Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[80zephyr]

Templar, either discuss the thread topic with me, or move along. I'm not interested in your evasions and attempts to divert the thread.

Specifically, if the liberals are exhausted, why are all the liberals celebrating the epic asswhupping that the liberals just delivered to the statists?

Why are all the liberals salivating over the prospects of 2016?

Why are all the liberals pressing hard on the economic issues, while their opponents are concentrating on claims of victimhood, identity politics and political correctness?

Why are the liberals the ones who don't see a need to make trolling threads?

Someone may be exhausted and demoralized, but it's clearly not the liberals. Address that.

Well, I suppose that the last election would offer some evidence. Unless you feel that it was an aberration?

Mark

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Is liberalism exhausted, i.e. has it run its course in America and will fade into the background in coming years?

It depends what definition of "liberalism" that you're using. Do you mean my definition? Your definition?

Jonah Goldberg's definition?

"Liberalism", in this context, doesn't mean anything. I consider myself a colloquial "liberal", yet I imagine that not very much of what Jonah Goldberg thinks "liberalism" is would apply to me.

Are ideologies changing? Sure. They're always changing.

Does the death-knell of MSNBC imply anything more than just another cable channel failing? Does it mean that "liberalism" is dead? Of course not. The whole cable-news-as-sports-team thing that some people have is idiotic.

 

[edthecynic]

Obviously not or Goldberg would not be desperately trying to create the meme that it is exhausted. He singles out MSNBC's declining audience, but all of Right-wing hate radio is declining even more, especially MessiahRushie, who in Nov 2012 said he had an audience of 50 million and now the CON$ervative Talkers Magazine puts his audience at slightly over 13 million.

CON$ervatives are anti gay marriage and gay marriage is growing by leaps and bounds.

The only victories the Right can claim are off year elections because Liberals have jobs and only vote in the major elections, and the mostly jobless Right have no conflicts with work to keep them from voting at the drop of a hat, primaries, off year elections, runoff elections, special elections, recall elections, etc. Libs just do not take that much time off from work and only take off from work for important elections.

November 07, 2012
RUSH:* Hey, any of you guys in there want to come sit in my chair today?* Anybody?* Nobody wants to come sit in my chair here?* None of you?* I mean, I'm giving you a golden opportunity to speak to, what, 50 million people.*

 

[TemplarKormac]

1) Okay, Mamooth wants proof of the premise. This one excerpt from Goldberg's column reads as such:

"In 2012, James Stimson, arguably America’s leading expert on U.S. public opinion, found that the country was more conservative than at any time since 1952."

Such was confirmed by this article:

Americans are more conservative than they have been in decades - The Washington Post

2) Another excerpt reads as such:

"Meanwhile, the cultural left has disengaged from mainstream political arguments, preferring instead the comforts of identity-politics argy-bargy. You judge political movements not by their manifestos but by where they put their passion. And on the left these days, the only things that arouse passion are arguments about race and gender."

No evidence needed here. You can simply look at how the left reacted in the the cases of Trayvon Martin and Micheal Brown, where they (and firebrands like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) stirred racial tensions and promoted anti police sentiment. When conservatives criticized Obama, they decried it as racism. When people express concerns about immigration, liberals decry it as racism. As far as gender goes, some of the best examples to date is that of Hillary Clinton, any criticism of her is met with screams and chants of misogyny; and of the abortion debate, where people who present themselves as pro-life are seen as misogynists.

3) As far as Net Neutrality is concerned, it was a party line vote, not a rout. Two previous attempts at Net Neutrality failed in the courts. This current attempt will fail as well, since the same law they used previously is being used now, which caused the policy to be struck before.

4) Next, to further show the decline of the liberal philosophy, is that of their hold on college academia:

David W. Brenemen wrote in 1990 an article on which he expressed concern over the disappearance or drastic transformation of liberal arts colleges around America, he used 212 colleges which met his criteria of a liberal arts college, seen here.This article confirmed that fear, 20 years later:

Some liberal arts colleges have transformed themselves into “research colleges” in order to attract students and faculty who value the mission of the research university. Other colleges have become “professional colleges,” implementing more academic programs in professional fields in order to compete for students who see higher education primarily as a path to a career and financial success. Some appear to have integrated liberal and professional education intentionally and crafted a new model of liberal arts college education. As this process has unfolded, the focused mission of the liberal arts college has expanded and become more diffuse, which has led to less consensus on what a liberal arts college is or what type of education it delivers.

