So, recently, on a relatively "liberal" forum someone asked why liberals were crapping on other liberals when they were both liberals. Of course, the liberals crapping on the other liberals were left wing Bernie style liberals attacking centrist establishment democratic liberals. These liberals were reminded that they weren't leftists, so liberals attacking other liberals makes no sense.
However, as someone who is a "liberal" (in the sense that I'm not a full on leftist) who craps on other liberals (mostly of the centrist/democratic party variety, it makes perfect sense). When you get liberals close to the borders of their own ideology, sometimes they have more in common with adjacent ideologies than with others in their own.
I mean, liberalism, the idea of wanting some sort of mix of a capitalist economy with some government intervention or socialist elements, is a broad ideology. It encompasses this massive middle ground between the left, which is for hard socialism, and the right, which is for more pure capitalism. Sometimes liberals have more in common with the moderates of adjacent ideologies than with each other.
I'm like this. I've identified as liberal for years, but I really have little in common with the democratic party's brand of liberalism, to the point I've outright rejected it more recently. I want far more substantive change on economic issues, even showing leftist inclinations at times, whereas the democratic party's brand of liberalism is literally trying to play nice with people who like George W. Bush and Mitt Romney. I am a lot like a leftist in inclinations. Leftists rarely agree with others in their own camp and the more moderate fringes of socialism, such as democratic socialists and market socialists, are very much not unlike social democracy. I mean, on a policy level the perspective between social democracy and democratic socialism is identical with the differences existing on a purely on an ideological level. They largely adopt the same policies and form coalitions all the time. But ultimately social democrats like capitalism, whereas democratic socialists want to abolish it long term. Market socialism is also very compatible with social democratic inclinations. And then you got me, who is a lot like a social democrat, but with anti work views similar to what you might see among some strains of anarchism. But at the same time I'm not really an anarchist either as my inclinations are too social democratic for that. I like the state, I like reform, and I ultimately pursue a better version of capitalism.
This is ultimately why I align with the Berniecrats while not always being like Bernie exactly. i kind of go in my own direction. I feel like Bernie's base is getting too extreme on the desire for socialism. But at the same time could we agree on many progressive goals? Absolutely. They're an adjacent ideology I am willing to settle for, as I believe we both want a better world. I'm actually more Yang gang in my actual ideological orientation. In some ways this makes me more willing to work even with moderate conservatives on economics who are like "okay you can have a safety net but it has to be a basic income" (aka Nixonian conservatives or "bleeding heart libertarians).
At the same time, the democrats tend to reject these views. They view progressive ideas like medicare for all or basic income as "too far left" and seem to be trying to woo upper class suburbanites who may have voted for McCain in 2008 or Romney in 2012 and haven't changed their ideology. This is what I'm saying with the mainstream democrats having more overlap with conservatism. They do. Moderate liberals like democrats are basically just conservatives who make some compromises with reality. They have the same views ideologically and are trying to play paddycake with literal republican politicians and voters. They seek to maintain the centrist coalition of 1992 onward and expand it by making an unholy alliance with the Reaganites. Which is why they gush over winning Orange County, California (home of Reaganism) and all of the sudden are rehabilitating George W. Bush to be one of the good old boys in the aftermath of Trump. They're trying to appeal to literal conservatives. Because they're conservative at heart and liberal in mind. I'm liberal in mind but leftist at heart. That's why there's such a division within the left these days. I don't think the left flank of liberalism and the right flank really have much in common. Berniecrats would rather work with literal socialists and establishment democrats with "moderate" (read: not crazy) republicans.
And this is why social democratic type liberals crap on establishment liberals. The two ideologies are totally separate despite both being "liberal". And this pull is also why I find so much struggle finding an exact ideological match among mainstream ideologies. One camp is trending toward socialism and the other toward conservatism. While I'm closer to the more socialist camp, my ideology is distinct from socialism and I prefer a more moderate, "left libertarian" approach toward issues.
The same applies somewhat to social issues. Some liberals are fine appealing to "moderate" republicans because their major focus is their woke politics. They couldn't care less if half the wealth is owned by 8 people, as long as half of them are women. They fawn over the first woman, or black, or gay person to be in a position of power and see it as a matter of progress, despite not changing the institutions themselves to be more just. The fact is, their economic ideology has more in common with conservatives on economics, so they're willing to compromise on economic issues to win on social issues.
The same goes the other way. I see a lot of overlap between conservatives on social issues and the groups I'm in. A lot of hardcore Berniecrats are, like me, ex republicans who flipped left on economics but are more moderate socially. They might be moderate on race and immigration in particular, a lot like me. This is even more pronounced in the Yang Gang. As mentioned above, UBI support actually does have a conservative faction who isn't big on traditional government programs and like UBI's simplicity and lack of bureaucracy. On social issues, they often mention they like yang specifically because he doesn't play the woke game everyone else does, he just cares about his issues. I'm apathetic to wokeism as long as it doesn't impact my own pet economic issues, and I kind of feel the same way but I can be more accomodating toward people with differences of opinion on woke issues if it advances my economic goals.
This also represents divides in how the parties might align themselves in the future. The vision I laid out in 2016 where Bernie won involved Bernie winning traditional liberal demographics but also bringing over some disaffected republicans shifting toward populism and Trump, with the anti establishment vibe in both parties coming together to push for a better, more just economic system and crack down on corruption. I feel like Hillary's win, and later Biden's, in the democratic primaries represented a shift in the opposite direction. These guys despise lefties like me because we're further left economically, and many of us quite frankly dont care about woke issues. Which makes us targets to attacks like "Bernie Bro", and accusations of being racist, sexist, etc. Meanwhile they're willing to work with moderate republicans, as long as they can go far left on woke issues (but in practice, only when it suits them). These divides represent different ideologies that will activate and appeal to different pockets of swing voters. Establishment democrats are appealing to moderate republican swing voters I quite frankly have no desire to work with, because their ideology is in direct contradiction to my own. On the other hand, my own ideas would push away those upper class suburbanites and replace them with lower class white working class voters who might be a bit more socially conservative, but are being crapped on by the economic changes neoliberalism and the fourth industrial revolution are causing, who seek economic change, but might go against democratic sacred cows on issues like race.
And ultimately, at the end of the day, which direction "liberalism" goes in matters. Because it influences the future of the political parties. In some ways what adjacent ideologies liberals try to form coalitions and appeal to matters more than if two groups are technically liberal. Right wing economic liberals have more in common with conservatives than other liberals, and those other liberals who are more economically progressive might have more in common with socialists or economically populist conservatives than other liberals. The boundaries and ideologies between parties is not absolute. The line between liberalism and socialism is blurred when comparing market socialism to social democracy, as is the line blurred between Clintonian liberalism and Romney-esque conservatism. And that's why there's so much hostility between various groups who are all technically "liberal" these days. Just because they're both liberal does not mean they want the same things at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment