March 6, 2009
BOOK REVIEW: Alan Wolfe Wants Liberals to Take Pride in the 'L Word,' Defend Their Faith Against Conservative Onslaughts, Eschew 'Progressive' Moniker
By David M. Kinchen
Huntingtonnews.net Book Critic
In his comprehensive book on liberalism, "The Future of Liberalism" (Knopf, 352 pages, $25.95), Alan Wolfe urges his fellow liberal true believers to take pride in the L Word, telling them not to hide behind the currently fashionable word "progressive."
My friend Joseph J. Honick, a contributing columnist to this site, says: "I believe that labels are for whiskey bottles and medicine bottles. Are free markets free? Do conservatives conserve?"
Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College, asserts that liberalism is the dominant political philosophy in the nation and that liberals should avoid calling themselves "progressives." He quotes Neil Jumonville and Kevin Mattson, "liberals themselves, [who] have written in their introduction to 'Liberals for a New Century': "The situation has become so bad that some in America are seeking a new term for liberalism: 'progressivism.' But this move is mistaken. The term liberalism should be championed today and reinvigorated as a source of pride and a reminder of Americans' connection to basic values that stretch back centuries. To avoid the moniker is to run from the past, and liberals have no reason to do so."
Wolfe says that progressivism reminds people of the "days of Woodrow Wilson and others who once adopted the label, [and] it would take liberals back to a political agenda too convinced of its own moral superiority and to hostile to civil liberties to serve the needs of an open and dynamic society. If liberals run away from their own tradition by hiding behind other labels, they will hardly be in a position to make the case for liberalism's relevance to both to their own times and the future."
That's a good point: Wilson may be an icon of the Democratic Party, but he resegregated the Federal government when he was inaugurated in 1913, turning back the reforms of liberal presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, both Republicans. His actions in bringing the U.S. into a European war we had no business in was attacked by the liberals of the time. His attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, engaged in red baiting that rivaled that of Joe McCarthy decades later, and his raids against those who opposed the war and the later effort to crush the Bolsheviks in Russia far exceeded anything done in subsequent administrations.
Yes, Republicans can be liberals, Wolfe writes, citing Chief Justice Earl Warren, appointed by a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and liberal decisions of the Warren Court, especially the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education that declared segregated public schools unconstitutional.
Maybe the sage of Bainbridge Island, WA, Joe Honick, is right about labels. Far leftists aren't liberals, despite the far right's propensity to lump the two together. Far leftists and extreme rightists have much in common, Wolfe says, in their demonization of liberals.
Wolfe writes that he deliberately ended his book before last November's election "to underscore the point that liberalism's future is not dependent on the success of any one politician. Still should Barack Obama be the next president. the question of what liberals should do once in office will require an answer."
One of the answers came this week when Obama appointed an experienced Florida man to head FEMA; Wolfe is unrelenting in his criticism of George W. Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina when the FEMA chief, Michael D. Brown, was a political appointee with no experience in handling disaster relief. Obama's nominee, W. Craig Fugate, has been director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management since 2001 and is credited with steering the state through some of the most devastating hurricane seasons in recent history, according to news stories.
I personally don't think the federal government was entirely to blame for the sluggish response to Katrina; then Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco -- a Democrat and a liberal -- deserves much of the blame. She's mentioned in Wolfe's book, although another culprit, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, is not. Still, Wolfe makes sound arguments about the response of the Bush administration to the 2005 natural disaster on the Louisiana-Mississippi Gulf coast.
He also contrasts the Katrina response of Bush with the professionalism of Bill Clinton's FEMA director, James Lee Witt, especially in his agency's quick response to the Northridge earthquake of 1994, which devastated much of Los Angeles. "For Clinton, as well as for Witt, government at its best was not an entitlement program run amok but a continuation of the efforts of FDR and LBJ to use government as an instrument of public purpose," Wolfe says.
Wolfe discusses Katrina in Chapter 8, "Why Conservatives Can't Govern." That's a very provocative, stick-in-the-eye title and portions of the chapter were originally published in The Washington Monthly, Wolfe says. For those not familiar with that publication, it's a very liberal magazine, founded in 1969 by Charleston, WV native Charlie Peters, who still writes a column. I recommend it as the liberal counterpart of conservatism's National Review.
Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, icons of conservativism, demonstrated scorn for government, while liberal icons such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and his disciple Lyndon B. Johnson believed in the power of government, Wolfe writes. "The unifying element behind many of the reforms passed during the period of the Great Society [Johnson's answer to FDR's New Deal] was the same liberal impetus that had characterized the New Deal individuals, through the government, could gain some degree of mastery over their lives."
