Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[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.

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

You mean I can't toss out my allusion to "Rube Goldberg logic"?
Rats. I had a clear shot to the end zone.

 

[sealybobo]

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

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

The article: Is Liberalism Exhausted RealClearPolitics

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

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

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

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED:

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

Eventually everything we say ends up being right. Civil rights labor laws ss medicare abortion and you will see we are right about global warming stem cell and taxing the rich more not to mention paying all americans a living wage and we don't have an illegal immigrant problem we have an illegal employer problem.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Let me ask you your opinion on the media deregulation act clinton signed in 1997 and the media was bought up by basically 7 corporations. They rely on advertisers and ceo's where in the old days the news guys didn't report to the corporations. Basically they werent censored then but are now. Even MSNBC can only go so far. When ed Schultz or Randi Rhodes or Thom Hartman speak too much truth they take them off the air. That basically they are only liberal when it comes to social issues because they actually use those issues to divide us. MSNBC may be pro gay but they dont fuck with their corporate masters.

Am I just a conspiracy theorist?

 

[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.

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.

You say he has failed to show a decline. But where is your rebuttal argument? Just saying you don't like the author or what he says doesn't get you very far in the debate--we're talking generic you here and not you personally. I don't CARE what else he has said on other subjects. I want to know if he has a point in this article. So far nobody has been able to show he is wrong in the illustrations he used. In order to do that you strip away his personal prejudices and focus on the points made.

The point of the thread was discuss whether his interpretation of those points have any merit and if they do not, why not. Not liking the author and not liking the points he used to illustrate his thesis just isn't going to earn debate points.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

The article: Is Liberalism Exhausted RealClearPolitics

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

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

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

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED:

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

Eventually everything we say ends up being right. Civil rights labor laws ss medicare abortion and you will see we are right about global warming stem cell and taxing the rich more not to mention paying all americans a living wage and we don't have an illegal immigrant problem we have an illegal employer problem.

Sorry, but I am not quite agreeing that everything liberals say end up being right. At least as I definite right. So you'll need to be more specific to use that as an argument for why liberalism is not declining in favor with the American people.

 

[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.

You mean I can't toss out my allusion to "Rube Goldberg logic"?
Rats. I had a clear shot to the end zone.

There is a different set of standards in our posting guidelines compared to the article in the OP.

 

[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.

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

No, the topic is not about Goldberg but is about his article on the decline of liberalism in America. You can really give your best shot as to why his opinion about that doesn't hold up. But your opinion of him is irrelevant to the topic.

But. . . anybody who thinks Goldberg's character or sins or whatever one might think about him HAVE to be an issue, then I would suggest making a separate thread in which that can be discussed. It might make for an interesting discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

You mean I can't toss out my allusion to "Rube Goldberg logic"?
Rats. I had a clear shot to the end zone.

There is a different set of standards in our posting guidelines compared to the article in the OP.

No there isn't. The article doesn't give any standards for discussion. It is offered to provide a basis for the discussion. The posting guidelines are to keep us focused on Goldberg's thesis and not on Goldberg or anybody else. I don't ask anybody to like the way he writes. I'm not crazy about his writing style either. But HOW he expresses it is not important. WHAT he expresses is so far as the topic of this thread goes.

I do think he raises an interesting question. Is liberalism losing favor in America? And do the points he uses to illustrate that really show that?

And there are no rules against offering additional evidence for liberalism's decline and a good argument for why Goldberg is wrong about that would be quite proper and appreciated.

 

[Pogo]

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.

You say he has failed to show a decline. But where is your rebuttal argument? Just saying you don't like the author or what he says doesn't get you very far in the debate--we're talking generic you here and not you personally. I don't CARE what else he has said on other subjects. I want to know if he has a point in this article. So far nobody has been able to show he is wrong in the illustrations he used. In order to do that you strip away his personal prejudices and focus on the points made.

The point of the thread was discuss whether his interpretation of those points have any merit and if they do not, why not. Not liking the author and not liking the points he used to illustrate his thesis just isn't going to earn debate points.

I'm not making the opposite case that there is an "ascent", nor do I wish to.

I'm simply deconstructing what he thinks is his case of "decline". Pointing out that he hasn't made one.
It's not a matter of we have to have one or the other. I'm simply saying we have no theory to discuss because the author failed to make his case.

None of that has squat to do with "liking" the author. I don't know where you're pulling that from.

