The Paleoliberals.
A large group of influential opinionmakers, mostly on the left side of the political spectrum, are out of touch with the country. No one knows how to distinguish them from left-wingers who are still in touch. The out-of-touch liberals just don’t get it. They are, however, underappreciated. No one knows quite who they are or quite what they stand for. What they desperately need is a name. The term paleoliberalism is appropriate, as it contrasts with the hated “neoliberalism.”
The word “paleo-” used in English is a learned borrowing from Greek “palaio” meaning “old.”
A.S. Sundar, etymologist. (*)
The word paleoconservative usually refers to the hard right-wing. (†) The Pat Buchanan type of conservative, who opposes foreign entanglements, is most often associated with paleoconservatism. (‡) It is fitting, then, that the isolationists on the hard left would share their prefix.
Paleoliberalism is liberalism that is inflexible, old, and stubborn. (§) Paleoliberalism is yesterday’s banners and chants arrayed against today’s issues. In essence, it is illiberal. It’s like an old, worn out pair of shoes with gaping cracks in the soles and a terrible stink. They’re all right as long as you don’t look down.
Paleoliberals are for the War on Terrorism, but with exceptions. Over time, with the exceptions including everything from Iraq to Iran to Syria to the Patriot Act, there appears to be little in the War on Terrorism that they are actually for.
Paleoliberals do not see anything wrong with cheering or applauding or booing at a memorial service, as long as the funereal setting of the memorial service is for a fallen Senator with whom they agreed.
Paleoliberals are for gay marriage, not because gay marriage would help gay people or the institution of marriage, but because they believe marriage is not particularly important.
Paleoliberals rightly decry legislation to outlaw “partial birth abortion,” and also rightly decry the false rhetoric that has obscured what is in that legislation. They shy away from presenting the public with the actual scientific facts, preferring to trust in popular ignorance and the court system.
Paleoliberals rightly believe that education and social services are underfunded in the US, and suggest that fully funding them is the only solution required.
Paleoliberals want Trent Lott run out of office for a “gotcha” moment, and want Howard Dean elected in spite of his Confederate flag “gotcha.”
Paleoliberals want to allow any number of illegal immigrants to come to the United States without being inconvenienced by law enforcement, and want no part in reforming the immigration services so that legal immigrants will be treated courteously and respectful of their need for convenience as they enter the country.
Paleoliberals want to give everyone in America free health care, and want no questions on how that might reduce quality of service or innovations in new medical techniques, research, or treatments.
Paleoliberals demand that NATO, the UN, “our friend” France, and perhaps also the EU take over for our responsibilities in Iraq, and dodge the thought that all of them attempted to stop the US–led coalition from liberating Iraq in the first place.
Paleoliberals demand that the US deal harshly with Saudi Arabia, and try to avoid mentioning that the US would not even be in a strategic position to possibly deal harshly with Saudi Arabia if we still required the use of Saudi airfields for the southern no-fly zone with which to erect the preferred paleoliberal strategy, the containment of Saddam Hussein.
Paleoliberals believe that Harry Truman has a greater claim to winning the Cold War than does Ronald Reagan.
Paleoliberals are not distressed that outgoing California governor Gray Davis has hired shredding contractors for his official papers rather than transportation contractors to cart them to a historical archive. The appearance of corruption is okay so long as he’s one of them.
Paleoliberals are against anti-Semitism and for anti-Zionism.
Paleoliberals really, deeply believe that George W. Bush is stupid, no matter how many times he outsmarts them. Not exactly a positive self-image.
Paleoliberals give conservatives no credit for their policy ideas, even for the policy ideas that have proven track records, such as welfare reform and the “broken windows” theory of community policing.
Paleoliberals do not think that any of the following are particularly important: leadership, courage, honor, religion, civilization, culture, tradition, responsibility, the English language, or history.
Paleoliberals rightly deny that on the basis of the impeachment articles Bill Clinton should not have been impeached, and go on to criticize Clinton more heavily for the political price he incurred for “their side” than for his misdeeds.
Paleoliberals deeply believe that the media as a whole has a sharply conservative bias. Either the BBC or NPR are the best alternative, but even the BBC and NPR are somehow tilted to the right-wing.
Paleoliberals embrace the spirit of free thinking and openmindedness, except when their own beliefs are challenged.
Paleoliberals are for all kinds of diversity on college campuses—racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, national origin, religious—just not political diversity.
Paleoliberals disbelieve in the existence of evil. They firmly believe that if the two sides in a war would just take a moment to understand one another, there would be peace. There is no possibility that the 9/11 terrorists, for example, were in fact “evil.”
