Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[Meathead]

Indeed, liberalism was part and parcel of atrocities going back to Robespierre and the French Revolution. We seen a lot more liberal fun stuff in Russia, Cambodia, China to name just a few. Radicalism invariably result when liberalism goes unchecked. Imagine Obama and Holder unchecked by the constitution and congress.

 

[Foxfyre]

Indeed, liberalism was part and parcel of atrocities going back to Robespierre and the French Revolution. We seen a lot more liberal fun stuff in Russia, Cambodia, China to name just a few. Radicalism invariably result when liberalism goes unchecked. Imagine Obama and Holder unchecked by the constitution and congress.

Certainly Russia, Cambodia, Red China et al are the most glaring examples of failed leftist policies. But I think we have to be fair that modern day American liberalism does not intend to create those kinds of governments/societies and by and large doesn't believe their philosophy would produce anything like that.

Modern day American liberalism sees itself as noble, virtuous, honorable, and liberating. But among its shortcoming, IMO, just as happened in those "communist' countries, is that in forcing people to accept its version of noble, virtuous, honorable, liberating etc., the very 'liberties' it promoes are in fact restricting, oppressive, destructive, and counter productive to liberty. And the end result is a less free, less happy, less productive, people with fewer options, choices, opportunities, and personal liberty.

If many Americans are seeing that as I see it, then liberalism indeed has worn itself out and is losing favor. But that is what the thesis of this thread is about. And those who disagree with Goldberg, with me, or any others who see it that way can have just as strong a case and are encouraged to make it.

I do think they need something more than gay marriage to make that case though.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Liberal and liberalism for purposes of this discussion is the concept as most people define it and use it in modern day America. It is liberalism as is synonymous with statism,

That is patently false and absurd.

Liberalism is NOT "synonymous with statism" and trying to make that inane connection exposes the entire OP as utterly fraudulent.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberal and liberalism for purposes of this discussion is the concept as most people define it and use it in modern day America. It is liberalism as is synonymous with statism,

That is patently false and absurd.

Liberalism is NOT "synonymous with statism" and trying to make that inane connection exposes the entire OP as utterly fraudulent.

Then start your own thread D.T. In this forum I get to make the rules for this one. And I did along with defining liberalism as I intended it to be defined in the OP.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Liberal and liberalism for purposes of this discussion is the concept as most people define it and use it in modern day America. It is liberalism as is synonymous with statism,

That is patently false and absurd.

Liberalism is NOT "synonymous with statism" and trying to make that inane connection exposes the entire OP as utterly fraudulent.

Then start your own thread D.T. In this forum I get to make the rules for this one. And I did along with defining liberalism as I intended it to be defined in the OP.

Nowhere in your OP did you say that "liberalism is synonymous with statism".

If you want to arbitrarily redefine the "OP Rules" whenever it suits you then yes, this entire thread is just a farce that makes a mockery of the debating rules and this experiment of yours is a complete and utter failure.

 

[Coyote]

Ok guys. Let's chill a bit. The rules are in the OP:

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.

I looked at the OP and the OP does not define liberalism as statism, therefore arguments opposing that definition are perfectly valid as long as the topic is not derailed and the rules above are complied with. Liberalism, like Conservatism have broad and sometimes contradictory definitions depending on who you act. In the interests of honest discussion, I respectfully submit that in order to discuss the topic fully, is liberalism exhausted, we must also be able to debate the definition itself.

 

[Coyote]

Additional thought here for those starting threads in this section - it might be helpful to define terms as you would have them understood for purposes of debate. People can then make the choice as to whether they want to engage or not.

We're all trying this out for the first time

 

[Foxfyre]

Understood Coyote. And of course I will bow to the ruling as stated.

Off topic explanation:

I will just point out that the OP did refer to liberalism as it is most commonly understood and used in modern day America. In retrospect I probably should have been more specific about my intent about that, but I didn't want to make the OP any more wordy than it already was and thereby be offputting to potentially interested participants. I trusted the members to understand how liberalism was being used in this discussion.

