|
The conservative knock on liberalism is that it was too focused on the poor in Urban America at the expense (literally) of the middle class and that liberals were anti-business and anti-wealth.
The liberal response was the concentration of wealth and power was an issue of social justice and equality. Perhaps more fundamentally the divide was on whether the government or the market market was to blame for systemic inequity and which was the better route to solve persistent problems.
Well conservatives are still using that construct even though it is 40 years old and there is certainly a portion of liberal community who still views the world through that prism.
That being said. Obama is not of that veneration whose heroes were Martin, Bobby and Malcom, and Gloria and Cesar. If you listen to what he says and writes, while he is certainly not a liberal in great tradition of liberals, he is probably not going to define himself as a centrist either. insomuch as such a self-definition requires the old labels to continue to be used and abused as a wedge. To be blunt he has been successful because he does not fit the the old construct,
He seems to have a once in a generation intellectual curiosity and political mind and an opportunity to redefine liberalism in a way that would make it an ideology embraced by 50% of the electorate rather than a third. Thus leaving the zealots on the right with a third of the electorate and consequently move the political battlefield to the center-right rather than the muddled middle.
The question is will the old guard left and the old guard right who still hold considerable philosophic sway let him redefine liberalism in a way that appeals to the the suburban middle class where elections are won and lost and the only place where the electorate can be realigned.
Should liberalism be redefined? Can it be redefined? Do we even had a definition? Do we even care?
|