The trend Breneman first pointed out more than twenty years ago is continuing. Some liberal arts colleges are disappearing, while others are changing their curricular focus and approach to undergraduate education. An increasingly smaller number of these institutions have been able to maintain a dominant arts and sciences emphasis in their curricula. Liberal arts colleges have played an important role in US higher education in spite of their small size and the percentage of students they enroll. The influence of this sector may be diminishing, however, as their numbers decrease and their educational focus becomes less clear.

Where Are They Now Revisiting Breneman s Study of Liberal Arts Colleges Association of American Colleges Universities

5) Other examples of the decline of liberalism and its ideology include the bankruptcy of Detroit, along with the failure of gun control in Chicago. More yet include open border policies regarding immigration, the disinterest in combating dangerous threats abroad, i.e. ISIS, and its failure (like conservatism) to reach to the other side to engage in bipartisan policymaking.

6) One of the more glaring failures of liberalism is how far it has departed from the wisdom of Jeffersonian liberalism. In Jeffersonian (classical) liberalism, every man was born with equal rights, but were born with different skills and traits, levels of intelligence and whatnot, or basically on unequal footing with one another. It held that government did not have the place to make all of them the same.

Simply put, Jeffersonian liberalism advocated individual rights and limited government, not an individual government limiting individual rights.

I could go on, but as Goldberg pointed out, and I wholly agree, liberalism in its current form is close to exhausting itself.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Does the death-knell of MSNBC imply anything more than just another cable channel failing? Does it mean that "liberalism" is dead? Of course not. The whole cable-news-as-sports-team thing that some people have is idiotic.

Perhaps you missed the ending:

"Of course, liberalism isn’t dead, it’s just resting. But it certainly could use an exciting, charismatic savior to breathe new life and fresh thinking into its ranks. "

 

[Two Thumbs]

Okay I'll wade in and offer the first post in the new Structured Debate zone.

In his column today Jonah Goldberg proposes a thesis that liberalism as it is defined and practiced in modern day America has worn itself out. It's proponents in the media have lost their luster and are no longer able to gain much if any traction in popular appeal. The 2014 election suggested people are looking for something different. President Obama has been able to move his party far to the left, but has been unable to attract recruits to join them.

The article: Is Liberalism Exhausted RealClearPolitics

Rules for this debate:
:
1. No ad hominem. Address the member's post and make no comment on the character or motive or intent of the member himself or herself.

2. No mention of Republicans or Democrats or any other political party. Keep the focus on liberalism and whether it has or has not run its course in America.

3. Please keep criticism of specific media, political, or other personalities to a minimum.

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED:

Is liberalism exhausted, i.e. has it run its course in America and will fade into the background in coming years?

liberals by definition and action are Two entirely different ideals.

A true liberal would never demand the government force people to buy a product or service.

todays liberals are just leftist, they have no support for liberty at all

 

[TemplarKormac]

Specifically, if the liberals are exhausted, why are all the liberals celebrating the epic asswhupping that the liberals just delivered to the statists?

Aren't liberals such as yourself statists? The very definition of statism is a political system in which there is an absolute centralized government which exercises control over societal and economic affairs.

Why are all the liberals salivating over the prospects of 2016?

They shouldn't be. One Hillary Clinton has a husband and a campaign finance scandal that may certainly doom her presidential campaign. Aside from her, liberals have no other viable candidate. But how does this relate to the thread?

Why are all the liberals pressing hard on the economic issues, while their opponents are concentrating on claims of victimhood, identity politics and political correctness?

Show me where none of those instances conservatives are focusing on have occurred.

I attribute this statement as a case of political projection. This isn't meant as ad hominem, but that such a statement closely mirrors what liberals have been doing since 2008

Racism: Oppose Obama and you're racist

Gender: Oppose Abortion or criticize Hillary, and you're misogynist

Homosexuality: Oppose it, and you're bigoted

Victimhood: It's all Bush's fault. We inherited this mess from him!

I could go on.

Why are the liberals the ones who don't see a need to make trolling threads?

Oh? Should I provide examples of how wrong you are? Anyhow, this is pretty much irrelevant to the strength of liberalism in your view.

Someone may be exhausted and demoralized, but it's clearly not the liberals. Address that.

(rolls eyes)

Were you the one who authored this debate? So why are you trying to direct the course?