Paleoliberals think that the symbol is more important than the substance. Thus, it doesn’t matter what actually happens in Iraq. What really matters is what it represents.
Paleoliberals will vote for the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, no matter who it is.
Paleoliberals insist that they are as patriotic as anyone else, not in spite of their desire to change American society from top to bottom, but because of that desire.
Update: Thank you to Michael J. Totten for the link. (**) Much appreciated. There is interesting commentary available on his site.
Update: Thank you to Matthew Stinson for the link. (††) Thank you to Terry Pinder for the link. (‡‡) Oregon Commentator links. (§§)
Update: Tbogg is angry. (***) Tbogg seems to say that I am unreal. To the contrary, I am real. Pandagon makes allegations against me to which I will respond there. (†††) Shenaniganz links. (‡‡‡) Lex Communis links. (§§§) Progressive Gold links. (****) Terry Pinder links again. (††††)
Update: 17 November 2003. Quote of the day at FFM. (‡‡‡‡)
November 9th, 2003 at 19:40
Good post, Andrew. I linked this.
November 10th, 2003 at 23:25
Hey, I got a label for you: moronic brownshirt f***.
Take a hike, a******…
November 11th, 2003 at 09:14
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to who these "paleoliberals" are. Some names, with links or citations showing they adhere to all these beliefs, would be helpful in knowing whether you are making this up.
November 11th, 2003 at 11:00
Tbogg’s outed you dumbass. You might as well quit lying. Quote "I hold left-wing views. As an American, I’m a political independent who leans toward the Democratic Party and away from the Green Party." Please don’t lean toward the Democratic party. We don’t want your worthless, lying ass. Go back and join your freeper friends.
P.S. Time to get off the Oxycotin dittohead now that they got your dealer Limbaugh in a padded cell where he belongs.
November 11th, 2003 at 11:08
Where to start? You seem to believe that this is some kind of Martin Lutheresque 95 theses but from reading through this list of indictments I notice little to no evidence for any of these charges. I think you are living in a world full of self-delusion and false intellectualism. It is time for you to perform a little self-introspection and realize that you are delusional or are a closet conservative.
November 11th, 2003 at 11:33
I will name names when I feel like naming names.
My progressive credentials can be reviewed throughout this web site. For instance, ‘Why I am still a progressive.’
If any do think I will be cowed, they are misled.
November 11th, 2003 at 11:50
Just curious, did you actually see any of the Wellstone memorial? (I’m assuming that’s what you’re refering to). It was a touching affirmation of a progressive politicians life and times. ::shrug:: People were obviously emotional. People were upset. The vast majority of the time it was apolitical. But Wellstone was a politician. And to NOT cheer for what he believed would be somewhat… well, emotionally dead, if you were his supporter.
November 11th, 2003 at 11:52
To argue a point, you state "Paleoliberals give conservatives no credit for their policy ideas, even for the policy ideas that have proven track records, such as welfare reform and the "broken windows" theory of community policing." If you believe the measure of success is in the removal of people from welfare roles then you are correct, this program has been successful. If you measure success in improvement of basic living standards as most "paleoliberals" do, reform at this time would not be deemed as a success. A study by the Urban Institute found,
1 Most women who leave welfare are working in service jobs in the low-wage labor market.
2 Welfare leavers have jobs similar to those of other low-income mothers, though the latter are more likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance.
3 One-third to one-half of leavers report serious economic struggles in providing food.
4 Almost 20 percent report problems paying rent.
5 More welfare leavers report these struggles than do other low-income mothers
I suppose if you don’t care for the welfare of children in these situations you may say this has been successful, but being a paleoliberal I do care about them.
November 11th, 2003 at 12:07
To pick another point in your worthless screed, "Paleoliberals are not distressed that outgoing California governor Gray Davis has hired shredding contractors for his official papers rather than transportation contractors to cart them to a historical archive. The appearance of corruption is okay so long as he’s one of them."
You are saying that all liberals will tolerate corruption if their man is part of it. First of all you show no evidence that a liberal conspiracy is attempting to hide evidence for a Davis or protecting him from criticism. Second of all, you assume that Davis is a liberal, which he is not. Maybe in your closeted conservative world Davis is a liberal and a whole s******* of Hollywood types are trying to protect him, but I cannot find evidence for this. You are falling into a rhetorical trap, using broad strokes to stereotype a whole class of intellectuals. My point is this, your arguments are not constructive and in some cases contradict your "Why I am still a Progressive." I believe you need to read a little deeper into the modern progressive movement before you stereotype it. Or maybe you have and your just trying to be contrairian like the pseudo-intellectuals Mickey Kaus or Andrew Sullivan.
