Democrats were slightly better on economic issues than the Republicans. So the DLC drops the “class warfare” language and becomes similar to the Republican representatives of the upper middle class. Thus the two parties become more tweedledee and tweedledumber than ever. I believe we are witnessing today not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties. Can you think of a stupider strategy?

Liberalism is no longer relevant to the traditional base of the party. So what the liberals have always stood for, namely, economic security and social welfare has been relinquished at a time when the country is in critical need.

To quote the dork, Dan Quayle, “I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change.”

References:

Frank, Thomas. What's The Matter With Kansas. 2004.
Wikipedia
Google