 

[Foxfyre]

The concept is whether liberalism as an ideology, even one practiced by honorable, honest, intelligent, capable people, will deliver as advertised.

I'd wager not. In the political world, I don't believe there is any intelligent, honest, or capable way to make a promise and deliver on it.

Or whether it will be found wanting by those who have been disappointed to disillusioned by it and now are ready to embrace something different.

I'll go out on a limb and say once again that last year's elections was a sign of just that. An ideology is no good if you fail to deliver on it, it doesn't matter how honest, intelligent, or capable you are. People are in constant search of an ideology which will keep the promises it makes. When one ideology fails, they migrate to the other; whereas the converse is also true.

If you want me to be brutally honest, I will turn around and say that no ideology will exhaust itself if people are either gullible or insightful enough to subscribe to them. But I genuinely believe that liberalism is exhausting itself. If an ideology is sound, it won't drive people to extremes. If an ideology, wishes to thrive, it needs honest, intelligent, and capable people to drive it.

A well thought out and insightful post, TK. The only criticism I could offer is that I think you are shortchanging culture itself. IMO, Liberalism has most definitely changed our culture from one of rugged independence, moral virtue, charity from the heart, and love of God, family, fellow man, and country to one of intense selfishness, oneupmanship, authoritarianism, jealousy, along with a chip-on-the-shoulder gimme mentality.

Maybe just maybe people are finding that kind of society to be less palatable than they are willing to just accept. People are less hopeful, more fearful, and more unhappy than they expected to be. And they might, just might be willing to start considering the classical concepts again that created this great nation.

That is how the first U.S. Americans got there--reading and studying and debating and thinking through those concepts they read from the classical writings. It was the ability to read the classical thought themselves that caused medieval people to shrug off the 'dark ages' and embrace the Renaissance.

Let's hope that we Americans are capable of such renewal of thought and regeneration of defensible values again.

Wow. Excellent post. I can see that you are capable of thinking "outside the box".

Mark

LOL, I really REALLY hate to criticize a post that compliments me. But technically that compliment violates one of the rules for this discussion as stated in the OP. So thanks for the compliment but don't do that any more please. We have to focus on the post and not on the person making it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Specifically, if the liberals are exhausted, why are all the liberals celebrating the epic asswhupping that the liberals just delivered to the statists?

Aren't liberals such as yourself statists? The very definition of statism is a political system in which there is an absolute centralized government which exercises control over societal and economic affairs.

Why are all the liberals salivating over the prospects of 2016?

They shouldn't be. One Hillary Clinton has a husband and a campaign finance scandal that may certainly doom her presidential campaign. Aside from her, liberals have no other viable candidate. But how does this relate to the thread?

Why are all the liberals pressing hard on the economic issues, while their opponents are concentrating on claims of victimhood, identity politics and political correctness?

Show me where none of those instances conservatives are focusing on have occurred.

I attribute this statement as a case of political projection. This isn't meant as ad hominem, but that such a statement closely mirrors what liberals have been doing since 2008

Racism: Oppose Obama and you're racist

Gender: Oppose Abortion or criticize Hillary, and you're misogynist

Homosexuality: Oppose it, and you're bigoted

Victimhood: It's all Bush's fault. We inherited this mess from him!

I could go on.

Why are the liberals the ones who don't see a need to make trolling threads?

Oh? Should I provide examples of how wrong you are? Anyhow, this is pretty much irrelevant to the strength of liberalism in your view.

Someone may be exhausted and demoralized, but it's clearly not the liberals. Address that.

(rolls eyes)

Were you the one who authored this debate? So why are you trying to direct the course?

And TK, you know I love you, but you too have wandered into the realm of ad hominem here. Please don't comment on the character or ideology or whatever of the member. Focus on the post and/or the topic.

The topic is not the 'sins' of liberalism but is whether liberalism as it is usually defined in modern day America has run its course and is fading in approval and/or popularity and/or significance.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay I'll wade in and offer the first post in the new Structured Debate zone.

In his column today Jonah Goldberg proposes a thesis that liberalism as it is defined and practiced in modern day America has worn itself out. It's proponents in the media have lost their luster and are no longer able to gain much if any traction in popular appeal. The 2014 election suggested people are looking for something different. President Obama has been able to move his party far to the left, but has been unable to attract recruits to join them.