In subsequent posts I did make the point that liberalism as it is most commonly used in America today, and as I was using it, is synonymous with statism, Progressivism, political class, leftism. That was to clarify the intent of the OP in response to members insistance that it be clarified. Goldberg certainly was using it within that context. I can provide much scholarly support for that definition but chose to trust the members to understand that intent and not get bogged down in a food fight over specific wording and semantics as I believe there are members who will intentionally attempt to derail the discussion in that way.

I have no objection to members saying that they personally do not define liberalism that way but I object to members derailing the thread with an argument over what that definition has to be for purposes of this discussion.

 

[ralfy]

What amounts to the "left" in the U.S. is only superficial. In general, both political parties and citizens in general are dependent on consumer spending and increasing debt.

Welcome to USMB and the thread ralfy, and your point would likely make a good discussion but doesn't really address the topic of whether modern American liberalism is losing power, influence, or favor with the people. Or if you can show how a superficial left applies to that, go for it.

American liberalism is defined in the article in light of both superficial issues and important ones, such as health care and energy. Given that, liberalism is "exhausted" for the same reason as conservatism: four decades of incessant consumer spending and debt have run their course. Given that, it is likely that these superficial issues will be set aside as the country struggles to decrease spending and debt.

 

[Foxfyre]

What amounts to the "left" in the U.S. is only superficial. In general, both political parties and citizens in general are dependent on consumer spending and increasing debt.

Welcome to USMB and the thread ralfy, and your point would likely make a good discussion but doesn't really address the topic of whether modern American liberalism is losing power, influence, or favor with the people. Or if you can show how a superficial left applies to that, go for it.

American liberalism is defined in the article in light of both superficial issues and important ones, such as health care and energy. Given that, liberalism is "exhausted" for the same reason as conservatism: four decades of incessant consumer spending and debt have run their course. Given that, it is likely that these superficial issues will be set aside as the country struggles to decrease spending and debt.

But I don't see conservatism encouraging that incesseant consumer spending and debt. Among other things, modern day Conservatism as I understand it is a doctrine of paying your own way, earning what you have, being accountable for what you do, and suffering the consequences for the bad choices you make. I didn't see anything like that in Goldberg's criticisms or my interpretaton of his point.

Regardless of the political party who endorses and votes the spending, irresponsible spending and debt is not a conservative concept. IMO it is not a liberal concept either, but I think liberalism does not pay any attention to those consequences as it pushes an agenda that creates them.

But in defense of your thesis here, I have long said that the permanent political class in Washington no longer represents us, but exists to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And that comes from neither conservatism or liberalism but I believe is a very bad consequence of modern day liberal policy.

And I think that too is becoming more and more apparent to the people and could explain why they are finally pushing back if indeed that is what is happening.

 

[ralfy]

What amounts to the "left" in the U.S. is only superficial. In general, both political parties and citizens in general are dependent on consumer spending and increasing debt.

Welcome to USMB and the thread ralfy, and your point would likely make a good discussion but doesn't really address the topic of whether modern American liberalism is losing power, influence, or favor with the people. Or if you can show how a superficial left applies to that, go for it.

American liberalism is defined in the article in light of both superficial issues and important ones, such as health care and energy. Given that, liberalism is "exhausted" for the same reason as conservatism: four decades of incessant consumer spending and debt have run their course. Given that, it is likely that these superficial issues will be set aside as the country struggles to decrease spending and debt.

But I don't see conservatism encouraging that incesseant consumer spending and debt. Among other things, modern day Conservatism as I understand it is a doctrine of paying your own way, earning what you have, being accountable for what you do, and suffering the consequences for the bad choices you make. I didn't see anything like that in Goldberg's criticisms or my interpretaton of his point.

Regardless of the political party who endorses and votes the spending, irresponsible spending and debt is not a conservative concept. IMO it is not a liberal concept either, but I think liberalism does not pay any attention to those consequences as it pushes an agenda that creates them.

