Lion of the Blogosphere

Changing liberalism: I predicted this in 2007

with 51 comments

Here is something I wrote in December 2007, which was before Obama even won the Democratic nomination to run for President.

Traditional-liberalism, egalitarian-liberalism, and new-age-liberalism

People spend a lot of time talking about paleoconservatism and neoconservatism, and I’m not sure I really understand the difference, but I think that liberals also need to be divided into distinct movements. I can’t use the term “neoliberalism” because there’s a Wikipedia article describing an entirely theoretical concept called “neoliberalism,” so I will call it new-age-liberalism.

In fact, liberalism can be divided into three distinct movements: traditional-liberalism, egalitarian-liberalism, and new-age-liberalism.

Traditional-liberalism is the liberalism of FDR. Unions, social security, unemployment insurance, 40-hour workweeks, are examples of policies championed by the traditional liberals. It’s heavily based on populism, and championing the rights of the poor over the rich. As such, it has the closest ties to communism, which is an extreme example of traditional-liberalism.

Egalitarian-liberalism was the next major movement of liberalism. Egalitarian-liberalism moved beyond the rich vs. poor principles of traditional-liberalism which was rooted in Marxism, and recognizes that there are many other inequities that need to be righted, the most important inequities being racial (with of course the white race being the privileged race and the darker races being the underprivileged races), gender (with the male gender being privileged in comparison to the female gender), sexual orientation (the heterosexual is privileged in comparison to the homosexual), religion (Christianity is privileged in comparison to Islam, Judaism, or atheism), and nations (the U.S. is privileged in comparison to undeveloped nations).

The final movement of liberalism is new-age-liberalism, and it takes egalitarian-liberalism to the next level. Egalitarian-liberalism is only concerned with humans being underprivileged compared to other humans. New-age liberalism concerns itself with humans being privileged over non-humans. New-age-liberalism champions the rights of animals over humans (and thus promoted vegetarianism), plants over humans (thus is against chopping down forests to make way for development), the atmosphere over humans (thus against global warming), and indigenous cultures (not an issue of underprivileged humans, but rather the unnatural culture of modern humanity vs. the purity of pre-civilized culture). New-age-liberals are against obesity because fat people are eating excess animals and plants, thus causing unnecessary harm to non-humans.

The Democratic Party is where all these liberals gather together, but it’s an uncomfortable alliance because the poor Democrats (the traditional Democratic base) are concerned mostly with traditional liberalism and egalitarian liberalism only to the extent that they benefit from it (thus black Democrats care about black-white egalitarianism, but care little about helping homosexuals or poor nations), while the rich Democrats are mostly concerned with new-age-liberalism and the more abstract egalitarian-liberalism issues.

Luxury “green” hotels are the ultimate example of new-age-liberalism totally divorced from traditional-liberal roots. The rich new-age-liberal traveler who stays at the “green” luxury hotel feels no shame in having armies of poor people serve him, so long as the soap is organic and there are no plastic cups.

Pretty prescient, isn’t it? Nobody believed me back then, but the roots of President-elect Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton can be attributed to the abandonment of traditional-liberalism by liberals and by the Democratic Party (which is controlled by liberals), resulting in the abandonment of its traditional white blue-collar base to a politician, in this case Trump, who saw the opening and courted them.

In fact, I would say that the white working class, who were once seen as the victims of capitalism, are today seen as privileged on account of being white, and owe their problems to their own stupidity and laziness in not doing the right things such as going to college.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 11, 2016 at 5:27 pm

Posted in Politics

51 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Polls vs reality:

    Rifleman

    November 11, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    • Updated national swing map. Size of the bubbles is raw votes swung. Color is direction.

      Rifleman

      November 12, 2016 at 9:52 am

  2. Traditional-liberalism is the only one with any inherent rational/moral legitimacy. The vast majority of people are workers and employees have no leverage/inferior bargaining power. Therefore, there should be such things as unions and labor rights to champion their interests which are NOT the same as their employers.

    “…the white working class. . .are today seen as privileged on account of being white, and owe their problems to their own stupidity and laziness in not doing the right things such as going to college.”