The article: Is Liberalism Exhausted RealClearPolitics

Rules for this debate:
:
1. No ad hominem. Address the member's post and make no comment on the character or motive or intent of the member himself or herself.

2. No mention of Republicans or Democrats or any other political party. Keep the focus on liberalism and whether it has or has not run its course in America.

3. Please keep criticism of specific media, political, or other personalities to a minimum.

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED:

Is liberalism exhausted, i.e. has it run its course in America and will fade into the background in coming years?

liberals by definition and action are Two entirely different ideals.

A true liberal would never demand the government force people to buy a product or service.

todays liberals are just leftist, they have no support for liberty at all

Whether your observations about liberals are accurate or not, that kind of sort of misses the point of the OP though. For purposes of this discussion we aren't going with the classical or dictionary definition of 'liberal' but are using the term as it is more commonly understood and/or used in modern day America.

Do you think that it is erosion of liberites under modern day liberalism that is causing liberalism to lose favor? If it is losing favor I mean.

 

[Foxfyre]

Does the death-knell of MSNBC imply anything more than just another cable channel failing? Does it mean that "liberalism" is dead? Of course not. The whole cable-news-as-sports-team thing that some people have is idiotic.

Perhaps you missed the ending:

"Of course, liberalism isn’t dead, it’s just resting. But it certainly could use an exciting, charismatic savior to breathe new life and fresh thinking into its ranks. "

This indeed is worthy of consideration. If Goldberg is right that liberalism is losing favor, is it a deifnite trend? Or jis it ust a blip in the fabric of our history and some charismatic figure will come along and regenerate the enthusiasm for it?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Does the death-knell of MSNBC imply anything more than just another cable channel failing? Does it mean that "liberalism" is dead? Of course not. The whole cable-news-as-sports-team thing that some people have is idiotic.

Perhaps you missed the ending:

"Of course, liberalism isn’t dead, it’s just resting. But it certainly could use an exciting, charismatic savior to breathe new life and fresh thinking into its ranks. "

This indeed is worthy of consideration. If Goldberg is right that liberalism is losing favor, is it a deifnite trend? Or jis it ust a blip in the fabric of our history and some charismatic figure will come along and regenerate the enthusiasm for it?

The problem is, it's not actually a "trend".

Goldberg doesn't actually support his claim with anything other than MSNBC's ratings.

I think if you'd actually examine changes in ideology with any legitimate statistical analysis, you'd see results significantly more interesting than "liberalism is exhausted".

Jonah Goldberg's Op-ed is a morale-booster for the right, not a legitimate analysis of a "trend".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Does the death-knell of MSNBC imply anything more than just another cable channel failing? Does it mean that "liberalism" is dead? Of course not. The whole cable-news-as-sports-team thing that some people have is idiotic.

Perhaps you missed the ending:

"Of course, liberalism isn’t dead, it’s just resting. But it certainly could use an exciting, charismatic savior to breathe new life and fresh thinking into its ranks. "

I didn't "miss" the ending, I ignored it because it's entirely irrelevant to my point.

Why is Jonah Goldberg's opinion so important to you?

 

[Foxfyre]

Is liberalism exhausted, i.e. has it run its course in America and will fade into the background in coming years?

It depends what definition of "liberalism" that you're using. Do you mean my definition? Your definition?

Jonah Goldberg's definition?

"Liberalism", in this context, doesn't mean anything. I consider myself a colloquial "liberal", yet I imagine that not very much of what Jonah Goldberg thinks "liberalism" is would apply to me.

Are ideologies changing? Sure. They're always changing.

Does the death-knell of MSNBC imply anything more than just another cable channel failing? Does it mean that "liberalism" is dead? Of course not. The whole cable-news-as-sports-team thing that some people have is idiotic.

For the purpose of this discussion we are going with the way most people define liberalism in modern day America which is synonymous with the statists, progressives, leftists, and political class. Because of the plethora of such discussions on that at USMB and elsewhere, I don't think it is necessary to get bogged down in senmantics and/or nitpick definitions. I pretty sure we all know what we mean by 'liberalism' in this context.

I don't know that there is a death-knell of MSNBC. I don't think it would be terribly missed but I don't know whether the audience and resulting advertisers they do have makes it sufficiently profitable that it isn't going away any time soon. If programming is successfully reaching a specific target audience, the lack of big numbers doesn't always matter to the owners.