But in defense of your thesis here, I have long said that the permanent political class in Washington no longer represents us, but exists to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And that comes from neither conservatism or liberalism but I believe is a very bad consequence of modern day liberal policy.

And I think that too is becoming more and more apparent to the people and could explain why they are finally pushing back if indeed that is what is happening.

That was the original view of the Republicans. But they mistakenly assumed that tax cuts would lead to less government spending, not realizing that the U.S. economy is essentially dependent on borrowing and spending.

That's why debt levels across the board took off starting with Reagan, but kept going no matter which political party took over:

Krugman and the pied pipers of debt

 

[Foxfyre]

What amounts to the "left" in the U.S. is only superficial. In general, both political parties and citizens in general are dependent on consumer spending and increasing debt.

Welcome to USMB and the thread ralfy, and your point would likely make a good discussion but doesn't really address the topic of whether modern American liberalism is losing power, influence, or favor with the people. Or if you can show how a superficial left applies to that, go for it.

American liberalism is defined in the article in light of both superficial issues and important ones, such as health care and energy. Given that, liberalism is "exhausted" for the same reason as conservatism: four decades of incessant consumer spending and debt have run their course. Given that, it is likely that these superficial issues will be set aside as the country struggles to decrease spending and debt.

But I don't see conservatism encouraging that incesseant consumer spending and debt. Among other things, modern day Conservatism as I understand it is a doctrine of paying your own way, earning what you have, being accountable for what you do, and suffering the consequences for the bad choices you make. I didn't see anything like that in Goldberg's criticisms or my interpretaton of his point.

Regardless of the political party who endorses and votes the spending, irresponsible spending and debt is not a conservative concept. IMO it is not a liberal concept either, but I think liberalism does not pay any attention to those consequences as it pushes an agenda that creates them.

But in defense of your thesis here, I have long said that the permanent political class in Washington no longer represents us, but exists to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And that comes from neither conservatism or liberalism but I believe is a very bad consequence of modern day liberal policy.

And I think that too is becoming more and more apparent to the people and could explain why they are finally pushing back if indeed that is what is happening.

That was the original view of the Republicans. But they mistakenly assumed that tax cuts would lead to less government spending, not realizing that the U.S. economy is essentially dependent on borrowing and spending.

That's why debt levels across the board took off starting with Reagan, but kept going no matter which political party took over:

Krugman and the pied pipers of debt

Please review the thread guidelines in the OP Ralfy. You are new to USMB and this Forum is brand new with somewhat different rules than other forums. The rules for this thread prohibit naming political parties or specific partisanship. But I hope you are enjoying USMB and the thread.

Debt levels took off in this country when at least a partially representative electorate shifted more and more into a permanent political class that exists to benefit itself at the expense of others. And this permanent political class made up of elected and appointed officials, bureaucrats, and the industries that keep them in power I believe has utilized modern American liberalism to further its goals.

And I do hope Goldberg is right that the rank and file American is angry, disgusted and tired of that and is beginning to see radical liberalism as the vehicle the permanent political class uses for its own self-serving purposes and that it is time to move away from that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Understood Coyote. And of course I will bow to the ruling as stated.

Off topic explanation:

I will just point out that the OP did refer to liberalism as it is most commonly understood and used in modern day America. In retrospect I probably should have been more specific about my intent about that, but I didn't want to make the OP any more wordy than it already was and thereby be offputting to potentially interested participants. I trusted the members to understand how liberalism was being used in this discussion.

In subsequent posts I did make the point that liberalism as it is most commonly used in America today, and as I was using it, is synonymous with statism, Progressivism, political class, leftism. That was to clarify the intent of the OP in response to members insistance that it be clarified. Goldberg certainly was using it within that context. I can provide much scholarly support for that definition but chose to trust the members to understand that intent and not get bogged down in a food fight over specific wording and semantics as I believe there are members who will intentionally attempt to derail the discussion in that way.

I have no objection to members saying that they personally do not define liberalism that way but I object to members derailing the thread with an argument over what that definition has to be for purposes of this discussion.

