Is the Left diverse? If so, how?

[Doug]

Anyone who is even slightly familiar with the conservative movement will know that it is extremely diverse, even fractured.

Even if you leave out the pure libertarians altogether, there is hardly anything that all self-proclaimed conservatives can agree on.

The neo-conservatives, the paleo-conservatives, the traditionalist conservatives, the National Review conservatives, the religious conservatives,
the non-religious conservatives, small-government conservatives,
big-government conservatives, staight conservatives, gay conservatives ... you name it, we got it.

We fight like cats and dogs -- over almost any issue you care to name -- abortion, Islam, Iraq, immigration, gay marriage, Israel -- you can almost always find enough conservatives on both sides of the issue to have a ferocious debate.

It actually doesn't bother us as much as you might think. In fact, some people think it's a source of strength. A broad church, and all that.

Whatever may be the truth of that, from our side of the barricades, the liberal/Left movement looks remarkably homogeneous, compared to us.

Yes, we know there are differences among liberals. The Nation is not the same as The New Republic. But we don't know much about them.

Of course, from a long way off, the detail of a distant scene merges together.

And political diversity is not necessarily a virtue. If liberals have few disagrements among themselves, perhaps this for the same reason that mathematicians have few disagreements among the selves: the Truth is self-evident, or at least, evident to those with a college education and pure heart.

Various people on the Left -- and I don't even know if this general phrase, intending to encompass the mildest liberal and the furthest far Leftist imaginable -- in this Forum have objected to what they see as unwarrented generalizations about "liberals" or "the Left".

Therefore, in the interests of mutual comprehension, I would like to invite the non-conservatives here to post examples of differences on the Left -- or their comments on the question of political diversity on the Left.

Where do you disagree among each other?

For the sake of clarity, I would propose that Democratic Party politicians, who, after all, have to get elected in a very conservative country, be exempt from consideration. We know that Hillary and Dennis Kucinich have disagreements. But there is reason to doubt that the former is really representative of the liberal movement, and in any case, the fact that Hillary must appeal to voters outside the liberal consensus must affect what she says.

So, liberals and those further Left ... you have the floor!

 

[Annie]

Anyone who is even slightly familiar with the conservative movement will know that it is extremely diverse, even fractured.

Even if you leave out the pure libertarians altogether, there is hardly anything that all self-proclaimed conservatives can agree on.

The neo-conservatives, the paleo-conservatives, the traditionalist conservatives, the National Review conservatives, the religious conservatives,
the non-religious conservatives, small-government conservatives,
big-government conservatives, staight conservatives, gay conservatives ... you name it, we got it.

We fight like cats and dogs -- over almost any issue you care to name -- abortion, Islam, Iraq, immigration, gay marriage, Israel -- you can almost always find enough conservatives on both sides of the issue to have a ferocious debate.

It actually doesn't bother us as much as you might think. In fact, some people think it's a source of strength. A broad church, and all that.

Whatever may be the truth of that, from our side of the barricades, the liberal/Left movement looks remarkably homogeneous, compared to us.

Yes, we know there are differences among liberals. The Nation is not the same as The New Republic. But we don't know much about them.

Of course, from a long way off, the detail of a distant scene merges together.

And political diversity is not necessarily a virtue. If liberals have few disagrements among themselves, perhaps this for the same reason that mathematicians have few disagreements among the selves: the Truth is self-evident, or at least, evident to those with a college education and pure heart.

Various people on the Left -- and I don't even know if this general phrase, intending to encompass the mildest liberal and the furthest far Leftist imaginable -- in this Forum have objected to what they see as unwarrented generalizations about "liberals" or "the Left".

Therefore, in the interests of mutual comprehension, I would like to invite the non-conservatives here to post examples of differences on the Left -- or their comments on the question of political diversity on the Left.

Where do you disagree among each other?

For the sake of clarity, I would propose that Democratic Party politicians, who, after all, have to get elected in a very conservative country, be exempt from consideration. We know that Hillary and Dennis Kucinich have disagreements. But there is reason to doubt that the former is really representative of the liberal movement, and in any case, the fact that Hillary must appeal to voters outside the liberal consensus must affect what she says.

So, liberals and those further Left ... you have the floor!

This is the first post that has really caught my interest in a long time. Are these your original thoughts? Here's my 'conservative take' on several controversial issues:

Abortion-I'm against in principle. I believe legality should be left up to the states. However, I'm neutral on 1. Physical health of the mother, it should be up to her. 2. Rape/Incest

War in Iraq-I think it was necessary, not for oil or immediate physical security of the US, rather to insure the Middle East oil continues to flow until a replacement is found. We need a base to operate, SA was not working. A base in Iraq would allow the US to get tough on SA, check Iran, help protect Israel.

Death Penalty-My views are evolving. I see the hypocrisy between pro-life on abortion and pro-death penalty. At the same time, I do believe there may be a deterrent effect on serious crime if the punishment were meted out fairly and more expeditiously.

Health Care-I don't think that the state should be paying for those that can provide for themselves. Your choice to start your own business or not work at all, shouldn't make it obligatory on the rest of us to pay for your prostate, mammograms, or pap tests. However, I do not have a problem in some sort of umbrella for extraordinary costs, such as chemo or other high cost medical treatments. Dentist? Pay for it. Orthodontist? Pay for it. Basic physicals, pay for it.

Immigration-I believe the strength of American is dependent on the diversity gained through the new immigrants. Immigrants though are legally entering, not through some illegal crossing or playing with visas. We need to defend and protect our borders.

Taxes-On the federal level should only be applicable for those concerns that the states or local governments cannot provide, which are above those that the individual citizen cannot provide for themselves. In short, federal should be foreign affairs, borders of country, infrastructure between states, national defense, etc. States should be roads between entities within states, infrastructure between counties, election issues, licensing for state controlled careers, etc.

I'm sure there's more, but that should be enough for now, as my phone keeps ringing.

 

[midcan5]

I disagree with the premise of the piece above. It reminds me of the intellectual spin of some conservatives who don't really want to be conservatives, but liberal has such a bad name they are forever lost in the hocus pocus of right wing Madison avenue. It also is consistent with my view that the chief item for conservatives is their common foe liberals.

And why do we need to be diverse? Since when is that a good thing in the conservative mind? See below. You don't know your conservatism if you think that. Actually I hate diversity crap as I think it is modern day political correctness gone haywire. More later.


I wrote this several years ago in reply to a similar question. Only two paragraphs pasted.

Am I a liberal because I was born that way. Is that it I sometimes wonder. I cannot imagine not being liberal, it would be impossible for me to say I am a conservative. How is it conservative came to mean something so alien in my mind. And yet liberal is so alien to other minds. It wasn't because we had a left wing Coulter, Savage, Rush, or Hannity bashing conservatives. I think there is a personality component to it. How you label it is difficult and prone to error but it constitutes a way of viewing life. There are a set of subjects that when mentioned can easily define where you stand in our political culture. Government, welfare, abortion, affirmative action, and taxes are among the chief ones.

I will always be a liberal, I still get up each morning high on life - maybe it is biology. For me liberal will always mean progress, fairness, discovery, art, medicine, tolerance, science, hope, sharing, responsibility, it means being alive, it means taking a chance, and it means experiencing all of the complexity of life and facing it squarely and still enjoying it. It means once in a while saying, damn, I was wrong. It comes down to living ethically. Does conservative mean those things too, I'll let a conservative answer.



Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk

"First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise."

debated here: http://www.fullpolitics.com/viewthread.php?tid=27469

 

[Annie]

I disagree with the premise of the piece above. It reminds me of the intellectual spin of some conservatives who don't really want to be conservatives, but liberal has such a bad name they are forever lost in the hocus pocus of right wing Madison avenue. It also is consistent with my view that the chief item for conservatives is their common foe liberals.

And why do we need to be diverse? Since when is that a good thing in the conservative mind? See below. You don't know your conservatism if you think that. Actually I hate diversity crap as I think it is modern day political correctness gone haywire. More later.


I wrote this several years ago in reply to a similar question. Only two paragraphs pasted.

Am I a liberal because I was born that way. Is that it I sometimes wonder. I cannot imagine not being liberal, it would be impossible for me to say I am a conservative. How is it conservative came to mean something so alien in my mind. And yet liberal is so alien to other minds. It wasn't because we had a left wing Coulter, Savage, Rush, or Hannity bashing conservatives. I think there is a personality component to it. How you label it is difficult and prone to error but it constitutes a way of viewing life. There are a set of subjects that when mentioned can easily define where you stand in our political culture. Government, welfare, abortion, affirmative action, and taxes are among the chief ones.

I will always be a liberal, I still get up each morning high on life - maybe it is biology. For me liberal will always mean progress, fairness, discovery, art, medicine, tolerance, science, hope, sharing, responsibility, it means being alive, it means taking a chance, and it means experiencing all of the complexity of life and facing it squarely and still enjoying it. It means once in a while saying, damn, I was wrong. It comes down to living ethically. Does conservative mean those things too, I'll let a conservative answer.



Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk

"First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise."

debated here: http://www.fullpolitics.com/viewthread.php?tid=27469

So little said, with so many words, not to mention a link!

 

[Doug]

Kathianne: I didn't mean to start a discussion among conservatives about our beliefs -- or rather I didn't mean to start one here.

But if that's the way the thread goes, let it be. I can supply a lot more interesting links to debates within the Right -- maybe I will do a separate thread for that.

You ask if "these are your original thoughts" -- I am hesitant to give a blanket "yes" to that because I am not quite sure to what you refer by "these". The differences within the Right are well-known, and it is a widespread assumption on the Right that there are few corresponding differences on the Left. I think that assumption is true, but on other threads some of the Opposition have repeatedly challenged me about this so I thought I would ask them to enlighten me, and anyone else who is interested.

I read a lot of political publications, both Left and Right. I subscribe to most of the sixty or so English-language conservative and libertarian journals, and to perhaps a dozen or so left-wing ones. (Yes, I know, evidence of a mis-spent life. But my money's my own and I have no other vices.)

I get great intellectual stimulation from the continual debate and discussion within the Right. Not just arguments over current issues, but the examination of the foundations of conservative beliefs.

There is very little of that on the Left, even though the Left has the lion's share of intellectuals in the world -- and more than the lion's share.

On the Left, it appears that deviations from the Party Line, or even hesitant questionings of it, are dealt with according to an old Church attitude:error has no rights. Witness their response to Larry Summers' -- one of their own if ever there were one -- casual reference to the possibility of biologically-rooted differences between the sexes with respect to cognition.

There are Left-oriented publications that are interesting to read because they are always taking a close look at the underbelly of capitalism, and conservatives must always be aware of that -- The Nation, In These Times, The Progressive. (You do get arguments here occasionally -- The Nation had a flurry of letters to the editor recently when it took a reflexively-liberal line on immigration; and of course they are arguing about which Democrat to support.)

And there are generally Left or liberal publications which have a high intellectual standard and are must reads: The New York Review of Books and the London Review of Books top this list. But these journals range over a wide spectrum of topics, not just politics, and are mainly a platform for the best intellectuals the liberals have, rather than being specifically Left or liberal publications.

Interestingly, you find the most interesting and serious debates within the liberal movement to be among those on its democratic socialist periphery (although not out among the totalitarians): Dissent and New Politics magazines have had interesting discussions on the war, for example.

But all of them taken together cannot hold a candle to the disputes and discussion on the Right. Things like the debate between D'Souza and Spencer and Derbyshire on the nature of Islam, or between John Derbyshire and D'Souza on abortion ... just not there on the Left.

Why this should be so, I cannot say. It certainly flies in the face of one's expectations: it's our side that are supposed to be anti-intellectual and authority-oriented and grounded in extra-rational beliefs.

But as a matter of empirical fact it is not so. (Of course, maybe that's just my conservative bias. That's why I initiated this thread.)

I should say that there is one spectacular exception to the Left's ideological conformity: although the horrible Postmodernists have a strong presence in Academia, their rule has not gone unchallenged by other Leftists -- Noam Chomsky dismisses them as vacuous for example -- and in the 1990s the "science wars" saw liberal scientists destroy the pretensions of the more nutty PoMos, who wanted to place the ideas of modern science on an equal plane with virtuous primitive savages. (Links on all these available if anyone is interested -- I don't wan to take the time to hunt them down and insert them here if they are of interest to no one.)

I have my own theories as to why this is so, of course. But that's a different thread for another time.

 

[Doug]

MidCan: You say

I disagree with the premise of the piece above. It reminds me of the intellectual spin of some conservatives who don't really want to be conservatives, but liberal has such a bad name they are forever lost in the hocus pocus of right wing Madison avenue. It also is consistent with my view that the chief item for conservatives is their common foe liberals.

And why do we need to be diverse? Since when is that a good thing in the conservative mind? See below. You don't know your conservatism if you think that. Actually I hate diversity crap as I think it is modern day political correctness gone haywire. More later.

You are quite right that the chief item for conservatives is their common foe liberals. The enemy of my enemy, and all that.

And you ask "I disagree with the premise of the piece above ... why do we need to be diverse?"

Did you read that part of my initial post, where I said:

And political diversity is not necessarily a virtue. If liberals have few disagrements among themselves, perhaps this for the same reason that mathematicians have few disagreements among the selves: the Truth is self-evident, or at least, evident to those with a college education and pure heart

.The lack of response here, and your comment, suggest that the Left is not very diverse, and does not value diversity when it comes to politics, not even their own. (Well, I guess we knew that already, from the experience of young conservatives, and conservative speakers, on many American campuses, where the attempt to challenge the prevailing liberal orthodoxy is met with suppression from the administration and violence from leftist thugs.)

 

[midcan5]

I find it a great irony that Kathianne's views are completely consistent with every conservative I know and everyone who posts here. So then where is the diversity? There is none and this new phase of right wing propaganda is only a reaction today against the backlash the Right has brought on itself with so many failures under the republican party and this administration.

 

[midcan5]

to answer original post

Describing liberal as diverse is like describing the sun as warm, it is the nature of liberalism to be diverse. Do you see a woman running for office as a republican? For the sake of this discussion I will lump all conservatives and republicans together. I do realize a few republicans, like our own Arlen Specter, do not fit the mold but they are exceptions. Ever see the young conservative republicans on cspan, they look like clones. During the two conventions even the audience displays the wide 'diversity' of the more liberal democratic party. The republicans look like Mitt Romney and Mona Charen cloned them. Tom Delay, Rick Santorum, and Kay Bailey Hutchison are the epitome of conservative for me.

But maybe diversity isn't the word for liberals, I prefer Berlin's pluralism, diversity reminds me of corporate nonsense and Madison Avenue BS. We are by nature so diverse stressing that seems absurd. Each person is so different and each family so different I think we need to claim to be Americans first and from there recognize and respect the pluralistic society we live in.

There are long lists of liberal accomplishments but few lists of liberal diversity, why? I think the real goal of liberalism is a respect for the individual and a attempt at social justice. As I noted above I disagree that conservatives are diverse as well and I have a long list of traits that define them. If someone were to twist my arm, liberals demonstrate diversity in every area you can think of but is that really relevant. More important we need to respect each other no matter how we differ. Again it brings me back to why this question forms a complaint - if we respect each other - we respect our commonality and ignore our differences.


"Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron

 

[midcan5]

I was reading, "The Big Con" by Jonathan Chait and on page 61 he notes the economic diversity of liberals and in particular democrats. He observes the fact liberals are pro business and pro labor as well as pro worker while conservatives are pro business only. This simplifies his argument but it demonstrates which group has complex diverse relationships. Another instance is Clinton's domestic agenda which annoyed the heck out of many liberals.

But this debate was lost by the right when they even mentioned the word diverse.

 

[AllieBaba]

I was reading, "The Big Con" by Jonathan Chait and on page 61 he notes the economic diversity of liberals and in particular democrats. He observes the fact liberals are pro business and pro labor as well as pro worker while conservatives are pro business only. This simplifies his argument but it demonstrates which group has complex diverse relationships. Another instance is Clinton's domestic agenda which annoyed the heck out of many liberals.

But this debate was lost by the right when they even mentioned the word diverse.