    A ridiculously harsh judgment. They may be SEEN as “privileged,” but the only privilege they have is to pay welfare for fertile NAMs that compete and/or commit violence against them.

    For an unemployed guy, Lion, you are a trifle snobbish. Not everyone who doesn’t go to college is therefore lazy and stupid. Some people don’t understand value transference jobs and would prefer to work with their hands and make something.

    fakeemail

    November 11, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    • That was a summary of what liberals think, not what I think. I believe in HBD.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 11, 2016 at 8:54 pm

      • I clearly understood excellent your post, LotB.

        E. Rekshun

        November 12, 2016 at 4:34 am

  3. So Hillary is going to end up winning the pop vote by 2 points. Trump lost about 2 points net of Romney voters to Johnson/McMuffin/write-ins so we are back to tied. But then Hillary lost 0.6 points of Obama voters to Jill Stein so that gives Hillary a 0.6 popular vote win.

    In 2020, the Dems are going to be running Cory Booker which means another ~1.5 margin added to the D total due to the black vote alone, so we are back to the Dems having a 2 point margin add another point for the increasing non white share of the vote and we are up to a 3 point difference.

    So for Trump to tie in the popular vote, he needs to flip 1.5 point of the Dems block. Luckily, he does have some room to grow. winning 76% of non college whites up from 71% would be enough to do it.

    Otis the Sweaty

    November 11, 2016 at 9:08 pm

    • Harris is the one to watch for – not booker. Booker has wallstreet stench on him that Harris doesn’t (optically that is – nj vs. ca).

      uatu

      November 11, 2016 at 11:18 pm

      • Actually I think they will go with that Muslim from Minnesota, though I don’t think it matters. It all will come down to how President TRUMP delivers on his campaign promises. If he delivers on a non-trivial amount of his campaign promises he will beat anyone the Dems throw at him.

        Two in the Bush

        November 12, 2016 at 12:02 am

      • Keith Ellison is his name. He’s very articulate. You heard it here first.

        Two in the Bush

        November 12, 2016 at 12:03 am

      • Harris is an angry black woman. You think she has appeal? She will be toxic to suburban whites.

        Otis the Sweaty

        November 12, 2016 at 1:19 am

      • In 2020, the Dems are going to be running Cory Booker which means another ~1.5 margin added to the D total due to the black vote alone,

        The Democrats have no idea who they will run.

        And after what Trump did to the powerful Hillary Clinton machine in the dirtiest American presidential campaign in history, wouldn’t many of them hesitate taking him on in 2020 when he will have full control of the Republican party at his disposal?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        November 12, 2016 at 9:24 am

    • As long as Trump does what he says he’s going to do and no major scandals or botched crises happens, he’s going to win even stronger next time, some of the people against him will see that their objections to him were based on false assumptions (media lies and propaganda), but few will turn against him.

      XVO

      November 12, 2016 at 8:05 am

    • Rifleman

      November 12, 2016 at 9:32 am

  4. Paid to protest and to “fight”.

    http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/npo/5869093530.html

    maga

    November 11, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    • $15/hr plus benefits…who’s funding this?

      E. Rekshun

      November 12, 2016 at 4:36 am

  5. Well for now at least in the immediate aftermath of the election, Sanders and Warren and the economic populism wing of the Democratic Party is in charge and the wealthy Clinton wing has been discredited.

    Tom

    November 12, 2016 at 12:33 am

  6. That is a brilliant analysis.

    martinslag

    November 12, 2016 at 1:57 am

  7. I think there are a few ways to understand liberalism. There’s also a strand of liberalism which believes there are no fixed elements in human nature and strongly objects to any attempt to limit a person’s freedom to define themselves however they wish–as a man or a woman, by race or nation, etc. This is in keeping with some of the original elements of classical liberalism and its emphasis on personal freedom, and can be seen as part of the ongoing unravelling of Western civilisation due to its fatal flaw–the belief in unfettered free will. You can see this element of liberalism in popular culture in films like The Matrix or Avatar. Perhaps it has its roots in Christian ideas of personal salvation, or the idea of romantic love and marriage with its deification of a fanciful notion of free will Uber Alles (note how the appeals to gay marriage on grounds of romantic love were basically unanswerable). As an aside on this theme I’ll note that Houllebecq points out in his recent novel Submission that at some point between the early and late medieval period depictions of the the afterlife changed from being one in which Christians were resurrected as a group to one in which God judges the living and the dead on a personal basis and rewards/punishes them in a very personal way. I think he was onto something here.