There is no "most commonly used definition of liberalism in America today" that includes "statism". Only extremist Libertarians use that bizarre terminology because they lack the education to know any better IMO.

If the OP insists upon imposing this extremist Libertarian "definition" on this thread then the OP is responsible for derailing this thread and no one else.

There is no point in wasting any time on a thread that is based entirely upon an absurd delusion that has no connection with reality.

 

[Pogo]

He is right that leftwing (aka liberal) media has a really dismal track record. Despite massive funding, Air America couldn't make it. MSNBC has a tiny fraction of the audience of Fox News who continues to out pull all the other cable news networks combined in ratings. NPR and PBS are less partisan than most others, but they are accused of being at least somewhat left of center. I have been reading where they are struggling financially, though I'm not sure that is due to loss of audience. Both are completely funded of course and don't have to make it on popularity. But why is their funding falling behind?

And it seems that fewer people are willing to identify themselves as 'liberal'.

So in all due respect, while I fear you might be right, I hope you are wrong.

I came late, just wanted to make some corrections here --
leftwing (aka liberal) media -- "Left wing" and "liberal" are two different things;
... has a really dismal track record -- your passage goes on to talk from this point about money -- and yet you just identified ideology. Gotta pick one or the other. They're also two different things.

MSNBC has a tiny fraction of the audience of Fox News who continues to out pull all the other cable news networks combined in ratings.-- QED. But even accepting (or leaving aside) any ideological bases of these examples, audience ratings are not a measure of assent; they are a measure of attention. Again, two different things. So if entity A beats the pants off entity B, it doesn't mean that more people "agree with" entity A -- it means entity A does a better job of catching and keeping an audience.

So again, not sure if your intended point is about philosophical ideology or about the running of a commercial media outlet. Two entirely different topics.

I don't know what NPR or PBS's latest financial outlook is but they are both subject to the same pitfalls of any massively large organization: bureaucratic bloating. They get too big for their own good.

 

[Foxfyre]

He is right that leftwing (aka liberal) media has a really dismal track record. Despite massive funding, Air America couldn't make it. MSNBC has a tiny fraction of the audience of Fox News who continues to out pull all the other cable news networks combined in ratings. NPR and PBS are less partisan than most others, but they are accused of being at least somewhat left of center. I have been reading where they are struggling financially, though I'm not sure that is due to loss of audience. Both are completely funded of course and don't have to make it on popularity. But why is their funding falling behind?

And it seems that fewer people are willing to identify themselves as 'liberal'.

So in all due respect, while I fear you might be right, I hope you are wrong.

I came late, just wanted to make some corrections here --
leftwing (aka liberal) media -- "Left wing" and "liberal" are two different things;
... has a really dismal track record -- your passage goes on to talk from this point about money -- and yet you just identified ideology. Gotta pick one or the other. They're also two different things.

MSNBC has a tiny fraction of the audience of Fox News who continues to out pull all the other cable news networks combined in ratings.-- QED. But even accepting (or leaving aside) any ideological bases of these examples, audience ratings are not a measure of assent; they are a measure of attention. Again, two different things. So if entity A beats the pants off entity B, it doesn't mean that more people "agree with" entity A -- it means entity A does a better job of catching and keeping an audience.

So again, not sure if your intended point is about philosophical ideology or about the running of a commercial media outlet. Two entirely different topics.

I don't know what NPR or PBS's latest financial outlook is but they are both subject to the same pitfalls of any massively large organization: bureaucratic bloating. They get too big for their own good.

From the OP:
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?

You would have to put that quote into its full context within the whole discussion for it to apply to the thread topic. The issue is not the health or ratings of MSNBC. Goldberg used MSNBC, and the fact that it isn't able to attract much in the way of audience, as one among several indicators that liberalism is losing its appeal with the American public.

The post you quoted was within that aspect of Goldberg's thesis and was in response to a member who wasn't agreeing with Goldberg's thesis.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Waste of time thread since the OP is gerrymandering her "rules" as it suits her agenda yet again.

