A Political Nomenclature

Modified from TPMCafe.com, http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/4/144852/9026. I am not totally convinced, yet, that I believe all of this. But I have edited the following to more closely meet some of my thoughts about politics. What do you think?

By liberal and conservative I mean center-left and center-right, not far-left and far-right.

• An economic liberal supports welfare-state capitalism, not far-left democratic socialism.
• A social conservative is a moderate traditionalist with qualms about abortion and gay marriage, not a far-right Christian fundamentalist who thinks that Satan controls the UN and that every un-implanted embryo is a child.
• Social liberals are too far to the left of most Americans on social issues.
• Economic conservatives are too far to the right of most Americans on economic issues.
• The "moderate" category is somewhat misleading, since it includes two distinct groups: libertarians and populists, who hold opposite views about everything.
• Libertarians are social liberals and economic conservatives.
• Populists are social conservatives and economic liberals.

During the 1932-68 era the New Deal Democrats were an economic liberal party, with a social conservative wing and a social liberal wing. The social conservative Democrats--white Southern and Western Protestants and northern Catholics--outnumbered the small number of social liberals, most of them northern liberal Protestants and Jews. Even when the racism of many Southerners and white working-class Northerners is factored out, the New Deal Democrats were a predominantly social conservative party. My grandfather was a New Deal Democrat.

As a result of the Civil Rights Revolution, the civil rights coalition of blacks with Northern white Protestants, Jews and, increasingly, Latinos replaced the old farmer-labor coalition of the New Deal Democrats. Despite a few holdovers from the New Deal era, the post-1968 Civil Rights Democrats were a new party whose actual precursors were failed Northeastern parties of the nineteenth century: Liberal Republicans, Whigs and Federalists. John Kerry even looks like a 19^th Century Whig.

The Civil Rights Democrats were (and remain) a social liberal party with an economic liberal wing (the pro-union "Old Democrats") and an economic conservative wing (the free-business "New Democrats"). Socially liberal, to me, means respecting the boundaries of state power. Abortion is as much an issue of power as choice; to me, the federal government should not decide what’s right for all women in the entire country. Title VII’s prohibitions of sex and race discrimination, on the other hand, are perfectly legitimate uses of state power to end employment discrimination based on morally unjustifiable distinctions. And note, the distinction between abortion and discrimination is not just power; it's also where power, or in what arena, power should be exercised. State power should not be enforced in the privacy of your home, between or for consenting adults. State power should be used, on the other hand, to level the playing field so blacks, gays, Muslims and white males compete economically on an equal footing. Economic conservatism, to me, means policies that encourage economic opportunity.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, the only two presidents the post-1968 Civil Rights Democrats have elected, ran as social conservative, economic liberal populists. But once they got elected by appealing to the populist vote, they promoted policies favored by moderate libertarians--that is, a combination of social liberalism and economic conservatism. Carter, in power, supported affirmative action and abortion (social liberalism) and broke with the New Deal tradition to push for economic deregulation (economic conservatism). Clinton, in power, defended affirmative action, abortion and gays in the military (social liberalism) and, after the failure of his business-friendly health care proposal, broke with most of his party to promote NAFTA, the WTO, and balanced budgets (economic conservatism).

Clinton echoed the economic conservatives, announcing: "The era of big government is over." This was so far from being true that Clinton's successor, George W. Bush, presided over the biggest expansion of socialized medicine in the U.S. since Lyndon Johnson, the expanded Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Many "New Democrats" and "neoliberals" approved of reaching out to upscale libertarians who support choice and free trade. In one respect, this strategy succeeded. In recent elections, the Democrats have been gaining more and more of the socially liberal, economically conservative professional and managerial elite. The blogs I read seem to have been written by people in this category. That’s also basically me: a socially liberal, economically conservative, lawyer.

Unfortunately for today's Michael Moore-type Democrats, working-class, white, self-proclaimed evangelical Christian populists with a high school education greatly outnumber overeducated professionals in the U.S. electorate.

Given the large number of populists and the small number of libertarians, a liberal-populist alliance can defeat a conservative-libertarian alliance--but a conservative-populist alliance, of the kind found in today's Republican party, can easily defeat a liberal-libertarian alliance, of the kind found in today's Democratic party.