    Another important thing about liberalism is that it cannot stand still because it rests on such false assumptions about human nature and the way changes play out when initiated. Back in the 60’s liberals really believed that given terms such as ‘black’ or ‘homosexual’ had no intrinsic meaning, if these people were affored the same poltical rights and priviliges life would go on the same as before. But their naive idea that society has some kind of natural, elastic, unchanging equilibrium is obviously not true, the social fabric was something created and maintained by a group of people of a type. Blacks, women and homosexuals have proved that if there is the potential for people to form groups and take more power at the expense of another group then they will take it, and it doesn’t even require most members of those groups to consent or even understand to these changes. As Enoch Powell observed-

    “the beginning of wisdom is to grasp the law that in human societies power is never left unclaimed and unused. It does not blow about, like wastepaper on the streets, ownerless and inert. Men’s nature is not only, as Thucydides long ago asserted, to exert power where they have it; men cannot help themselves from exerting power where they have it, whether they want to or not”

    A great deal of liberalism is therefore creating justifications after the fact to explain why things don’t turn out the way they expected–white privilige to justify black failure and aggression, for example. This is the reason I find them so worrying. Persecution of the Deplorable caste seems to be the inexorable destination given their cognitive dissonance.

    prolier than thou

    November 12, 2016 at 7:27 am

    • The best analysis of Liberalism comes daily at ozconservative.com. HIS definition matches what you describe in your first paragraph.

      What the Lion is talking about I call “Leftism”. It’s basically runaway universalist moralism based on endless compassion. Since there is no limit to it and it doesn’t care about consequences it has expanded from compassion for “the workers”, to the countries poor, the the world’s poor, on to animals, and then “the earth”.

      CamelCaseRob

      November 12, 2016 at 12:36 pm

  8. Furthermore I predict that Hillary’s fall marks the end of white gentry liberal rule of the DNC. Why would a party now based on minority factions continue to take a back seat to older wasps like Clinton and Warren? The answer is that they will not. They will want to run the party and dominate it. Swpls will soon have to face the fact that they will have less power within the progressive party that they have been fighting for. I am guessing that as a result they will eventually come back to the Republican fold and we will end up having a GOP that becomes more socialist/progressive but in the interest of whites vs a socialist DNC that works for minorities. The country will become divided along racial lines more than anything else.

    B.T.D.T.

    November 12, 2016 at 8:31 am

    • SWPL’s wanted Bernie. So, they are already noticing that they don’t run the DNC.

      not too late

      November 12, 2016 at 9:31 am

      • The Clintons ran the DNC. I think they will drop out now.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 12, 2016 at 9:35 am

      • Both Clintons look ready to drop dead any moment — I give illary two years, tops.

        And everyone can stop worrying about Chelsea: she has no ambition, no fire in the belly. She’s the lay-about scion of royalty.

        The Clinton Era is over.

        hard9bf

        November 12, 2016 at 9:52 am

    • Matt Yglesias pretty much said the same thing on Twitter recently. The problem with this is that blacks tend not to wield power very gracefully. Barack Obama is quite unusual for his courtliness; most politically active blacks are more like Van Jones ranting about “whitelash,” and increased exposure to this isn’t going to help the party hold onto whites, let alone attract them.

      Richard

      November 12, 2016 at 11:18 am

      • Barack is half white..Van Jones is not.

        B.T.D.T.

        November 12, 2016 at 1:39 pm

  9. The Democratic Party has moved so far Left that if JFK were alive, he would struggle to win the GOP nomination and Dems would call him Hitler. Democrats have become the party of:

    1) Blacks
    2) Browns
    3) Slutty White women without husbands (or with loser husbands)
    4) Sodomites

    White men of normal sexuality are Enemy #1 of the Democratic Party. After a crushing defeat, instead of courting White men, the Democratic Party is doubling down on its strategy of demonizing and literally attacking White men. President Trump can defend his constituency by closing the borders and deporting illegals, including deporting anchor babies to their parents’ home country along with mom and dad.

    hard9bf

    November 12, 2016 at 9:43 am

    • To your point about Chelsea Clinton: She could barely campaign for her own mother. Look how much hard work Trump’s kids (and even their spouses!) put in for their father.