November 11th, 2003 at 12:07
If you want to support Bush and the Iraqi war, that’s your choice. But the amusing thing about the "even-the-liberals" is that they feel compelled to just make s*** up out of thin air. I dug through some of your posts and the whole "moderate liberal" shtick is just that. I noticed you link approvingly to conservatives who claim liberals are reading Gramsci in order to "communize" society.
Also, why am I not surprised to see that Totten has linked to this piece of garbage. Dave is pretty much on target with this one.
November 11th, 2003 at 12:08
Also, no one is trying to "cow" you. We’re just laughing at your sorry deluded ass.
November 11th, 2003 at 12:12
Dan, I watched the Wellstone memorial service. As a past contributor to Wellstone campaigns, as a past Wellstone activist, as a person who was thrilled when I merely glimpsed him for a second as he entered an elevator in the Senate office building during my first trip to Washington, as a person who had the privilege to ask him a question about universal health care at one of his many public forums in Minnesota, I was shocked to see what happened at the memorial service. Emotion was expected, but the wrong emotions were expressed. Funerals are sacred. If you don’t accept the sacredness of funerals, you might be a paleoliberal.
Thank you, James. My understanding is that following the welfare reform bill in 1996, poverty declined. That is a very big point. We have a long way to go, however, as you point out Of course only some of the problems faced by the impoverished today are due to the less than vibrant economy of the past few years. I would not be against tweaking welfare again. I just insist that conservatives get credit for their idea, an idea that helped poor people.
November 11th, 2003 at 12:16
Gramsci was a communist. If you take up his strategy unreformed and unmodified, then you are not a liberal.
November 11th, 2003 at 12:33
Andrew,
Poverty indeed declined after welfare reform due to a bubble economy. This is why one must look at other indicators of performance to build a model for success. For example if one looks at the hours worked by a single mother that has been removed from the welfare rolls it is higher than that of nonwelfare recipients. One might say "f*** em, they deserve it for getting pregnant" but a corollary to this is that the children of these workers are often left alone without proper supervision or care. Also when you post "I just insist that conservatives get credit for their idea, an idea that helped poor people." Conservatives did not push for welfare reform to help poor people; they did it to create a scapegoat using the poor. Remember the stories about the "Welfare Queens" driving their Cadillac’s? Pure, unadulterated politics.
November 11th, 2003 at 12:48
Andrew,
You state, "Paleoliberals disbelieve in the existence of evil. They firmly believe that if the two sides in a war would just take a moment to understand one another, there would be peace. There is no possibility that the 9/11 terrorists, for example, were in fact "evil." True many liberals do object to the term evil, not necessarily because we believe we can iron out our differences over a spot of tea, but because the word evil is generic and amorphous. An innate quality of many liberals is the need to go beyond the generic and into the root causes of events. This is what separates us from many conservatives and some liberals like you, who seem to be driven by ideology. We seek solutions based upon careful examination of the facts. No liberal that I know or have read has excused the acts of 9/11. In characterizing us as apologists you fall into the stereotypes generated by the vacuous right-wing chatterbox.
November 11th, 2003 at 13:19
Seriously, dude, someone asked you to name some names of who this describes and I think that is a valid question. I know lots of people of every political stripe, including many really hard-core liberals (I live in Europe BTW), and I can’t think of anyone who believes in even half the things on your list.
Can you give one example of a person who you think is a "paleoliberal"?
November 11th, 2003 at 13:45
Andrew,
You wrote, "Paleoliberals are against anti-Semitism and for anti-Zionism." These two are mutually exclusive by definition. Definition of a Semite according to Webster: a member of any group of peoples of southwestern Asia chiefly represented now by the Jews and Arabs. Definition of Zionism according to Webster: an international movement originating for the establishment of a Jewish or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel. In other words fighting against anti-Semitism is a fight against discrimination based upon ethnicity, be they Jews or Arabs. Being against Zionism is the opposition of a political movement, which, by the way many Jews, not to mention Arabs don’t agree with. To sum up, by definition these two concepts are mutually exclusive due to definition.
November 11th, 2003 at 14:05
I think Dave’s response above (comment 2) pretty much confirms the truth of the entire essay. It’s also a nice example the intellectual underpinning of the paleolib movement in this country today. Get ready for a(nother) beating in November ‘04.