This may all be moot anyway, for even if we can get past the author's premise in a legitimate way, what he means by "liberalism" is, within the article, undefined --- which is why we seek clues in his previous work, to define terms. And that previous work would indicate that his definition is at the least sui generis and more realistically, highly suspect. Unfortunately that leaves the onus on us (hee hee) to define it, and we've never been able to do that.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Let me ask you your opinion on the media deregulation act clinton signed in 1997 and the media was bought up by basically 7 corporations. They rely on advertisers and ceo's where in the old days the news guys didn't report to the corporations. Basically they werent censored then but are now. Even MSNBC can only go so far. When ed Schultz or Randi Rhodes or Thom Hartman speak too much truth they take them off the air. That basically they are only liberal when it comes to social issues because they actually use those issues to divide us. MSNBC may be pro gay but they dont fuck with their corporate masters.

Am I just a conspiracy theorist?

Not at all -- that was 1996 and it was a gross infamy, the nadir of the Clinton presidency and the biggest reason I call him "Bull Clinton". It was one of the lowest, if not the lowest, point in media legislation we've ever had. I don't know that it leads to the conclusions you've cited above but there are myriad reasons to hate it.

 

[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

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.

Debt levels took off not because of some "permanent political class" but because it was believed that tax cuts would led to less government spending (not true). Deregulation was emphasized because the same government worked for Big Business. That's why Big Business and Wall Street plus the 1-pct profited nicely.

It's also not a point that involves any political party as various administrations following Reagan followed suit.

Finally, what was employed was not "American liberalism" but actually a combination of conservatism (tax cuts) and liberalism (entitlement). That's why the same "rank and file American" voted for one administration after another that supported tax cuts, easy credit, consumer spending, and entitlement.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I will come at the question from another angle:

Liberalism isn't exhausted, it is being misapplied.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Debt levels took off not because of some "permanent political class" but because it was believed that tax cuts would led to less government spending (not true). Deregulation was emphasized because the same government worked for Big Business. That's why Big Business and Wall Street plus the 1-pct profited nicely.

It's also not a point that involves any political party as various administrations following Reagan followed suit.

Finally, what was employed was not "American liberalism" but actually a combination of conservatism (tax cuts) and liberalism (entitlement). That's why the same "rank and file American" voted for one administration after another that supported tax cuts, easy credit, consumer spending, and entitlement.

The "permanent political class' is a term meaning the permanent condition of politicians, those they appoint, bureaucrats, and whoever they can align themselves with in corporate America to greatly enrich themselves. And I believe it is that permanent political class that now holds an iron grip on Washington. They manipulate the system to keep themselves there as long as they can, and they figure they'll be long gone and somebody else will be blamed by the time it all falls apart.

IMO, it was liberalism that made it possible for the permanent political class to achieve that iron grip on Washington and that is why things are in the mess they are in.

If other Americans are also beginning to figure that out, and looking at public opinion polls over the last several years, I think that might increasingly be the case, then yes, liberalism is falling out of favor with the American people. And if Goldberg is wrong, oh well. . . .it was something interesting to look at.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who's the last president elected who was more liberal than 2 term president Barack Obama?

 

[Foxfyre]

Who's the last president elected who was more liberal than 2 term president Barack Obama?

Goldberg comments on that in his view that President Obama's greatest talent is campaigning and getting elected. I think more and more people might be realizing that Obama the campaigner, and Obama the President are pretty much two different people.

And certainly that would likely be more and more the case if the people are beginning to reject unacceptable consequences of his agenda once they see it happening.

 

[Foxfyre]

Though Rasmussen has increasingly reserved the more interesting discussion of his polling data for subscribers only, he does give the basic result of them for free. And his polling is generally restricted to likely voters only. Among that group, the polling data I have observed over the the last year definitely does show a trend to the right. For example among recent polls:

Voters are significantly more likely to disagree with the President that terrorism is overhyped and global warming is the greater threat.
Global Warming vs. Terrorism Voters Decide - Rasmussen Reports

Most voters want Congress to keep on doing what it is doing and ignore the President's veto threats:
Most Voters Want Congress to Ignore Obama Veto Threats - Rasmussen Reports

A significant majority of voters want thoughtful government spending cuts with no sacred cows protected:
Voters Want Spending Cuts With No Sacred Cows Protected - Rasmussen Reports
Voters Repeat Cut Spending to Help Economy - Rasmussen Reports

An even larger majority of voters want the government to tackle taxes and spending before dealing with immigration and a whopping 77% believe the gridlock is not a matter of honest differences of opinion but is a result of partisan politics. And the polls suggest the electorate is leaning more and more right on many if not most of these issues.
Voters Want Congress To Tackle Taxes Spending First - Rasmussen Reports

There is little support for long term unemployment compensation.
Support for Long-Term Unemployment Aid Remains Low - Rasmussen Reports

Most voters want the big government era to end.
Voters Want Era of Big Government To End - Rasmussen Reports

Most voters consider property rights to be unalienable rights and strongly oppose the concept of eminent domain.
Voters to Government Keep Your Hands Off My Property - Rasmussen Reports

More voters dislike government mandates for healthcare than approve of that and a growing number are disapproving of government involvement in healthcare.
Voters Like Health Insurance But Not If It s Mandated - Rasmussen Reports
Voters Are Less Supportive of Government-Imposed Levels of Health Insurance - Rasmussen Reports

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

You say he has failed to show a decline. But where is your rebuttal argument? Just saying you don't like the author or what he says doesn't get you very far in the debate--we're talking generic you here and not you personally. I don't CARE what else he has said on other subjects. I want to know if he has a point in this article. So far nobody has been able to show he is wrong in the illustrations he used. In order to do that you strip away his personal prejudices and focus on the points made.

The point of the thread was discuss whether his interpretation of those points have any merit and if they do not, why not. Not liking the author and not liking the points he used to illustrate his thesis just isn't going to earn debate points.

I'm not making the opposite case that there is an "ascent", nor do I wish to.

I'm simply deconstructing what he thinks is his case of "decline". Pointing out that he hasn't made one.
It's not a matter of we have to have one or the other. I'm simply saying we have no theory to discuss because the author failed to make his case.

None of that has squat to do with "liking" the author. I don't know where you're pulling that from.

This may all be moot anyway, for even if we can get past the author's premise in a legitimate way, what he means by "liberalism" is, within the article, undefined --- which is why we seek clues in his previous work, to define terms. And that previous work would indicate that his definition is at the least sui generis and more realistically, highly suspect. Unfortunately that leaves the onus on us (hee hee) to define it, and we've never been able to do that.

And I thought the illustrations he used were pretty good to reinforce his opinion/perspective. I personally interpret his use of the term liberalism to be synonymous with statism/leftism/Progressivism/political class/leftwing and there is nothing in the article to suggest he meant it to be interpreted any other way. You have expressed in the past that you did not agree with that definition, but IMO that is the definition as it is most commonly used in modern day America.

 

[Foxfyre]

Another author who illustrates the results of modern day American liberalism is this one:

. . .Charles Murray wrote "Losing Ground" in 1984. His book seemed like a bolt of lightening in the middle of the night revealing what should have been plain as the light of day. The welfare state so carefully built up in the 1960s and 1970s created a system of disincentives for people to better their own lives. By paying welfare mothers to have children out of wedlock into a poor home, more of these births were encouraged. By doling out dollars at a rate that could not be matched by the economy, the system encouraged the poor to stay home. By lowering the value of learning, it was discouraged. By lowering the punishment for criminal activity (which was deemed to be society's fault and not the perpetrator - who was seen as a victim) it encouraged more criminal activity and longer criminal records.

By pointing all this out in convincing fashion with graphs, statistics and well-reasoned argument Charles Murray spawned a movement that would ultimately result in welfare reform in 1996. The results of the reform were manifest in the economy and in society almost immediately. Charles Murray since then has had the opportunity to bask in the glow of being proven right. . . .
http://www.conservativemonitor.com/top-ten/losing-ground.shtml
​

Others who have reached the same conclusions and written extensively on this particular subject have included Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Starr Parker, Milton Friedman, et al.

I don't know if the trend toward recognizing the significant downside to the modern American liberal/progressive ideology is continuing since 1984. We do seem to be increasing entitlements and we aren't doing away with any that amount to much of anything.

And even conservatives have a tough time giving up a benefit or entitlement they are receiving without some assurance that America will be better off for it.

But some of us do see the continuing spiral into ever increasing entitlement and dependency on government in every aspect of our lives as the one thing that will return us to government bondage. And then those in power will assign to us the rights they want us to have on any given day and can just as easily take those rights away.

 

[Pogo]

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.

You say he has failed to show a decline. But where is your rebuttal argument? Just saying you don't like the author or what he says doesn't get you very far in the debate--we're talking generic you here and not you personally. I don't CARE what else he has said on other subjects. I want to know if he has a point in this article. So far nobody has been able to show he is wrong in the illustrations he used. In order to do that you strip away his personal prejudices and focus on the points made.

The point of the thread was discuss whether his interpretation of those points have any merit and if they do not, why not. Not liking the author and not liking the points he used to illustrate his thesis just isn't going to earn debate points.

I'm not making the opposite case that there is an "ascent", nor do I wish to.

I'm simply deconstructing what he thinks is his case of "decline". Pointing out that he hasn't made one.
It's not a matter of we have to have one or the other. I'm simply saying we have no theory to discuss because the author failed to make his case.

None of that has squat to do with "liking" the author. I don't know where you're pulling that from.

This may all be moot anyway, for even if we can get past the author's premise in a legitimate way, what he means by "liberalism" is, within the article, undefined --- which is why we seek clues in his previous work, to define terms. And that previous work would indicate that his definition is at the least sui generis and more realistically, highly suspect. Unfortunately that leaves the onus on us (hee hee) to define it, and we've never been able to do that.

