Dating massachusetts liberals
Jarred as I was by these profiles in paranoia, I found my attention drawn elsewhere in the essay: Hofstadter’s remark that only two decades prior, “the dynamic force in American political life came from the side of liberal dissent.” The contrast that Hofstadter perceived between the 1930s and the 1950s—the former defined by liberal aspirations for reform, the latter by a guttural conservative reaction—felt familiar.
We liberals seem to have a knack for rendering ourselves obsolete.
Most important, though, will be a profound sense of humility. Administrations are not so easily guilted into responsible politics.
The 2016 election proved that we liberals are not guaranteed victories in the way we were with presidents Bill Clinton and Obama. In this world, any movement of dynamic dissent must earn its keep.
For Democrats, as for America, the stakes lie here, among the electoral base.
It was the woman who complained about “eight more years of socialism” after Eisenhower’s 1952 election.
It was the delegate to the Omaha Freedom Congress who denounced Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren for his “middle-of-the-road” thinking and, paradoxically, his supposed communist sympathies.
Senator Bernie Sanders, a socialist in the American tradition of Eugene v. President Donald Trump has resurrected the “America First” slogan not bandied about since before the Second World War.
American Nazis are making news from Charlottesville to Georgia to the heartland.
Social safety nets promised a modicum of respect for the unemployed and elderly. One might argue that, in the aggregate, these victories meant that the left had finally put its motivating anxieties to bed.