Goldberg used MSNBC as a 'canary in the coal mine' as its meager audience suggests few people are interested in their decidedly mostly leftist point of view and he interpreted this as declining enthusiasm for liberal points of view and concepts. MSNBC was one of three trends he used to support his thesis that liberalism is exhausted and is losing its base.

I don't know if he is right. But that is what the OP intended to invite people to discuss.

 

[Foxfyre]

This might be a good time to mention, especially to those who didn't come into the forum through the front door, that Debate Now---Structured Discussion Forum is a brand new forum at USMB. C_K posted the general rules for the forum and if somebody hasn't reviewed those, this would be a good time to do so.

I as the author of the thread established the ground rules for the discussion in the OP. Any of you who start your own thread in this forum will set the ground rules for discussion in your thread.

And here again is the meat of the OP:

The article: Is Liberalism Exhausted RealClearPolitics

Rules for this debate:

1. No ad hominem. Address the member's post and make no comment on the character or motive or intent of the member himself or herself.

2. No mention of Republicans or Democrats or any other political party. Keep the focus on liberalism and whether it has or has not run its course in America.

3. Please keep criticism of specific media, political, or other personalities to a minimum.

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED:
Is liberalism exhausted, i.e. has it run its course in America and will fade into the background in coming years?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Is liberalism exhausted, i.e. has it run its course in America and will fade into the background in coming years?

It depends what definition of "liberalism" that you're using. Do you mean my definition? Your definition?

Jonah Goldberg's definition?

"Liberalism", in this context, doesn't mean anything. I consider myself a colloquial "liberal", yet I imagine that not very much of what Jonah Goldberg thinks "liberalism" is would apply to me.

Are ideologies changing? Sure. They're always changing.

Does the death-knell of MSNBC imply anything more than just another cable channel failing? Does it mean that "liberalism" is dead? Of course not. The whole cable-news-as-sports-team thing that some people have is idiotic.

For the purpose of this discussion we are going with the way most people define liberalism in modern day America which is synonymous with the statists, progressives, leftists, and political class. Because of the plethora of such discussions on that at USMB and elsewhere, I don't think it is necessary to get bogged down in senmantics and/or nitpick definitions. I pretty sure we all know what we mean by 'liberalism' in this context.

No, that's not the way "most people" define liberalism, that's the way conservatives define "liberalism". I don't think there's any liberal that would describe themselves as a "statist". It's not "nitpicking", it's the fault that makes the argument in the OP an exercise in rhetoric rather than an actual conversation.

I don't know that there is a death-knell of MSNBC. I don't think it would be terribly missed but I don't know whether the audience and resulting advertisers they do have makes it sufficiently profitable that it isn't going away any time soon. If programming is successfully reaching a specific target audience, the lack of big numbers doesn't always matter to the owners.

Goldberg used MSNBC as a 'canary in the coal mine' as its meager audience suggests few people are interested in their decidedly mostly leftist point of view and he interpreted this as declining enthusiasm for liberal points of view and concepts. MSNBC was one of three trends he used to support his thesis that liberalism is exhausted and is losing its base.

I understand what his "interpretation" was, but my point is that it's completely ludicrous. It has no basis in reality, it's not even trying to. It's a morale booster for the right, nothing more. He makes no valid points, his analysis is pure fantasy.

I don't know if he is right. But that is what the OP intended to invite people to discuss.

As far as I know, that's exactly what I've been discussing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Does the death-knell of MSNBC imply anything more than just another cable channel failing? Does it mean that "liberalism" is dead? Of course not. The whole cable-news-as-sports-team thing that some people have is idiotic.

Perhaps you missed the ending:

"Of course, liberalism isn’t dead, it’s just resting. But it certainly could use an exciting, charismatic savior to breathe new life and fresh thinking into its ranks. "

This indeed is worthy of consideration. If Goldberg is right that liberalism is losing favor, is it a deifnite trend? Or jis it ust a blip in the fabric of our history and some charismatic figure will come along and regenerate the enthusiasm for it?

The problem is, it's not actually a "trend".

Goldberg doesn't actually support his claim with anything other than MSNBC's ratings.

I think if you'd actually examine changes in ideology with any legitimate statistical analysis, you'd see results significantly more interesting than "liberalism is exhausted".

Jonah Goldberg's Op-ed is a morale-booster for the right, not a legitimate analysis of a "trend".

So would you say that n your opinion liberalism is not losing favor in America and is alive and well and thriving? On what basis do you say that there is no trend for decline of liberalism?