If you're into history and philosophy, "The Future of Liberalism" will be a delight. I found it an engrossing book, but I tend toward policy wonkism. If you're not that into history and philosophy -- although you should be -- read the first chapter that sets the stage; Chapter 8 cited above and the final chapter, "Liberalism's Promise."
You might also want to read Chapter 6, "How Liberals Should Think About Religion."
Many liberals -- as well as libertarians -- are appalled by the excesses of organized religion, Wolfe says. They often share the views of critics of religion like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, wondering how modern people can still believe in "adult fairy tales." In keeping with his centrist, moderate view of liberalism, Wolfe suggests that liberals engage the religious faithful in a sincere dialogue.
"Liberals, in the name of openness" he writes, "[should] defend the rights of the faithful to believe as they best see fit, even if some of the more aggressive believers would, if they had the power, extend no such such rights to them..."
Apropos of this issue, far leftists, in their AlterNet blog, already are attacking the emphasis on religion in the fledgling Obama administration (link: http://www.alternet.org/rights/129920/is_obama_bringing_too_much_religion_into_the_white_house/). They argue that even born-again Christian George W. Bush didn't go as far as Obama has already done in using "vetted" prayers in the White House.
This debate over liberals and religious believers reminded me of a book I read and reviewed last fall on this site, "Progressive & Religious," by Robert P. Jones. (Link to my review: http://www.huntingtonnews.net/columns/081014-kinchen-columnsbookreview.html). Although Jones uses the "P Word" instead of the "L Word," to describe liberals, he makes excellent points about Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and others who are also political liberals in this most diverse and tolerant nation when it comes to religious beliefs. I recommend Jones' book as a companion volume to Wolfe's.
By examining the historical and philosophical basis of both classical and contemporary liberalism, Wolfe does a great service to both scholarship and the understanding of an important political movement. The book is fully annotated and has a comprehensive index -- something we can't take for granted in these days of editorial cutbacks. Conservatives and leftists might not like some of the arguments presented in "The Future of Liberalism," but serious readers will find it an important book.
About the Author: Alan Wolfe is a professor of political science of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College. He's the author of "Does American Democracy Still Work?" among many other books, and is a contributor to The New Republic, The Wilson Quarterly, The Atlantic Monthly and The Washington Post.
Publisher's web site: www.aaknopf.com
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
BOOK REVIEW: Alan Wolfe Wants Liberals to Take Pride in the 'L Word,' Defend Their Faith Against Conservative Onslaughts, Eschew 'Progressive' Moniker
By David M. Kinchen
Huntingtonnews.net Book Critic
In his comprehensive book on liberalism, "The Future of Liberalism" (Knopf, 352 pages, $25.95), Alan Wolfe urges his fellow liberal true believers to take pride in the L Word, telling them not to hide behind the currently fashionable word "progressive."
My friend Joseph J. Honick, a contributing columnist to this site, says: "I believe that labels are for whiskey bottles and medicine bottles. Are free markets free? Do conservatives conserve?"
Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College, asserts that liberalism is the dominant political philosophy in the nation and that liberals should avoid calling themselves "progressives." He quotes Neil Jumonville and Kevin Mattson, "liberals themselves, [who] have written in their introduction to 'Liberals for a New Century': "The situation has become so bad that some in America are seeking a new term for liberalism: 'progressivism.' But this move is mistaken. The term liberalism should be championed today and reinvigorated as a source of pride and a reminder of Americans' connection to basic values that stretch back centuries. To avoid the moniker is to run from the past, and liberals have no reason to do so."
Wolfe says that progressivism reminds people of the "days of Woodrow Wilson and others who once adopted the label, [and] it would take liberals back to a political agenda too convinced of its own moral superiority and to hostile to civil liberties to serve the needs of an open and dynamic society. If liberals run away from their own tradition by hiding behind other labels, they will hardly be in a position to make the case for liberalism's relevance to both to their own times and the future."
That's a good point: Wilson may be an icon of the Democratic Party, but he resegregated the Federal government when he was inaugurated in 1913, turning back the reforms of liberal presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, both Republicans. His actions in bringing the U.S. into a European war we had no business in was attacked by the liberals of the time. His attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, engaged in red baiting that rivaled that of Joe McCarthy decades later, and his raids against those who opposed the war and the later effort to crush the Bolsheviks in Russia far exceeded anything done in subsequent administrations.
Yes, Republicans can be liberals, Wolfe writes, citing Chief Justice Earl Warren, appointed by a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and liberal decisions of the Warren Court, especially the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education that declared segregated public schools unconstitutional.