And I thought the illustrations he used were pretty good to reinforce his opinion/perspective. I personally interpret his use of the term liberalism to be synonymous with statism/leftism/Progressivism/political class/leftwing and there is nothing in the article to suggest he meant it to be interpreted any other way. You have expressed in the past that you did not agree with that definition, but IMO that is the definition as it is most commonly used in modern day America.

Yes, the above is all accurate; I do indeed submit that both the author and you are conflating "Liberalism" and "leftism" -- along with "statism" and the imaginary "Progressivism", an ambiguity no one here can even define. And this latest post seems to follow the same path. No, they are ot synonyms; they're blanket labels designed to homogenize and pave over nuance. They're intended by their originators to elevate the superficial over the substance.

I can only guess that the tactic is to dumb-down the entire discourse as an avoidance of inconvenient elements by diluting them into a soup so they need not be addressed. I don't think acquiescing to a dumb-down ever accomplishes anything productive, and on that basis I continue to resist it. If your original intent was to question whether "leftism-statism" is exhausted, well that's an entirely different question from the one stated. But this here stubborn conflation seems obviously to me an attempt to bury the inconvenient by throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

You say he has failed to show a decline. But where is your rebuttal argument? Just saying you don't like the author or what he says doesn't get you very far in the debate--we're talking generic you here and not you personally. I don't CARE what else he has said on other subjects. I want to know if he has a point in this article. So far nobody has been able to show he is wrong in the illustrations he used. In order to do that you strip away his personal prejudices and focus on the points made.

The point of the thread was discuss whether his interpretation of those points have any merit and if they do not, why not. Not liking the author and not liking the points he used to illustrate his thesis just isn't going to earn debate points.

I'm not making the opposite case that there is an "ascent", nor do I wish to.

I'm simply deconstructing what he thinks is his case of "decline". Pointing out that he hasn't made one.
It's not a matter of we have to have one or the other. I'm simply saying we have no theory to discuss because the author failed to make his case.

None of that has squat to do with "liking" the author. I don't know where you're pulling that from.

This may all be moot anyway, for even if we can get past the author's premise in a legitimate way, what he means by "liberalism" is, within the article, undefined --- which is why we seek clues in his previous work, to define terms. And that previous work would indicate that his definition is at the least sui generis and more realistically, highly suspect. Unfortunately that leaves the onus on us (hee hee) to define it, and we've never been able to do that.

And I thought the illustrations he used were pretty good to reinforce his opinion/perspective. I personally interpret his use of the term liberalism to be synonymous with statism/leftism/Progressivism/political class/leftwing and there is nothing in the article to suggest he meant it to be interpreted any other way. You have expressed in the past that you did not agree with that definition, but IMO that is the definition as it is most commonly used in modern day America.

Yes, the above is all accurate; I do indeed submit that both the author and you are conflating "Liberalism" and "leftism" -- along with "statism" and the imaginary "Progressivism", an ambiguity no one here can even define. And this latest post seems to follow the same path. No, they are ot synonyms; they're blanket labels designed to homogenize and pave over nuance. They're intended by their originators to elevate the superficial over the substance.

I can only guess that the tactic is to dumb-down the entire discourse as an avoidance of inconvenient elements by diluting them into a soup so they need not be addressed. I don't think acquiescing to a dumb-down ever accomplishes anything productive, and on that basis I continue to resist it. If your original intent was to question whether "leftism-statism" is exhausted, well that's an entirely different question from the one stated. But this here stubborn conflation seems obviously to me an attempt to bury the inconvenient by throwing the baby out with the bath water.

And I submit that my understanding is that Goldberg, as well as all the others cited and myself, are using "liberalism" as a synonym for leftism, progressivism, statism, political class. Within Goldberg's thesis, the terms are all interchangeable. Not appreciating defining "liberalism" in that way is anybody's right, but it doesn't change the fact that the terms are interchangeable as they are being used in this discussion and most discussions in modern day American vernacular.

So if that is an issue, I suggest a separate thread objecting to "liberalism" being defined as statist, progressive, leftist, and/or political class or at least discussing that phenomenon. That would be a discussion I think a lot of folks would enjoy.

For me its just easier to go with the more common modern usage of the word and use it as Goldberg and others use it for the purpose of this topic. Just as modern day conservatism as it is currently used as a sociopolitical designation in modern day American bears little resemblance to its dictionary definition or what it meant in the 19th century or what it means in most of Europe.

And I do believe his thesis is on point. I don't know that all Americans are aware that it is liberalism they are objecting to or beginning to push back against, but I do believe that is happening. Or maybe it is more wishful thinking that it is happening. Which of course prompted the thread.