/unsubscribe

 

[Pogo]

He is right that leftwing (aka liberal) media has a really dismal track record. Despite massive funding, Air America couldn't make it. MSNBC has a tiny fraction of the audience of Fox News who continues to out pull all the other cable news networks combined in ratings. NPR and PBS are less partisan than most others, but they are accused of being at least somewhat left of center. I have been reading where they are struggling financially, though I'm not sure that is due to loss of audience. Both are completely funded of course and don't have to make it on popularity. But why is their funding falling behind?

And it seems that fewer people are willing to identify themselves as 'liberal'.

So in all due respect, while I fear you might be right, I hope you are wrong.

I came late, just wanted to make some corrections here --
leftwing (aka liberal) media -- "Left wing" and "liberal" are two different things;
... has a really dismal track record -- your passage goes on to talk from this point about money -- and yet you just identified ideology. Gotta pick one or the other. They're also two different things.

MSNBC has a tiny fraction of the audience of Fox News who continues to out pull all the other cable news networks combined in ratings.-- QED. But even accepting (or leaving aside) any ideological bases of these examples, audience ratings are not a measure of assent; they are a measure of attention. Again, two different things. So if entity A beats the pants off entity B, it doesn't mean that more people "agree with" entity A -- it means entity A does a better job of catching and keeping an audience.

So again, not sure if your intended point is about philosophical ideology or about the running of a commercial media outlet. Two entirely different topics.

I don't know what NPR or PBS's latest financial outlook is but they are both subject to the same pitfalls of any massively large organization: bureaucratic bloating. They get too big for their own good.

From the OP:
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?

You would have to put that quote into its full context within the whole discussion for it to apply to the thread topic. The issue is not the health or ratings of MSNBC. Goldberg used MSNBC, and the fact that it isn't able to attract much in the way of audience, as one among several indicators that liberalism is losing its appeal with the American public.

Then Goldberg has reached a specious conclusion. Which, knowing his previous work, is exactly what I'd expect. But inasmuch as it's the basis of the thread, it's worth pointing that glaring flaw out, methinks, as it undermines his whole basis.

 

[Foxfyre]

He is right that leftwing (aka liberal) media has a really dismal track record. Despite massive funding, Air America couldn't make it. MSNBC has a tiny fraction of the audience of Fox News who continues to out pull all the other cable news networks combined in ratings. NPR and PBS are less partisan than most others, but they are accused of being at least somewhat left of center. I have been reading where they are struggling financially, though I'm not sure that is due to loss of audience. Both are completely funded of course and don't have to make it on popularity. But why is their funding falling behind?

And it seems that fewer people are willing to identify themselves as 'liberal'.

So in all due respect, while I fear you might be right, I hope you are wrong.

I came late, just wanted to make some corrections here --
leftwing (aka liberal) media -- "Left wing" and "liberal" are two different things;
... has a really dismal track record -- your passage goes on to talk from this point about money -- and yet you just identified ideology. Gotta pick one or the other. They're also two different things.

MSNBC has a tiny fraction of the audience of Fox News who continues to out pull all the other cable news networks combined in ratings.-- QED. But even accepting (or leaving aside) any ideological bases of these examples, audience ratings are not a measure of assent; they are a measure of attention. Again, two different things. So if entity A beats the pants off entity B, it doesn't mean that more people "agree with" entity A -- it means entity A does a better job of catching and keeping an audience.

So again, not sure if your intended point is about philosophical ideology or about the running of a commercial media outlet. Two entirely different topics.

I don't know what NPR or PBS's latest financial outlook is but they are both subject to the same pitfalls of any massively large organization: bureaucratic bloating. They get too big for their own good.

From the OP:
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?

You would have to put that quote into its full context within the whole discussion for it to apply to the thread topic. The issue is not the health or ratings of MSNBC. Goldberg used MSNBC, and the fact that it isn't able to attract much in the way of audience, as one among several indicators that liberalism is losing its appeal with the American public.

