The New Liberal Order

In America, political majorities live or die at the intersection of two public yearnings: for freedom and for order. A century ago, in the Progressive Era, modern American liberalism was born, in historian Robert Wiebe's words, as a "search for order." America's giant industrial monopolies, the progressives believed, were turning capitalism into a jungle, a wild and lawless place where only the strong and savage survived. By the time Roosevelt took office ... Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala
Tags Help
Subjects: U.S., Politics
Topics: Presidential Election 2008, Democrats, Obama Administration
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Kaizar Campwala - Nov 14, 2008 - 1:16 AM PST
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Kaizar Campwala - Nov 14, 2008 - 1:16 AM PST

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Derek Hawkins
3.6
by Derek Hawkins - Nov. 14, 2008

A very well presented piece -- but it failed to completely convince me on two counts. First, Beinart doesn't lay out a clear explanation of how the New Left of the 1960s translated into the mainstream liberalism of the past two decades. For me this is a hole in the narrative and deserved a paragraph or so somewhere near the top of page two. Second, he seems to downplay conservatism's huge sway in the 1990s and early 2000s. He writes as if beginning with Gingrich's Congress the Republicans' trajectory has been downward. I find this assessment to be a bit weak.

I spent a lot of time reading this, and I think Beinart's attempt is commendable. This is a very well written and insightful piece. But it may be too grandiose for its own good.

See Full Review » (21 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
3.9
by Kaizar Campwala - Nov. 15, 2008

Beinhart's sells his stability theory of American politics using historical narrative. It's a good read and a interesting way of thinking about American politics. He's careful to highlight the roadblocks for liberals, but his analysis of conservatism is a little empty.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Walter Cox
4.0
by Walter Cox - Nov. 15, 2008

This article provides fresh perspective on historical trends with which everyone is familiar. The line of reasoning is sound and the analysis compelling. Very balanced--not overboard in any respect.

Yes, let's leave the harsh partisan divide in the past and concentrate on our common goals and needs.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Randy Morrow
3.7
by Randy Morrow - Nov. 15, 2008

This article contrasts: liberals of 1968 with liberals of 2008, FDR with Obama, and talks about what Obama could achieve.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Dwight Rousu
3.0
by Dwight Rousu - Nov. 15, 2008

The story is a bit superficial. It reports some of the shifts and trends, but implies that they happened magically, without cause, like a shower on a hot sunny day.

The story ignores the impact of the media and how it strongly shapes the public impression of events. The right wing purposefully bought out and infiltrated media corporations and have colored events to favor the right and the radical right in the eyes of the public. Huge economic advantages in campaigns fell into the corporatist supporters' pockets so that only corporatists were likely to have enough money to be elected no matter which party they belonged to. It took the worst ... More »

See Full Review » (13 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.6

Good
from 8 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
3.6
Facts
3.4
Fairness
3.7
Information
3.7
Insight
4.0
Sourcing
2.6
Style
4.2
Accuracy
3.0
Balance
4.0
Context
4.0
Depth
3.6
Enterprise
3.0
Expertise
3.0
Originality
4.0
Relevance
4.0
Transparency
4.0
Responsibility
4.0
Popularity
3.7
Recommendation
4.1
Credibility
3.4
# Reviews
4.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!