      This may be off-topic and anecdotal, but observe the difference in campaign strategies between Trump and HRC. Here in PA, Hillary came to Pittsburgh 3 times, Philly 4 times, and Erie twice. Trump went to Mechanicsburg, Lancaster, Meadville. He seemed to really enjoy getting out there and meeting working-class whites.

      There’s a recent story in The Atlantic where a black man goes to see what’s up at a Trump rally, and he’s shocked when Trump comes up to him before the rally, shakes his hand, asks him his name and what he does for a living. Anyone who’s looking for a reason why Trump won PA should start right there.

      martinslag

      November 12, 2016 at 1:39 pm

  10. Traditional FDR liberalism opposed immigration for the obvious reason that it hurt workers and unions.

    There is scant overlap between traditional liberalism and Marxism. Traditional liberalism is democratic, and supports free speech, private property, and regulated or restrained capitalism. Marxism opposes all of those things and was, in fact, the mortal enemy of “bourgeois” or traditional liberalism.

    Mark Caplan

    November 12, 2016 at 10:49 am

  11. “Both Clinton look ready to drop dead at any moment”

    Bill looked especially bad at Hillary’s concession speech. The look in his eyes was of an embittered and thoroughly defeated man. I think the Alex Jones rapist hecklers did a job on him. Agreed on Chelsea..she actually seems like a fairly descent person, which is why she would never succeed in politics. Let’s also keep in mind that her real dad is Webster Hubbel, show she didn’t inherit Bubba’s mojo.

    B.T.D.T.

    November 12, 2016 at 11:54 am

  12. Alan Lichtman who predicted Trump victory – as every president’s election correctly since many years – say Republican will empeached Trump somewhere next year to have Mike Pence being the president instead. He says it is impossible that Trump will behave in a way that doesn’t give Republican a motive , if they want to, to get rid of him …. If i were Trump, i wouldn’t give as much power to Pence as he is doing.

    You predicted that Pence would have no say, and it looks he is setting the agenda a hell of a lot now …

    Bruno from Paris

    November 12, 2016 at 11:59 am

    • It’s not clear at all that Pence is setting the agenda any more than Christie was setting the agenda when he was running the transition team. As far as I know, Trump sets the agenda, and Pence just has a managerial role in running the transition team.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 12, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    • People need to stop falling for this sort of conspiratorial bullshit. He just pulled off an unbelievable win and he’s immensely popular with the base. Impeaching him would kill the GOP.

      IHTG

      November 12, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    • The Republicans might want to impeach Trump but we voted for Trump, not for them. They will be destroyed if they try it. That professor is just spouting off his opinion, he has zero to go on. He predicted Trump would win, big deal,so did I. My opinion is worth as much as his. Trump is going to slowly get rid of the backstabbers, Ryan is already facing possible removal as Speaker. And I think the Justice Department might be looking into a few Senators come January. Lindsey Graham had better hope all his boy toys are over the age of consent.

      JimBonobo

      November 12, 2016 at 3:29 pm

  13. Nobody believed me back then

    Is there any evidence for this statement? Just because you didn’t get a bunch of middle-aged white guy commenters squeeing “OMG Lion you’re a genius!” doesn’t mean that “nobody believed” you.

    Fiddlesticks

    November 12, 2016 at 12:53 pm

  14. I can’t use the term “neoliberalism” because there’s a Wikipedia article describing an entirely theoretical concept called “neoliberalism,” so I will call it new-age-liberalism… Traditional-liberalism is the liberalism of FDR. Unions, social security, unemployment insurance, 40-hour workweeks, are examples of policies championed by the traditional liberals. It’s heavily based on populism, and championing the rights of the poor over the rich. As such, it has the closest ties to communism, which is an extreme example of traditional-liberalism.

