Writing about either liberals or conservatives as a group can lead to erroneous conclusions as both groups are actually composed of people with a number of political viewpoints lumped together under common labels. Conservatives have long had to deal with views ranging from social conservatism to libertarianism. Now that liberalism has made a “comeback,” the left will similarly have to deal with differing views ranging from throwbacks to big government liberalism to the more libertarian liberalism seen in those who are voting Democratic in response to the authoritarianism of the right. We are bound to see disparaging articles written by one group about the other, such as today’s article entitled The Gentry Liberals in The Los Angeles Times by Joel Kotkin and Fred Siegel.
Kotkin and Siegel complain that liberalism is making a comeback but it “isn’t your father’s liberalism, the ideology that defended the interests and values of the middle and working classes.” It might be more accurate to say that today’s liberalism is partially in the tradition of your great-great-great grandfather, but influenced by changes in the modern era rather than trying to live in the past as Kotkin and Siegel prefer.
Liberalism has changed over the years in reaction to conditions at the time. Liberalism was born as a philosophy based upon advocating liberty. Liberalism strayed from its classical roots during the progressive era when power was in the hands of a wealthy elite. The depression resulted in the liberalism of the New Deal in response to the problems of that era.
Today we live in a different, and more affluent era. While for a while the affluent more typically voted Republican, the GOP’s turn towards authoritarianism, the social policies of the religious right, and an insane foreign policy which undermines our national security, has led to an increasing number of affluent voters to voting Democratic. Kotkin and Siegel don’t welcome the new Democratic voters who are now allowing the Democrats to become a majority rather than remain a minority party as it has been in recent years:
Today’s ascendant liberalism has a much different agenda. Call it “gentry liberalism.” It’s not driven by the lunch-pail concerns of those workers struggling to make it in an increasingly high-tech, information-based, outsourcing U.S. economy — though it does pay lip service to them.
Rather, gentry liberalism reflects the interests and values of the affluent winners in the era of globalization and the beneficiaries of the “financialization” of the economy. Its strongholds are the tony neighborhoods and luxurious suburbs in and around New York, Washington, Boston, San Francisco and West Los Angeles…
Since the 1960s, the intellectual class epitomized by Schlesinger has grown many times over. Academic liberals have become something of a political power in their own right. College campuses constituted the largest single base of contributors to the 2004 presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry. Professors are among the highly compensated and pampered professional cadres of the knowledge economy — which also includes lawyers, engineers, doctors, wealth managers, investors and other educated professionals — that make up the ranks of gentry liberalism and flatter the politicians who advocate its positions.
Kotkin and Siegel prefer a past before the information society transformed American. An increasing number of workers now are part of the information society as opposed to the working class of the past and modern liberalism reflects this. Liberalism is returning to its roots in supporting liberty, as well as in opposing the foreign policy of the neoconservatives. While there remain some New Deal liberals, many liberals, especially the young, are far more libertarian in their attitudes. Today’s liberals oppose the restrictions on individual liberty from the right. This includes both social conservatism of the religious right and the increase in power of the Executive Branch under George Bush.
Today’s liberals, as compared to many conservatives, are not hostile to the goals of the middle class but also are more skeptical of turning to big government as the solution for all problems. Liberals look to government where needed, such as with the health care crisis, but not in all matters.
The manner in which Kotkin and Siegel are throwbacks to big government liberalism as opposed to a more libertarian liberalism is seen in the politicians they support. They name John Edwards as their example of the Democratic candidate to come closest to their ideals. Edwards has been the candidate of big government programs while having little understanding of freedom or of the need to restore checks and balances on government. Siegel was also an adviser to Rudy Giuliani, who is not as liberal on social issues as often portrayed, while showing no more respect for freedom and checks and balances on government power than the Bush administration. They are hardly the ones to be advising liberals about what to think.
It is amusing to see that many on the right are quoting this article believing that it confirms their views of liberals. They apparently missed the point late in the article which notes, “The ascent of gentry liberalism remains largely unchallenged, in part because of the abject failure of the Republicans to address middle-class aspirations in a serious way…”
The greater irony is that the conservatives fail to understand how little there is left of their philosophy beyond the authoritarian views of the religious right and the neoconservatives. In past years Republicans would claim to be the party which represents those who are the greatest producers of wealth and are successful in our economy. Now that many of us affluent voters have rejected the Republicans and are voting Democratic, the conservatives don’t know how to respond intelligibly and must grasp onto any criticism of liberals. They fail to see that such criticism does nothing to support their views or their arguments against liberals.
