# Is classic American liberalism dead? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174 "2005-02-27T19:52:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/61 "2005-03-02T03:46:02Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > However, **ITR champion** , you did some selective quoting yourself on the Derbyshire column. You don’t get to call the Times on this unless you correct this error. > > Failing to do so would be hypocrisy, don’t you think? I suppose you are referring to post #11. I already defended #11 in post #17, and I will let each of our esteemed dopers decide for themselves whether or not I visciously misrepresented what Mr. Derbyshire wrote. Beyond that, this thread seems to have devolved into a circular shouting match, so I believe I’ll bow out. Good day. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/62 "2005-03-02T04:00:51Z")
I have been an atheist since my teens, about thirty years ago. Although I have reservations about the whole concept of measuring intelligence as a single quality, I know some people I consider extremely intelligent who practice things that I would call superstition. Whether they do so because they really believe it affects them (and/or the universe), to keep peace in the family, or to imbue in their children some respect for authority greater than themselves, I don’t know. (FWIW, I came close to marrying one of these people). They were almost always raised to believe in the power of these things, or some related practices (in contrast to my parents, who held very divergent beliefs). > [@I Love Me](#): > > I don’t know any extremely intelligent people that believe in superstition as a real force that affects them or the Universe at large. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/63 "2005-03-02T21:52:21Z")
> [@I Love Me](#): > > I’m OK with people not wanting to open their umbrellas inside or choosing not to walk under ladders, but if public (or even most private) policy starts to be dictated or affected by these beliefs then I think we’re in trouble. > > It is an entirely different discussion whether one’s religious beliefs are as dubious as common superstitions such as those mentioned above. I know some extremely intelligent people who are atheists and assert that since they have never heard of or seen any evidence of a God they don’t believe in one. > > I also know some extremely intelligent people that DO believe in a God; usually as a idea representitive of universal forces currently impossible to understand. > > I don’t know any extremely intelligent people that believe in superstition as a real force that affects them or the Universe at large. Ronald Reagan, as president, regularly consulted with an astrologer. That impresses me as silly, but mostly harmless. Bush II, OTOH, by some accounts listens to Christians of the type who believe not only that we are living in the End Times, but that we should do everything we can to hurry the process along. Religion can be a **lot** more dangerous than mere superstition. From [http://www.kunstler.com/mags\_diary13.html:](http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary13.html:) > [@](#): > > February 21, 2005 > Last month media elder statesman Bill Moyers made a speech after receiving an award at Harvard in which he said that “born again” members of the Bush regime couldn’t possibly believe in the future if they truly subscribed to the doctrines of Pentecostal Christianity – since its theology includes the notion that the world has entered an “end times” scenario as described in the the Book of Revelations. Moyers went further, implying that people who explicitly and programmatically don’t believe in the future have no business running a government, the chief task of which is safeguarding the future. > Friends of mine are alarmed about the rise of the Pentecostals and evangelicals. Personally, I think there is going to be a hearty backlash against them. It is beginning to look too obvious that they don’t care about several crucial aspects of the human project in its current form. They don’t care about global warming. They don’t care about the gathering world energy crisis. They don’t care about America’s phony economy based on ever more suburban development. At the secondary level, they don’t care about basic medical research, they don’t care about protecting the nation’s borders, they don’t care about corporate depradations against communities and workers, they don’t care about the growing obscene gap between the rich and the poor. > This apocalyptic religion has risen out of the Sunbelt, out of those very parts of the country that have most enjoyed hyper-turbo-mega prosperity during the high tide of the cheap oil era. Perhaps their dark vision is an apprehension that the things they have benefited from so hugely are indeed coming to an end – easy motoring and cheap air conditioning, to name two biggies. But are they so dumb that no other way of life is even conceivable to them? > One of the dirty secrets of our time is that a large group of relatively stupid people were able to thrive in the growth medium of a cheap energy economy. People who had emerged blinking from agricultural serfdom in the 1950s found themselves, within a generation, making millions whacking together suburban houses and selling Chevrolets to other people like them. It is no accident that the main activity of televangelism is, literally, money-grubbing, or that so many of the branches of this degraded Christianity are preoccupied with unearned riches. It is also not an accident that no major spokesperson of the “born again” sector has made a peep about Las Vegas, or against legalized gambling anywhere in the country – in fact, this New Christianity represents the Las Vegas-ization of religion per se, faith in the idea that it is possible to get something for nothing, an idea which is generally only believed in by stupid people or little children, an idea that is deeply pernicious to the human project. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2005, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/64 "2005-03-05T19:20:55Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > To get back to the original post, I think American liberalism isn’t dead so much as currently stuck in the past. LIke an aging hippie (or Fidel Castro), American liberalism seems to be unable to get past the “glory days” of the 1960s. The classic liberal view is that America had started down the road to utopia, until the Reagan-Bush counterrevolution derailed progressivism. I think that if liberals want to become relevant again, the answer isn’t yet another chorus of “We Shall Overcome”. There’s definitely something to this. At some point, the left became very divisive and addicted to publicity, or at least nefariousness. I recall women in college in the 1980s who believed that you could not understand “real” feminism unless you were a rape vicitm. I also recall those who measured their contributions to society in terms of the number of times they had been arrested at anti-whatever rallies. Neither of these is productive. Also not productive was the idea that one could “withhold” one’s vote in protest of the Democratic Party’s failure to embrace one’s pet stance on some issue (even if you agrred with the rest of their platform), and have it make some sort of positive difference. That’s how the left lost the Democratic Party. Now the left has no real national-level voice of any strength in American politics. The left needs to give up its love of public protest in favor of actual effective action. The number of situations where public demonstration works is nowhere near as large as much of the activist left seems to think. Lunch counter sit-ins? I’ve seen a film clip, and my god, what a powerful image: a whole community heaping verbal and physical abuse on a person who just sat there. Very clearly laid out who the good and bad guys were there. But that led to a metastisization of whatever-ins that served no such purpose. Bus Boycotts? Worked because the businesses that suddenly saw a drop in customers who were no longer taking the bus to them raised a stink. But unless you can organize a boycott that has similar economic impact, your boycott is merely symbolic, a point which escapes many of today’s liberals. Viet Nam Era anti-war protests? If you’re 18 years old in 1968, and the government says you must go risk your life because they thinks Viet Nam was a good idea, and you don’t even get to vote for the people who make these shitheaded decisions, taking to the streets is one of few remaining options for voicing your disapproval. Once the draft ended and and the voting age dropped, anti-war demonstrations became a curiosity, a movement with no teeth. The same can be said for any number of public protests simply designed to be a show of numbers, rather than putting those numbers to work exploring avenues of real change. Every college student who attends a rally but doesn’t vote is an idiot. The left needs to re-learn how to get the forces that control what they want to change turn to their way of thinking, rather than just scream at the world. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/65 "2005-03-07T02:16:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Ronald Reagan, as president, regularly consulted with an astrologer. Cite? IIRC, that was Nancay, not Ron. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/66 "2005-03-07T02:39:22Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Cite? > > IIRC, that was Nancay, not Ron. Ron too. [http://www.presidentialufo.com/sydney\_omarr%2C\_reagan%2C\_and\_astrology.htm](http://www.presidentialufo.com/sydney_omarr%2C_reagan%2C_and_astrology.htm) ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/67 "2005-03-07T03:03:59Z")
I’m an atheist – I have as much belief in astrology as I do that Jesus rose from the dead – i.e., none. I consider an elected offical’s belief in either of these a neutral thing – and harmless… \*until he makes an important decision using this wacky belief as a guide. \* To my knowledge, Ronald Reagan never did this (although it appears Nancy did). Correct me if I’m wrong. E.g., I am a diehard blues fan, who has driven 1000 miles to sing at gravesites of dead performers. But I would have real problems voting for someone who announced their intention to do this for guidance. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Ronald Reagan, as president, regularly consulted with an astrologer. That impresses me as silly, but mostly harmless. Bush II, OTOH, by some accounts listens to Christians of the type who believe not only that we are living in the End Times, but that we should do everything we can to hurry the process along. Religion can be a **lot** more dangerous than mere superstition. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/68 "2005-03-07T03:39:33Z")
Well, if “[Presidentialufo.com](http://Presidentialufo.com)” says it, it must be true. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/69 "2005-03-07T03:45:51Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Well, if “[Presidentialufo.com](http://Presidentialufo.com)” says it, it must be true. It was widely reported at the time and Reagan never denied it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/70 "2005-03-07T04:50:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It was widely reported at the time and Reagan never denied it. If it was widely reported, then it should be easy for you to provide a reliable cite. It’s interesting that you are so ready to believe the wildest rumors about almost any Republican, and yet demand cites, for example, when Sam stated in your recent thread that Syria was behind the recent assasination in Lebanon. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/71 "2005-03-07T04:51:57Z")
**Moto** , John Derbyshire himself admitted that the viewpoint expressed in that first column was _low, contemptible, mean-spirited_ and even a little irrational. Does that style of political humor appeal to you? In your opinion as a former Republican leader, does it appeal to most Republicans you know? Most Conservatives? I’m sorry to see that the standards for the NO have sunk so low. I used to read it to get insights into intelligent opposing viewpoints. I hope that some of our Dopers from across the pond are offended that he tries to rationalize his bad taste by explaining that he was born in Great Britain. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/72 "2005-03-07T05:19:31Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > If it was widely reported, then it should be easy for you to provide a reliable cite. This is the first time since the story broke in 1988 that I have encountered or even heard of any slightest expression of doubt that Reagan consulted astrologers – something which, as I noted previously, Reagan never denied. But try this one – [http://www.parascope.com/articles/0497/reagan01.htm:](http://www.parascope.com/articles/0497/reagan01.htm:) > [@](#): > > In May 1988, the crushing liabilities of Iran-Contra, the bloated national debt and Reagan’s faltering mental acuity were joined by a new revelation: that for the previous seven years of his administration, the president’s every important action had been orchestrated by Nancy Reagan’s astrologer, Joan Quigley. > > \ > > Nonetheless, it must be said that the mass media are guilty of blowing this story out of proportion and leaving misconceptions about the Reagan astrologer in the popular consciousness. People have been led to believe that Quigley had a personal say in Oval Office decision making, that she maintained direct contact with the president, and was responsible for developing and implementing policy according to the heavens. As best we can tell, this was never the case. > > Quigley’s actual role in White House operations, though very real and influential, was by no means the all-encompassing stranglehold on the Executive Branch it has been made out to be. Still, the exact scope of her influence remains elusive, known only to two people: Quigley and Nancy Reagan. > > For seven years, these women pulled off the dizzyingly impossible task of keeping a secret in the single most monitored and media-scrutinized place on earth. White House aide Michael Deaver knew about the astrologer and carried out her instructions, as did chief of staff Donald Regan later on. And Reagan himself knew about Quigley’s influence, although not from the beginning. Other than those few people, no one had any idea what what going on. When Don Regan spilled the beans in his vengeful 1988 memoirs, For the Record, he was so in the dark he didn’t even know Quigley’s name. If not for Regan’s bitter expulsion from the Reagan administration, the entire secret of Nancy’s stargazing “Friend” might still be intact today. > > \ > > Quigley was a longtime consultant to Nancy Reagan, the two having been introduced by TV’s Merv Griffin sometime in the '70s. Quigley contributed astrological advice during Ron’s 1976 bid for the Republican nomination, although she was not heavily involved with the Reagans until the 1980 campaign. Once they made it to the White House, Nancy’s association with Quigley increased dramatically – as did Quigley’s control over Mr. Reagan’s day-to-day routine. During the campaign Quigley volunteered her services, but after the inauguration she began charging a sizable fee, somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 per month. > > What exactly did Quigley do for this kind of money? In short, she devised laboriously detailed charts indicating which dates and times were good for the president and which were bad, according to his horoscope. Certain times were deemed ideal for action and supposedly ensured success; others were unsuitable and invited disaster. Unlike the daily generalities offered by newspaper horoscopes, Quigley’s readings were calibrated down to the exact hour and minute. > > In the course of their regular telephone sessions, Nancy would list her husband’s upcoming itinerary, and the San Francisco-based astrologer would calculate the proper timing each significant event required to achieve optimum harmony with planetary influences. Nancy then passed along these scheduling requirements to the White House staff, with the absolute demand that they be carried out. For the most part, the instructions were followed. Don Regan summed up his strange duty in this passage from his memoirs: > > “Although I had never met this seer – Mrs. Reagan passed along her prognostications to me after conferring with her on the telephone – she had become such a factor in my work, and in the highest affairs of the nation, that at one point I kept a color-coded calendar on my desk (numerals highlighted in green ink for “good” days, red for “bad” days, yellow for “iffy” days) as an aid to remembering when it was propitious to move the president of the United States from one place to another, or schedule him to speak in public, or commence negotiations with a foreign power.” > > Thus, Quigley had full control over the appointment book of the most powerful man in the free world. Or, as Quigley would prefer to put it, the astrological forces of the cosmos did. > > That, apparently, was the extent of Quigley’s sway in the Reagan White House. Contrary to popular belief, she was not using star charts to conjure up foreign policy or outline the federal budget. All decisions on policies, strategies and agendas were made by Reagan and his staff prior to Quigley’s input. The only thing she contributed was the timing of these actions: when to make announcements, when to arrange summits, when to schedule the departures and arrivals of Air Force One. > > So does that mean the whole Quigley affair was not really that big a deal? Not exactly. Even by simply scheduling events, she made countless impacts on the Reagan presidency. In giving arbitrary astrological requirements priority over meaningful considerations, the White House could have seriously imperiled the president many times over. His personal safety, which Quigley professed to be ensuring, could have been compromised whenever security preparations were altered to accommodate her schedule. And then there’s the question of timing the president’s actions for maximum political effectiveness. Like I said – silly, but mostly harmless. To this day, Joan Quigley touts herself as a “Presidential Astrologer.” [http://www.joanquigley.net/flashindex.html](http://www.joanquigley.net/flashindex.html) > [@John Mace](#): > > It’s interesting that you are so ready to believe the wildest rumors about almost any Republican, and yet demand cites, for example, when Sam stated in your recent thread that Syria was behind the recent assasination in Lebanon. But **nobody** has yet found any proof as to who was behind that. Everybody blames Syria because the motive is obvious. But any man in public life makes many enemies, especially in the Middle East. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/73 "2005-03-07T05:23:55Z")
Bush’s association with the Christian Right, OTOH, is **not** harmless. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/74 "2005-03-07T13:35:55Z")
Gee, the author is some cypher named D. Trull on a paranormal web site. And further cites are from someone with an obvious stake in the story. When someone asks for a cite, they typically don’t mean crap like this, **BrainGlutton**. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/75 "2005-03-07T13:42:34Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > And further cites are from someone with an obvious stake in the story. You don’t believe Donald Regan? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/76 "2005-03-07T13:52:41Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > **Moto** , John Derbyshire himself admitted that the viewpoint expressed in that first column was _low, contemptible, mean-spirited_ and even a little irrational. > > Does that style of political humor appeal to you? In your opinion as a former Republican leader, does it appeal to most Republicans you know? Most Conservatives? > > I hope that some of our Dopers from across the pond are offended that he tries to rationalize his bad taste by explaining that he was born in Great Britain. It may have been a little over the top. Of course, it was probably in bad taste to make figures of fun out of Hitler and Torquemada. That didn’t stop a group of Brits and and American comedian from doing just that. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/77 "2005-03-07T14:51:03Z")
Does it matter that Chelsea Clinton hasn’t done anything _quite_ as bad as did Hitler or Torquemada? :rolleyes: > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > It may have been a little over the top. > > Of course, it was probably in bad taste to make figures of fun out of Hitler and Torquemada. That didn’t stop a group of Brits and and American comedian from doing just that. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/78 "2005-03-07T15:11:45Z")
Well, since it has been shown that Derbyshire in fact wasn’t calling for Chelsea Clinton’s murder, then no, no difference. Public figures can be figures of public entertainment, and Chelsea Clinton had achieved her majority when the column was written. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/79 "2005-03-07T15:14:28Z")
Press me on this, and I will present vast quantities of supposed “humor” about the Bush twins, and invite folks here to explicitly disavow it along those same lines. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174/80 "2005-03-07T22:50:02Z")
Regarding any humor as petty and venal as Derbyshire’s column on Chelsea, but directed at the Bush twins: I wholeheartedly disavow it as… petty and venal. To comply with your request that I do so ‘explicitly’, I will also refrain from any qualifiers, like saying that “it may be a little over the top”, or speculating that it might be all right because we’ve made fun of Hitler in the past. I probably won’t even think it’s funny, since I’m not full of hatred for the Bush twins (hell, I voted for their old man four years ago) the way Derbyshire is for the Clintons. Friends? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-classic-american-liberalism-dead/292174.md?page=5)