    It’s the obvious ignorance of traditional 19th-century “Liberalism” (a term that is still used in its original sense in the UK and Australia) and its relevance to the development of modern American political thought that vitiates this analysis. It would be a lot better if “leftist” was used in place of “liberal” and then the relationship of old-fashioned Liberalism (and its current revival as so-called “Neo-Liberalism” on the one hand and Libertarianism on the other) to modern leftist thought would be easier to understand.

    To the extent that FDR’s New Deal was in part a legacy of 19th-century Liberalism, it most assuredly is NOT the closest to Marxism (though its collectivist tendencies did have a lot in common with post-WWII European socialism, which is basically a jettisoning of some of the more obvious idiocies of Marxism while trying to keep the overall spirit).

    I’m also dubious about this dichotomy between “egalitarian” and “New Age” variants. They’re both based on the fundamentally false premise that all people are inherently equal (the tabula rasa idea that goes back to Rousseau at least). The idea is that left to their “natural” development, all characteristics of adults would be spread equally throughout the population, and if that’s not the case, then that can only be explained by positing that the powerful people who control the system are intentionally acting to suppress the latent “talents” of the oppressed.

    This way of thinking leads to a natural hostility towards “the privileged”, which manifests itself as a sliding scale of favored and disfavored categories (women vs. men, Western vs. “other”, homosexual vs. heterosexual, black vs. white, and so on), and in crazier strains this is extended to “human” vs. “animal”. The so-called “New Age” sort of leftist (“liberal”) thinking is just a variant of the egalitarian variety.

    In the final analysis, the story of American leftist politics since the 1960s has been the progressive (ha!) jettisoning of the old-fashioned New Deal socialism, which was focused on the working class (which in practice meant lower-class white male union members) in favor of a sort of faux-Marxism that is aimed at destroying the traditional basis of society on the family and instead emphasizing the “liberation” of supposedly traditionally oppressed “classes” (with even women as a category being understood as a “class” as Marx used the term). Hence, all the identity politics, which identifies and even promotes a sense of grievance among its members and encourages them to lash out against their oppressors (the prime example of which is the “anglo” white male).

    As Sailer says, this is the not very cohesive “coalition of the fringes”, and the recent election just goes to show that a big chunk of those of the left side of the “vs” paradigm have gotten fed up with it. Whether this will stand up in the face of the crazed determination of the discontented “fringes” remains to be seen.

    Sauron's Lazy Eye

    November 12, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    • In the United States in the year 2016, liberal means what I described, and not what it mean 150 years ago.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 12, 2016 at 1:14 pm

      • and there’s a psychologically easy transition from 19th century liberalism to leftism/progressivism — people have told themselves there’s no Natural Social Order but they still feel the need to fight to realize an overall social Idea, so they fight to realize the idea of Social Anti-Order (or Chaos) by trying to obliterate anything that looks like it might be an attempt to realize a Natural Social Order. Something like that.

        Garr

        November 12, 2016 at 3:35 pm

      • I agree that that’s what liberal really means today, but there is still a contingent of liberals who don’t accept that and are most like what you described as “traditional liberals.” These are the Bernie Sanders and Thomas Frank types who think everything comes down to money, rich vs. poor, and that that’s the one issue driving everything else. I unfortunately have some exposure to this mindset through my own left-wing father. These are the people who consider Obama a “right-wing corporatist” because of things like the bank bailout, and his not pushing for full-on socialized medicine. Although, of course, when push comes to shove, they come down on the liberal side of social issues, at all other times they claim that the vast majority of Democrats and mainstream liberals are not only not “true” liberals at all, but in fact are “right-wing” and “conservative,” because of their failure to brazenly push for 90% top marginal income tax rates, large increases in capital gains and estate taxes, huge new governmental social welfare programs, their failure to insufficiently support labor unions, etc. In this worldview, it’s not just that liberalism has failed to do it’s job, it’s that liberalism barely exists–we are living in a radical right-wing country with virtually no liberal voice whatsoever. To them, absolutely everything comes down to money.

        Hermes

        November 12, 2016 at 3:56 pm

      • It shouldn’t on a blog with intellectual pretensions, though. The Left consists of Liberals (rest of the world usage), Progressives, and the universalist-compassion-egalitarians with its Christian roots. By far the most destructive of these is the latter since it is basically self-abnegating (suicidal).