Hmmm..well, that's your take on it. I beg to differ with the comment "conservatives are pro business only." We are pro labor...provided it isn't forced upon a population by the government, and provided there's room for free enterprise, i.e., advancement. We aren't in favor of creating false jobs so a larger population can be employed, resulting in an expansion of government and incidentally adding to inflation and leading to recession.

Conservatives are diverse within the party, which is evidenced by our presidential hopefuls. They are widely divergent; in fact so divergent it creates a problem for us as a whole.

The libs, on the other hand, seem to embrace whole heartedly the same themes across the board. And you can see THAT evidenced not only in their candidates, but on this board. They voice the same opinions, they accept on faith certain liberal precepts (acceptance of social programs, the labeling and recognition of separate races/sexualities in the name of diversity and affirmative action, criticism of the state while implementing strategies to increase the bureacracy....)

 

[Shogun]

Conservatives are diverse within the party, which is evidenced by our presidential hopefuls.




yeaaa.. OK.

 

[AllieBaba]

Another brilliant comment.

Honestly, do you work? Or are you just wasting time between batterers intervention classes?

 

[Shogun]

Are you looking for a boyfriend, or something?


poor girl... Perhaps you should not get defensive when people laugh at a joke like "thats why our candidates are diverse"!

 

[AllieBaba]

Hey, you know me. As a homophobic survivor of domestic violence, I'm only interested in men who are willing to knock me around. Though I'm sure you think I'd deserve it. Either way, it's the same persona.

You fit that bill? Somehow, I suspect you do.

 

[Shogun]

no, I don't think you HATE gays, allie. But I do suspect that you are willing to disregard their American experience in inequality just because YOU are not convinced that biology has a part to play in their sexuality. I DO suspect that you have a very limited exposure to gays in general and would certainly benefit from finding a couple to add to your friends list. if you are going to throw bombs you need to be able to handle it when they fly back at you. If you can assume that I am one who attends Batterers intervention class then don't be suprised when I ask you to stop flirting with me.

 

[Doug]

MidCan: I was not speaking of racial or sexual diversity, but of political diversity.

Several times on this Board I have said things like "liberals believe" or the like, and certain people have objected, saying that liberals cannot be lumped together into one group.

So I wanted to offer ya'll the opportunity to set me straight.

Now, if in fact liberals are a pretty politically-homogeneous group, which is what it looks like to me, that's fine.

As I said, there is nothing particularly virtuous in having lots of disagreements ... or particularly wicked about political homogeneity.

Only when potential dissenters are driven out of the fold, should we question the group's political health.

This doesn't address the relationship of liberals, to those further Left. I would like to raise this in another thread. In any case, this one seems to have run dry.

 

[Shogun]

would you consider me a lefty, Doug?


let's start there.


ps, I think your original nomenclature for a "diverse" conservative group is poorly grouped but I don't care what your looking glass self shows you.Sounded like a car salesman pointing out BRAND new windshield wipers on a lemon.

 

[AllieBaba]

no, I don't think you HATE gays, allie. But I do suspect that you are willing to disregard their American experience in inequality just because YOU are not convinced that biology has a part to play in their sexuality. I DO suspect that you have a very limited exposure to gays in general and would certainly benefit from finding a couple to add to your friends list. if you are going to throw bombs you need to be able to handle it when they fly back at you. If you can assume that I am one who attends Batterers intervention class then don't be suprised when I ask you to stop flirting with me.

Wrong again. Though I'm not sure what you mean by disregarding their American experience in inequality. You need to be more specific.

And while I'm not gay myself, no, my experience isn't limited. Though I'm not sure exactly what you mean by limited. My experience is fairly extensive, given my background.

 

[Shogun]

given your background?

hehehe.. I guess seeing a pair of gay men in a fast food rester aunt after graduating from bob jones U. counts then, eh?

 

[Doug]

Shogun: I don't know much about your politics, and since, as you say, you don't take this on-line stuff very seriously, I don't see how I could know for sure. Perhaps you can reveal them now.

However, I have a Rough Guide to the left-of-center, which you can use, or not, as you choose, to describe yourself.