November 11th, 2003 at 14:21
Andrew,
You wrote "Paleoliberals want Trent Lott run out of office for a "gotcha" moment, and want Howard Dean elected in spite of his Confederate flag "gotcha." I would argue, and has many others that Dean’s comments were not racist or discriminatory. They were just kinda stupid. There is no evidence in his past that he is a racist. He was not endorsing the confederacy, slavery or cross-burning. He was making the point that in order for the Democrats to win they had to reach out to the Southern voter. Trent Lott inferred that if Strom Thurmond had been elected to the Presidency in 1948, the United States would be a better country. Strom Thurmond ran under a segregationist banner at the time. Wanting to keep blacks entrapped as semi-citizens. Trent Lott also has a long history of association with racist groups (CCC) and movements. There is an obvious difference between these remarks, both literally and figuratively.
November 11th, 2003 at 15:50
First, James, I am not saying "all liberals will tolerate corruption if their man is part of it." Paleoliberals, however, are another story. As for Gray Davis, he seems to have been liberal or paleoliberal. Why else would the Los Angeles Times have attempted to smear Schwarzenegger?
Furthermore, poverty does not always drop in times of economic growth, at least not at such fast rates as after 1996. I would refer you to Mickey Kaus on Slate for more.
Liberalism’s essence is not to always look for the "root causes." That is science you are thinking of. The trouble with ascribing "root causes" to terrorist attacks is taken up by my "Real root causes of terrorism" article, in the Notables box on the right side of this page. To add to it, it does seem that Chomsky and others were not justifying the attacks so much as they were rationalizing them. In any case, I find Chomsky’s post–9/11 material to be noxious and immoral.
As for anti-Semitism and Zionism, you may substitute the words "Jew hatred" for anti-Semitism if you wish. The result is the same. Paleoliberals are against Jew hatred and also, somehow, against the State of Israel as a Jewish state.
Finally, I admit that Lott’s remarks were worse than Dean’s, but I maintain that they were far more similar than they were apart. As Al Sharpton said, you cannot bring a Confederate flag to the table of brotherhood.
November 11th, 2003 at 16:04
This is unbelievable. I don’t care whether you disagree with the substance of Andrew Hagen’s post (I’m definitely a right-winger now, and I think he paints with too broad a brush). I’m simply thunderstruck at the amount of visceral hatred and loathing on display here. Why do so many of you commentators have to couch your criticisms in such a way as to attack Hagen’s legitimacy, his integrity, his right to his convictions? I’m awed by high-handed way in which you’re reading him out of ‘liberalism,’ and the highbrow "Rush-Limbaugh-Oxycontin-drooling-looney-tunes" remarks: what in God’s name would compel you to conduct a debate in this way?
With a death-to-heretics attitude like this, it’s a wonder the American electorate isn’t rushing to embrace the Tribal Left with more enthusiasm…
November 11th, 2003 at 16:35
JeffB.
Have you read any right wing website lately?
Andrew,
LATimes smeared the Scharz because they wanted to sell papers, they also smeared Clinton, being one of the first to report on the nonexistant scandal related to trooper gate.
As to rising/falling poverty rates that is why I commented on model that does not dependent upon gross GDP. Kaus is a failure.
As to root causes, of course science is what I am thinking of, one of the basis of modern liberalism is the reliance on the scientific method to divine root causes. You need to brush up on your history.
As for your anti-semitism/anti-zionism you completly miss the point. These things are completly different.
I am tired of your nonsensical drival.
November 11th, 2003 at 19:27
Well, Andrew, it’s been clearly established that you are not someone of whom it can be said, "He doesn’t suffer fools lightly." You’re a gentleman, but gentlemen aren’t obligated to extend themselves to the obtuse and ill-tempered, are they?
November 11th, 2003 at 20:07
That’s a lot of smoke for very little fire.
I checked your "why I am still a progressive" page, and found something I could read on the DLC page. No controversy from me.
But in the current post, you’re making a whole lot of accusations that are pretty much unfounded, unless you mean by "paleoliberal", those questionable folks over at A.N.S.W.E.R
But do tell: who is "pro-gay-marriage?" (civil unions are another story.)
There can’t be more than 1000 people that booed at Wellstone’s memorial. So how do you generalize that to a movement?
I could go down point-by-point of your unfounded exaggerations and strawmen, but it’s just not worth it. I’ve seen the same list too often on partisan Republican sites.
You’ve been living on a diet of Andrew Sullivan for too, too long.
November 12th, 2003 at 15:57
Andrew, I saw Wellstone’s funeral as both mourning his death and celebrating his life. How is that bad? How is that the "wrong emotion"?
November 12th, 2003 at 19:37
I worked on his last campaign. He was a great soul who transcended hatred for descent Americans. He would not boo Bob Dole at Dick Gephardt’s funeral. He was a real mensch.
Pete Domenici cried upon his death. Pete Domenici would have been booed at the funeral. That he and Wellstone loved each other is something barely comprehensible to Wellstone’s people.
His people, the only ones he had, expressed, at his funeral, hatred for decent Americans, Americans for whom he bore true loyalty and devotion. He died in disgrace. At the last moment, his life came to naught. He died in vain
November 13th, 2003 at 13:07
Thank you to all those who have expressed support. I really do appreciate it.
Considering that they took notice, I do not find the negative reactions of the paleoliberals surprising. For conservatives to read this thread, it must be shocking. How could such words be part of a civil discourse? They are not commonly part of the discourse on the conservative side in America today, but they are deeply embedded in the Me Generation give-the-finger-to-the-man consciousness that prevails on the Left today, and uncritically passes for both intellectual relevancy and moral legitimacy in one.
A number of people have suggested deleting comments or banning people. In this case, however, it is advantageous for me to leave their screeds alone. Sunlight exposes the truth. Usually, on my site, I attempt (but most often fail) to foster rational discussion. Thus, I will not necessarily tolerate this kind of nonsense in other threads.
I have been censored on the Internet by my fellows on the Left more times than I can remember. I have been banned, kicked out of mailing lists, and told off. Eventually, my recourse was to start this site. I don’t want to do to them what they did to me. In my opinion, we generally need to grapple with such people in public.
James, politics is a different field from science. In politics the term "radical" means extremist or one who is attempting to get at the root of a problem. The term "liberal" is thought to suggest a non-radical political programme. You might say that radical leftists and liberals have more similarities than differences now, especially after the Cold War. You have falsely claimed, though, that the philosophy of liberalism is guided by the notion of going after the roots of the problem. That is not liberalism. Liberalism attempts to take what exists and make changes for its betterment.
On Wellstone’s memorial service, Jim just said it best.
I don’t read much Andrew Sullivan. He has some good moments, though. Of course, for paleoliberals, Andrew Sullivan would be considered more dangerous than Yasser Arafat.
November 13th, 2003 at 13:37
Apparently the Paleoliberals, who have yet to have been identified, are present on this thread.
Seeing as there are less than 27 comments to date, it will be trivial for me to find a real live Paleoliberal.
Michael J. Totten - nope
dave - perhaps
Dr. BDH - perhaps
vigilante - perhaps.
James - perhaps
Andrew Hagan - nope
Dan - perhaps
Brilliantine - perhaps
Platosearwax - perhaps
Mark - nope
Jeff B. - nope
Jim - nope
p mac - perhaps
me - perhaps
So, we have
dave - Dave came in and snarled. We really have no way of telling why he snarled, but we certainly can’t divine his political leanings from his snarling, so he’s not the Paleoliberal. Same with vigilante
James apparently disagrees with the motivations attributed to Paleoliberals, so he can’t be one. He seems more like a centrist to me.
Dan didn’t mind the Wellstone memorial. That can’t be enough to determine his political leanings, can it?
Brillante thinks you’re a jerk. That’s not enough, because I think all kinds of people are jerks, but that dosen’t make me liberal or conservative.
p max thinks that Paleoliberals don’t exist.
Dr. BDH wants names. I want names, Platosearwax wants names. I’ve discoverd how you know that Paleoliberals exist.
They’re all trying to find eachother, given that none of them hold any national office, they have no group that defines their philosophy, and no voice in the national discourse!
Thank you for uncovering this neglected, powerless segmenent of the political spectrum. You are truly worth of the "even the" moniker.
November 13th, 2003 at 15:28
I can hear my ninth grade history teacher, Mr. Poulos, while we explored the definitions of "fascism" and "communism," saying, "Be specific. Give me an example." A discussion of a political cadre without the name of a single person who belongs to that cadre is general, vague, and ultimately meaningless. The proof of the validity of your paleoliberal critique must begin with the existence of said paleoliberals. How else can one hold your claims to any test of truthfulness? If you wish to start a valid discussion about a real political phenonmenon, then you will "feel like naming names" now.
November 14th, 2003 at 16:47
"The party which, in its drive for unity, discipline and success ever decides to exclude new ideas, independent conduct or insurgent members, is in danger." - John F. Kennedy
November 18th, 2003 at 08:07
I deleted a comment. It had been posted after comment 30. Extreme right-wing stuff is not welcome here, period.