        CamelCaseRob

        November 12, 2016 at 5:57 pm

    • In the final analysis, the story of American leftist politics since the 1960s has been the progressive (ha!) jettisoning of the old-fashioned New Deal socialism,

      Not correct.

      Since the 19th century the American Progressive* movement (and its British equivalent, Fabian Socialism**) has been saturated with Communists and Communist sympathizers. The radical Great Society legislation of the 1960s was passed by aging veterans of the FDR and, to a lesser extent, Woodrow Wilson administrations. The New Deal was the first step to their complete takeover thirty years later: part of its objective was to tranquilize the already complacent Greatest Generation with the drug of government welfare.

      If the Baby Boomers weren’t egomaniac historical illiterates they would never have rebelled against those fuddy-duddy old school liberals in the first place; it was those “squares” who gave them 90% of the social engineering machinery seated in DC which leftist Boomers have brutalized the country with ever since.

      * Upton Sinclair, 1938

      http://archive.org/stream/UptonSinclairOnTheSovietUnion/Upton-on-sovietUnion_djvu.txt

      It is also true that I have been studying the problem of Russia as earnestly as I know how for twenty years. There have been few days during that period that I have not sought some new facts and pondered them. I have had many a heartache over the things which have happened in Russia— so different from what I hoped for. I watched Gorky all through this period, and I know how he suffered and how more than once he wavered. But in the end he made up his mind that the Soviet regime was the best hope for the workers of Russia, and that is my conclusion today.

      ** Orwell, 1937.

      http://george-orwell.org/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier/10.html

      The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that Socialism, in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the middle classes. The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years’ time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting. This last type is surprisingly common in Socialist parties of every shade; it has perhaps been taken over en bloc from. the old Liberal Party. In addition to this there is the horrible–the really disquieting–prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      November 12, 2016 at 3:16 pm

  15. Here’s an example of what Lion is talking about.

    During GWB’s final two years when he faced a Dem congress, the idealistic pre-Vox Ezra Klein was champing at the bit for Card Check, a scheme where workplaces can unionize w/o a secret ballot.

    The House actually passed it in 2007. It only failed in the Senate due to a filibuster, or so it seemed. It was Big Labor’s #1 priority, and Ezra was sure that the Senate would come through, and Obama would push for and sign this legislation once his team swept the 2008 elections.

    It never happened, despite their filibuster-proof majority. Indeed, the obsessions of the policy libsofts got completely smothered by SJWs.

    http://prospect.org/article/best-argument-youll-ever-read-card-check

    Fiddlesticks

    November 12, 2016 at 3:02 pm

  16. my definition of an eco-hotel: the shower runs out of hot water.

    jz

    November 12, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    • And the guests love it. There’s something of the religious ascetic in some of the Left.

      CamelCaseRob

      November 12, 2016 at 6:05 pm

  17. To me it’s obvious who the post-Clinton leader of the Democratic party is and will be for the next decade…a black ex-president. His non-profit political foundation will bathe in billions of liberal dollars for speeches while his minions build a presidential library in Chicago.

    cesqy

    November 12, 2016 at 4:30 pm

  18. What are your thoughts on Christie being pushed out? I know you liked him.

    Dave

    November 12, 2016 at 4:30 pm

  19. Great post, Lion! I think Trump’s victory energized you. When you are good, you are good.

    Yakov

    November 12, 2016 at 8:31 pm

    • It’s a copy and paste job, I wrote it in 2007.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 12, 2016 at 11:49 pm

      • I know, I can read the heading. I mean in general you are energized. I think most of us are.

        Yakov

        November 13, 2016 at 9:32 am

  20. IMO, rather than the trend having been towards “New Age” liberalism, 2007 was right around the time it peaked. It probably would’ve become the dominant ideological direction had Hillary won (in ’08), but the election and particularly reelection of a black POTUS meant it was to be all identity politics all the time. (Clearly not “egalitarianism,” which is now considered by all a vaguely right-wing term).

    snorlax

    November 12, 2016 at 9:05 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: