Recently, Megan Mc... Jane Galt wrote:
Third party candidates break away from their parties when the party is moving away from them, which is usually because the electorate is moving towards the other party. Henry Wallace and Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and Ralph Nader were all members of a formerly fairly powerful group that was falling out of favour... They tried to tug the party back their way by costing them the election... The American electorate is currently moving rightward.
Beg to differ.
From my point of view, it's more that the Democratic party, and "liberalism" in general, is veering sharply leftward. True, Americans are increasingly pro-life; true, abstinence among the young is supposedly increasing, while drug use is declining. But on the other hand, gay unions are becoming more socially acceptable and we're all ever fonder of government entitlements like prescription drug benefits.
No, these are comparatively small effects compared to the bone-jarring leftward lurch "liberalism" has taken.
Remember when being a liberal meant being for integration and color-blind policies? Now those are "reactionary", "far right" policies; it's fashionably leftist to assert that minorities and women are incapable of being held to the same standards... while Jesse Jackson asserts "To ignore race and sex is to be racist and sexist."
Remember when there was no conflict between national defense and liberalism? JFK? Johnson? Clinton? By switching from principles to the personal, and defining their platform as being against whatever Bush is for (even if it's something Democrats have championed in the past), this round of candidates have yielded the common ground to the Republicans, and foolishly allowed "national security" to become a partisan issue, where it never was before.
Remember when liberals made a principled case that it might be appropriate to use our armed forces against facism, and for nation-building?
Remember when liberals were against "patriarchy" and male-dominated societal forms? Now liberals overlook these things whenever Islam is involved, despite the fact that Islam is so far "right" (in this regard) it makes David Duke look like Ralph Nader.
Remember when being a liberal meant defending civil liberties, even speech from unpopular groups like the KKK? ("I disagree completely with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!") Now being a liberal means suppressing conservative speech and burning newspapers. And (for famous liberals only) whining pathetically -- while being broadcast nationally -- about your loss of "freedom of speech" because someone had had the nerve to actually disagree with you in an equally public fashion.
Remember when Rob and Laura Petrie were shocking for sleeping in the same bed? Many of us thought it was about time TV was more in tune with "reality". Now, however, TV's version of "reality" is the Gangsta lifestyle (though most the "luxury" props are actually rented), "ho's" describing sexually explicit acts, and frequent on-screen same-gender makeout sessions pitched at the young. Not to mention Abercrombie & Fitch's recent "Group Sex" catalog.
Remember when liberalism meant welcoming and being open to people from all over the world coming to America and joining that great American "melting pot"? Now it means opposing legal immigration, and anything resembling "melting", while arguing we have an obligation to insulate the recent arrival from the harsh fact they've left "the old country" and now are in a different country with a different language and legal system. (No sharia here, yet. Thank YHWH.)
Lastly, once upon a time, a president who kept former political appointees (from the other party) in his administration, spent record amounts on education, fighting AIDs around the world, nation-building, who had the most ethnically diverse cabinet in history, and who would argue for naturalizing every illegal alien in the US would have been called a leftist, or a least a centrist, rather than a "far-right" Republican.
(If that's "far right", then where is the left to go?)
No, folks, to me it seems that it's not so much that society has shifted "rightward". It's more the case that somebody changed the marks on the rule while the rest of us were standing still.
Principled disagreements welcomed, as always.