Maybe the sage of Bainbridge Island, WA, Joe Honick, is right about labels. Far leftists aren't liberals, despite the far right's propensity to lump the two together. Far leftists and extreme rightists have much in common, Wolfe says, in their demonization of liberals.
Wolfe writes that he deliberately ended his book before last November's election "to underscore the point that liberalism's future is not dependent on the success of any one politician. Still should Barack Obama be the next president. the question of what liberals should do once in office will require an answer."
One of the answers came this week when Obama appointed an experienced Florida man to head FEMA; Wolfe is unrelenting in his criticism of George W. Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina when the FEMA chief, Michael D. Brown, was a political appointee with no experience in handling disaster relief. Obama's nominee, W. Craig Fugate, has been director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management since 2001 and is credited with steering the state through some of the most devastating hurricane seasons in recent history, according to news stories.
I personally don't think the federal government was entirely to blame for the sluggish response to Katrina; then Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco -- a Democrat and a liberal -- deserves much of the blame. She's mentioned in Wolfe's book, although another culprit, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, is not. Still, Wolfe makes sound arguments about the response of the Bush administration to the 2005 natural disaster on the Louisiana-Mississippi Gulf coast.
He also contrasts the Katrina response of Bush with the professionalism of Bill Clinton's FEMA director, James Lee Witt, especially in his agency's quick response to the Northridge earthquake of 1994, which devastated much of Los Angeles. "For Clinton, as well as for Witt, government at its best was not an entitlement program run amok but a continuation of the efforts of FDR and LBJ to use government as an instrument of public purpose," Wolfe says.
Wolfe discusses Katrina in Chapter 8, "Why Conservatives Can't Govern." That's a very provocative, stick-in-the-eye title and portions of the chapter were originally published in The Washington Monthly, Wolfe says. For those not familiar with that publication, it's a very liberal magazine, founded in 1969 by Charleston, WV native Charlie Peters, who still writes a column. I recommend it as the liberal counterpart of conservatism's National Review.
Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, icons of conservativism, demonstrated scorn for government, while liberal icons such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and his disciple Lyndon B. Johnson believed in the power of government, Wolfe writes. "The unifying element behind many of the reforms passed during the period of the Great Society [Johnson's answer to FDR's New Deal] was the same liberal impetus that had characterized the New Deal individuals, through the government, could gain some degree of mastery over their lives."
If you're into history and philosophy, "The Future of Liberalism" will be a delight. I found it an engrossing book, but I tend toward policy wonkism. If you're not that into history and philosophy -- although you should be -- read the first chapter that sets the stage; Chapter 8 cited above and the final chapter, "Liberalism's Promise."
You might also want to read Chapter 6, "How Liberals Should Think About Religion."
Many liberals -- as well as libertarians -- are appalled by the excesses of organized religion, Wolfe says. They often share the views of critics of religion like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, wondering how modern people can still believe in "adult fairy tales." In keeping with his centrist, moderate view of liberalism, Wolfe suggests that liberals engage the religious faithful in a sincere dialogue.
"Liberals, in the name of openness" he writes, "[should] defend the rights of the faithful to believe as they best see fit, even if some of the more aggressive believers would, if they had the power, extend no such such rights to them..."
Apropos of this issue, far leftists, in their AlterNet blog, already are attacking the emphasis on religion in the fledgling Obama administration (link: http://www.alternet.org/rights/129920/is_obama_bringing_too_much_religion_into_the_white_house/). They argue that even born-again Christian George W. Bush didn't go as far as Obama has already done in using "vetted" prayers in the White House.
This debate over liberals and religious believers reminded me of a book I read and reviewed last fall on this site, "Progressive & Religious," by Robert P. Jones. (Link to my review: http://www.huntingtonnews.net/columns/081014-kinchen-columnsbookreview.html). Although Jones uses the "P Word" instead of the "L Word," to describe liberals, he makes excellent points about Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and others who are also political liberals in this most diverse and tolerant nation when it comes to religious beliefs. I recommend Jones' book as a companion volume to Wolfe's.
By examining the historical and philosophical basis of both classical and contemporary liberalism, Wolfe does a great service to both scholarship and the understanding of an important political movement. The book is fully annotated and has a comprehensive index -- something we can't take for granted in these days of editorial cutbacks. Conservatives and leftists might not like some of the arguments presented in "The Future of Liberalism," but serious readers will find it an important book.
About the Author: Alan Wolfe is a professor of political science of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College. He's the author of "Does American Democracy Still Work?" among many other books, and is a contributor to The New Republic, The Wilson Quarterly, The Atlantic Monthly and The Washington Post.
Publisher's web site: www.aaknopf.com
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