Goldberg used more than MSNBC to support his thesis. He also used the fact that President Obama successfully pulled his party far to the left, but has been unsuccessful in recruiting more supporters for that and he hasn't been able to get much of anybody elected to anything so cities, states, and the federal government have all become more un-liberal or more conservative since the election of 2008. And that has been a trend since the 2008 election.

And of course he uses the results of the 2014 election as support that liberal policies are largely being rejected by the electorate.

Again I hope he is right, but I don't know that he is. But that is the topic of discussion in this thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is liberalism exhausted, i.e. has it run its course in America and will fade into the background in coming years?

It depends what definition of "liberalism" that you're using. Do you mean my definition? Your definition?

Jonah Goldberg's definition?

"Liberalism", in this context, doesn't mean anything. I consider myself a colloquial "liberal", yet I imagine that not very much of what Jonah Goldberg thinks "liberalism" is would apply to me.

Are ideologies changing? Sure. They're always changing.

Does the death-knell of MSNBC imply anything more than just another cable channel failing? Does it mean that "liberalism" is dead? Of course not. The whole cable-news-as-sports-team thing that some people have is idiotic.

For the purpose of this discussion we are going with the way most people define liberalism in modern day America which is synonymous with the statists, progressives, leftists, and political class. Because of the plethora of such discussions on that at USMB and elsewhere, I don't think it is necessary to get bogged down in senmantics and/or nitpick definitions. I pretty sure we all know what we mean by 'liberalism' in this context.

No, that's not the way "most people" define liberalism, that's the way conservatives define "liberalism". I don't think there's any liberal that would describe themselves as a "statist". It's not "nitpicking", it's the fault that makes the argument in the OP an exercise in rhetoric rather than an actual conversation.

I don't know that there is a death-knell of MSNBC. I don't think it would be terribly missed but I don't know whether the audience and resulting advertisers they do have makes it sufficiently profitable that it isn't going away any time soon. If programming is successfully reaching a specific target audience, the lack of big numbers doesn't always matter to the owners.

Goldberg used MSNBC as a 'canary in the coal mine' as its meager audience suggests few people are interested in their decidedly mostly leftist point of view and he interpreted this as declining enthusiasm for liberal points of view and concepts. MSNBC was one of three trends he used to support his thesis that liberalism is exhausted and is losing its base.

I understand what his "interpretation" was, but my point is that it's completely ludicrous. It has no basis in reality, it's not even trying to. It's a morale booster for the right, nothing more. He makes no valid points, his analysis is pure fantasy.

I don't know if he is right. But that is what the OP intended to invite people to discuss.

As far as I know, that's exactly what I've been discussing.

Statism: a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs:.

Do you think most people who describe themselves as liberals would not agree with that definition? How do modern day American liberals differ in philosophy from that definition? Think abortion rights, guns, taxation, regulation, unions, minimum wage, affirmative action, hate crimes, health care, gay marriage, school lunches, welfare, education, climate change, etc. etc. etc. Do you think there are many modern day Americans who describe themselves as liberal who don't want substantial federal government control over such things?

So what points did Goldberg make that were not valid? Can you be specific about that? Why do you say he is wrong that MSNBC, the most liberal of all major mainstream media, is the least successful of all the major mainstream media? Is he wrong that Obama has moved everything left but has been unsuccessful in getting others to join him there? On what basis do you say that is a wrong assessment? Is he wrong that liberalism has been generally losing suppport at the local, state, and federal levels? On what basis do you say he is wrong?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Does the death-knell of MSNBC imply anything more than just another cable channel failing? Does it mean that "liberalism" is dead? Of course not. The whole cable-news-as-sports-team thing that some people have is idiotic.

Perhaps you missed the ending:

"Of course, liberalism isn’t dead, it’s just resting. But it certainly could use an exciting, charismatic savior to breathe new life and fresh thinking into its ranks. "

This indeed is worthy of consideration. If Goldberg is right that liberalism is losing favor, is it a deifnite trend? Or jis it ust a blip in the fabric of our history and some charismatic figure will come along and regenerate the enthusiasm for it?

The problem is, it's not actually a "trend".

Goldberg doesn't actually support his claim with anything other than MSNBC's ratings.

I think if you'd actually examine changes in ideology with any legitimate statistical analysis, you'd see results significantly more interesting than "liberalism is exhausted".