It's a tree:

First branch: one one side, call it Left-I, those on the left who believe the United States, and more generally the European democracies, are the basic cause of the world's misery. Poverty in Brazil, dictatorships in Africa, oppression among Arabs ... it's the West's fault. On this branch you will find all of the Marxist groups, many of the official peace groups, people like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, and many others. The Nation magazine falls here, too, although they have a few sensible columnists. But mostly I believe the people who write for them see the American flag, for example, as standing for jingoism and vengeance and war. That's a neat way to encapsulate, symbolically, this branch: the American flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war.

Now this group of people are themselves divided: there are those whose solution to the terrible cancer of capitalist imperialism, led by the United States, is totalitarianism. They loved Stalin, Mao, Ho, and Castro. They look hopefully to Chavez in Venezuela. For them, equality trumps liberty. Generally they want some form of socialist totalitarianism, although a few are happy to hail the Islamists as a flawed version of the anti-Western revolt they hope to see. These people are again divided up into various sects and trends, Trotskyists, Maoists, orthodox Communists, you name it Most are in no group today. Call this group Left-I-A, .

In group Left-I-B, are those who believe that capitalism is the curse of the world and must be destroyed, who agree that the American flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war, but who are not totalitarians. When a dissident is imprisoned in Cuba, these people will sign petititon in her favor. Zinn and Chomsky fall into this group, and we should give them credit for it. However, they are easily swayed and led by Left-I-A types, who are much better organized.

Then there is the other main branch: call them Left-II. Left-II are the genuine liberals. They have their criticisms of capitalism, especially its red-in-tooth-and-claw incarnation, and they are by no means thoughtless celebrants of everything the American goverment does and has done in the world. But they know that capitalism, tempered in various ways by democracy and its laws, is the worst system in the world, except for all the others. They don't think the flag necessarily stands for jingoism and vengeance and war, although they probably think it has been used that way on occasion. They don't hate their country, and know that, for all its faults, the United States has been a great force for good in the world.

Now, there are, in this simplistic view, some obvious complications. Here are a couple:

(1) Liberal does not equal Democrat. Both liberals and conservatives are political minorities in America. To get our ideas implemented, we must support political parties which necessarily try to appeal to the people who are neither liberal nor conservative. Thus no true liberal, and no true conservative, is ever going to be entirely happy with the Democratic and Republican parties respectively.

And contrariwise, when true liberals and true conservatives stand for office as Democrats and Republicans, they usually temper, or moderate, or outright hide their true political beliefs. Liberals in the Democratic Party downplay gun control right now; no conservative Republican would dare propose that we abolish the minimum wage.

(2) There are innumerable overlaps among all these groups; and things are dynamic and change over time. Many individuals on the Left contain some elements of beliefs from all three groupings. This sort of confusion is inevitable when dealing with any social groups defined by multiple criteria.

And there is another important thing: except for the far left Marxist groups, liberalism is not really defined by a set of well-worked-out ideas. There is no liberal ideology.

Liberalism is basically a generous concern for the underdog, with the idea that an indefinite expansion of the state can remedy things for said underdog, usually by some forced transfer of income from the successful in society to the unsuccessful.

But, since liberals have no well-worked out set of ideas about society, history, or human nature, they are easily led to support alien causes. Irving Kristol noted that liberals are incapable of opposing any political movement which is itself supported by large numbers of poor people. In the 1930s in the US, liberals were very vulnerable to manipulation by the Soviet Fifth Column here. Examples provided on request.

Liberals are nature's optimists. And they see little of value in traditions, customs, and social institutions which come down from the past: they want to examine these in the light of Pure Reason, and see if any of these customs, traditions, and institutions are offending or oppressing anyone, and if they are, dismantle them.

Liberals definitely have some admirable traits, and conservatives should acknowledge them. Liberals are much more alert to injustice than we are, and quicker to embrace positive change. But they have the vices of their virtues: they are sometimes easily fooled by people crying "injustice," and some of the changes they have embraced in the past turned out not to be very positive at all.

If I could build my very own political movement, I would try to construct one with both liberal and conservative virtues. Alas, this is probably inherently impossible, and so we must let the clumsy adversary process of struggle between these two tendencies take its course.