Then Goldberg has reached a specious conclusion. Which, knowing his previous work, is exactly what I'd expect. But inasmuch as it's the basis of the thread, it's worth pointing that glaring flaw out, methinks, as it undermines his whole basis.

His previous work isn't on trial here though. His article outlined several reasons that he sees as evidence that liberalism is wearing out is welcome with the American people. IThe fact that liberal media doesn't do well is just one of them, though in his piece, he equated this with the canary in the coal mine.

I would certainly think that if Fox News conservative commentators and conservative talk radio hadn't been able to attract audience and post successful numbers, we should at least consider that there is little interest or enthusiasm for conservative thought and commentary.

Another signal he saw as noteworthy were the results of the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections, each suggesting increasing disatisfaction with the liberalism of the current administration.

And his third point was in this paragraph:

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.​

And if you read back through this thread you will see the singlemost often mentioned issue used to defend liberalism is all the states that have legalized gay marriage. (Of course there are numerous conservatives and libertarians who also don't oppose gay marriage, but let's not worry about that right now.) The point is, if you don't have anything other than gay marriage to point to for the liberal manifesto, Goldberg might be right that the movement is losing favor.

So far several have objected to the thesis of the thread and/or Jonah Goldberg and/or that they can't comment without having terms defined to their satisfaction. There have been a couple of poll results, nothing really recent, showing liberalism ticking up a bit as an I.D.

I don't know whether Goldberg has really made his case. But unless I missed the post, I don't know that anybody has really rebutted it either.

 

[Carla_Danger]

He is right that leftwing (aka liberal) media has a really dismal track record. Despite massive funding, Air America couldn't make it. MSNBC has a tiny fraction of the audience of Fox News who continues to out pull all the other cable news networks combined in ratings. NPR and PBS are less partisan than most others, but they are accused of being at least somewhat left of center. I have been reading where they are struggling financially, though I'm not sure that is due to loss of audience. Both are completely funded of course and don't have to make it on popularity. But why is their funding falling behind?

And it seems that fewer people are willing to identify themselves as 'liberal'.

So in all due respect, while I fear you might be right, I hope you are wrong.

I came late, just wanted to make some corrections here --
leftwing (aka liberal) media -- "Left wing" and "liberal" are two different things;
... has a really dismal track record -- your passage goes on to talk from this point about money -- and yet you just identified ideology. Gotta pick one or the other. They're also two different things.

MSNBC has a tiny fraction of the audience of Fox News who continues to out pull all the other cable news networks combined in ratings.-- QED. But even accepting (or leaving aside) any ideological bases of these examples, audience ratings are not a measure of assent; they are a measure of attention. Again, two different things. So if entity A beats the pants off entity B, it doesn't mean that more people "agree with" entity A -- it means entity A does a better job of catching and keeping an audience.

So again, not sure if your intended point is about philosophical ideology or about the running of a commercial media outlet. Two entirely different topics.

I don't know what NPR or PBS's latest financial outlook is but they are both subject to the same pitfalls of any massively large organization: bureaucratic bloating. They get too big for their own good.

From the OP:
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?

You would have to put that quote into its full context within the whole discussion for it to apply to the thread topic. The issue is not the health or ratings of MSNBC. Goldberg used MSNBC, and the fact that it isn't able to attract much in the way of audience, as one among several indicators that liberalism is losing its appeal with the American public.

Then Goldberg has reached a specious conclusion. Which, knowing his previous work, is exactly what I'd expect. But inasmuch as it's the basis of the thread, it's worth pointing that glaring flaw out, methinks, as it undermines his whole basis.

We're not supposed to talk about Goldberg in this thread.

 

[Pogo]

He is right that leftwing (aka liberal) media has a really dismal track record. Despite massive funding, Air America couldn't make it. MSNBC has a tiny fraction of the audience of Fox News who continues to out pull all the other cable news networks combined in ratings. NPR and PBS are less partisan than most others, but they are accused of being at least somewhat left of center. I have been reading where they are struggling financially, though I'm not sure that is due to loss of audience. Both are completely funded of course and don't have to make it on popularity. But why is their funding falling behind?