Jonah Goldberg's Op-ed is a morale-booster for the right, not a legitimate analysis of a "trend".

So would you say that n your opinion liberalism is not losing favor in America and is alive and well and thriving? On what basis do you say that there is no trend for decline of liberalism?

No, I wouldn't say that - because I think the idea of a simple liberal/conservative dichotomy is itself completely asinine. The basis that the I use to say that there's no "trend" for "decline of liberalism" is fairly simple. Marijuana is being legalized all over the country. So is gay marriage. In a few months, gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states, and the majority of Americans are happy about it. Support for interventionalist foreign policy is falling by the day.

Seriously, give me an example of a single "conservative" ideal that's trending up right now?

Goldberg used more than MSNBC to support his thesis. He also used the fact that President Obama successfully pulled his party far to the left, but has been unsuccessful in recruiting more supporters for that and he hasn't been able to get much of anybody elected to anything so cities, states, and the federal government have all become more un-liberal or more conservative since the election of 2008. And that has been a trend since the 2008 election.

That's not a "fact". It's not close to being a "fact". Can you give me an example of how Obama has "pulled" the Democratic Party to the left?

And of course he uses the results of the 2014 election as support that liberal policies are largely being rejected by the electorate.

Again I hope he is right, but I don't know that he is. But that is the topic of discussion in this thread.

Just like the 2010 elections were definitive proof that the country had rejected "liberalism" - until the 2012 elections happened.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Is liberalism exhausted, i.e. has it run its course in America and will fade into the background in coming years?

It depends what definition of "liberalism" that you're using. Do you mean my definition? Your definition?

Jonah Goldberg's definition?

"Liberalism", in this context, doesn't mean anything. I consider myself a colloquial "liberal", yet I imagine that not very much of what Jonah Goldberg thinks "liberalism" is would apply to me.

Are ideologies changing? Sure. They're always changing.

Does the death-knell of MSNBC imply anything more than just another cable channel failing? Does it mean that "liberalism" is dead? Of course not. The whole cable-news-as-sports-team thing that some people have is idiotic.

For the purpose of this discussion we are going with the way most people define liberalism in modern day America which is synonymous with the statists, progressives, leftists, and political class. Because of the plethora of such discussions on that at USMB and elsewhere, I don't think it is necessary to get bogged down in senmantics and/or nitpick definitions. I pretty sure we all know what we mean by 'liberalism' in this context.

No, that's not the way "most people" define liberalism, that's the way conservatives define "liberalism". I don't think there's any liberal that would describe themselves as a "statist". It's not "nitpicking", it's the fault that makes the argument in the OP an exercise in rhetoric rather than an actual conversation.

I don't know that there is a death-knell of MSNBC. I don't think it would be terribly missed but I don't know whether the audience and resulting advertisers they do have makes it sufficiently profitable that it isn't going away any time soon. If programming is successfully reaching a specific target audience, the lack of big numbers doesn't always matter to the owners.

Goldberg used MSNBC as a 'canary in the coal mine' as its meager audience suggests few people are interested in their decidedly mostly leftist point of view and he interpreted this as declining enthusiasm for liberal points of view and concepts. MSNBC was one of three trends he used to support his thesis that liberalism is exhausted and is losing its base.

I understand what his "interpretation" was, but my point is that it's completely ludicrous. It has no basis in reality, it's not even trying to. It's a morale booster for the right, nothing more. He makes no valid points, his analysis is pure fantasy.

I don't know if he is right. But that is what the OP intended to invite people to discuss.

As far as I know, that's exactly what I've been discussing.

So what points did he make that were not valid? Can you be specific about that? Why do you say he is wrong that MSNBC, the most liberal of all major mainstream media, is the least successful of all the major mainstream media? Is he wrong that Obama has moved everything left but has been unsuccessful in getting others to join him there? On what basis do you say that is a wrong assessment? Is he wrong that liberalism has been generally losing suppport at the local, state, and federal levels? On what basis do you say he is wrong?

1. I didn't say that he was wrong that MSNBC is falling apart, I said that his extrapolation to the whole of "liberalism" was patently ridiculous. Political ideology isn't measured by what cable channel people watch. I have many liberal friends, and none of them have ever been big MSNBC watchers.

2. Yes, he is wrong that "Obama has moved everything left". He hasn't.

3. How has "liberalism has been generally losing suppport at the local, state, and federal levels"? Be specific.