And it seems that fewer people are willing to identify themselves as 'liberal'.

So in all due respect, while I fear you might be right, I hope you are wrong.

I came late, just wanted to make some corrections here --
leftwing (aka liberal) media -- "Left wing" and "liberal" are two different things;
... has a really dismal track record -- your passage goes on to talk from this point about money -- and yet you just identified ideology. Gotta pick one or the other. They're also two different things.

MSNBC has a tiny fraction of the audience of Fox News who continues to out pull all the other cable news networks combined in ratings.-- QED. But even accepting (or leaving aside) any ideological bases of these examples, audience ratings are not a measure of assent; they are a measure of attention. Again, two different things. So if entity A beats the pants off entity B, it doesn't mean that more people "agree with" entity A -- it means entity A does a better job of catching and keeping an audience.

So again, not sure if your intended point is about philosophical ideology or about the running of a commercial media outlet. Two entirely different topics.

I don't know what NPR or PBS's latest financial outlook is but they are both subject to the same pitfalls of any massively large organization: bureaucratic bloating. They get too big for their own good.

From the OP:
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?

You would have to put that quote into its full context within the whole discussion for it to apply to the thread topic. The issue is not the health or ratings of MSNBC. Goldberg used MSNBC, and the fact that it isn't able to attract much in the way of audience, as one among several indicators that liberalism is losing its appeal with the American public.

Then Goldberg has reached a specious conclusion. Which, knowing his previous work, is exactly what I'd expect. But inasmuch as it's the basis of the thread, it's worth pointing that glaring flaw out, methinks, as it undermines his whole basis.

His previous work isn't on trial here though. His article outlined several reasons that he sees as evidence that liberalism is wearing out is welcome with the American people. IThe fact that liberal media doesn't do well is just one of them, though in his piece, he equated this with the canary in the coal mine.

I would certainly think that if Fox News conservative commentators and conservative talk radio hadn't been able to attract audience and post successful numbers, we should at least consider that there is little interest or enthusiasm for conservative thought and commentary.

Another signal he saw as noteworthy were the results of the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections, each suggesting increasing disatisfaction with the liberalism of the current administration.

And his third point was in this paragraph:

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.​

And if you read back through this thread you will see the singlemost often mentioned issue used to defend liberalism is all the states that have legalized gay marriage. (Of course there are numerous conservatives and libertarians who also don't oppose gay marriage, but let's not worry about that right now.) The point is, if you don't have anything other than gay marriage to point to for the liberal manifesto, Goldberg might be right that the movement is losing favor.

So far several have objected to the thesis of the thread and/or Jonah Goldberg and/or that they can't comment without having terms defined to their satisfaction. There have been a couple of poll results, nothing really recent, showing liberalism ticking up a bit as an I.D.

I don't know whether Goldberg has really made his case. But unless I missed the post, I don't know that anybody has really rebutted it either.

Not putting anything "on trial" Foxy -- I'm just noting in passing tht the author has gone down this specious reasoning road before, and therefore it's a pattern. When you put up a topic for debate you kinda have to expect that here and there someone might want to take issue with it.

Media is my area of experience so that's why I pounced on this point. While it may not be his sole supporting evidence, it does seem to be his star witness, after which all else follows, but it's based on a conclusion without a basis. The 'bridge' that gets him to this conclusion is the assumption that audience ratings are directly proportional to ideological assent. But that assumption is erroneous, ergo my challenge of it.

Which means the author has failed to justify the premise that his whole suggestion rests on. His idea of "exhaustion" is based on the premise of some sort of "decline", but he fails to make the case that such 'decline' exists in the first place.

None of which is to touch on the question of what he means by "liberalism". Inasmuch as he seems to use "liberal" and "left" interchangeably, it's a fair bet that he doesn't know -- or thinks his readers don't know -- the difference. Which, again, would fit previous patterns.