Jeff Toobin, in his book The Nine, credits the rise of intellectually respectable conservative legal philosophies, and the concomitant rise of their avatar Antonin Scalia, to a liberal overreach in the 1960s. Having succeeded with Brown v. Board at defining a role for the judiciary in creating social progress, liberal jurists tried to move for change faster than society would allow – the world wasn’t ready for Roe, and it wasn’t ready for critical legal studies (in the case of the latter, it may never be). They paid the price by eliciting a backlash that paved the way for their own enemies to triumph.
I think this trend of overreaching goes beyond the judiciary. In the same time period, liberal politicians sacrificed political efficacy for a just society, but also overextended themselves, losing touch with the American base in the process. We’ve certainly paid the price: even in victory, liberal politicians like Bill Clinton have found themselves on the defensive when working for important liberal goals. Far from being a singular liberal failing, though, the theme of overreach and reversal is becoming cyclical, and may become the defining characteristic of this coming presidential election.
Bush was elected in 2000 as a moderate, and re-elected in 2004 as a firmly right-wing conservative. Since that time, though, Bush has shown every sign of overreaching his ideological mandate, alienating Americans from the party and from conservatism. Examples of a positions that alienated middle America, proving the conservative overreach, abound. Inter alia, we have the refusal to reauthorize the assault weapons ban (proving that knee-jerk, ideological reactions to anything with the words “gun control” trumps national security interests in Bush’s book), the spectacular failure of nation-building (goodbye neocons), the divisive attempts to use major issues just to piss off the right people (notice how gay marriage only destroys families in election years?), and blind ignorance of global warming science. All this – together with the facts that even evangelical Christians are starting to feel played, and that John McCain is always on the defensive when talking about conservatism – suggests to me that America is fed up with conservatism, at least as applied by the Bush administration. McCain’s only hope is to make conservatism into something moderate and palatable, switching positions on a couple issues in the process.
All of this is a good sign for liberals. While that L-word is still best not mentioned – and will probably still be the four-letter word of politics – at least some of the more dangerous issues of conservatism are dead, and at least McCain is on the defensive on his own ground. But let’s not get cocky. Remember, all of this has happened before, and all of this may happen again.
Very good analysis Ames. I think I’m going to have to link to this one. The only thing I am going to take issue with is this statement:
Inter alia, we have the refusal to reauthorize the assault weapons ban (proving that knee-jerk, ideological reactions to anything with the words “gun control” trumps national security interests in Bush’s book)
Couple of questions, if you will indulge a friend…
1) Define assault weapon.
2) Do you think banning ‘assault weapons’ is enough?
Posted by Progressive Conservative | June 25, 2008, 12:22 pmNice post! You really got me thinking.
The overreach that the young Scalias saw in the judiciary prompted them to champion a limited “I just apply the laws,” stick-to-the-text philosophy. Its appeal lies in the idea that this branch of government had overstepped and needed to be more scrupulous. Sticking to the text in the courts, then, is the battle cry of conservatives.
I think it’s interesting to liken that to an Executive Branch overreach and to wonder what impact that will have on young liberal observers. The Executive has aggregated a huge amount of power to itself.
Do you think a new school of liberal aspiring politicians will adopt a “stick to the rules, stay within the lines” ethic for the Executive? And seek a balance of power that allots an ascendant position to the Congress?
Then, interestingly enough, the sort of textualist mindframe is a conservative thing in the Judiciary and a liberal thing in the Executive. Sounds weird but I can see it.
Posted by Collin | June 25, 2008, 12:33 pmHm. I don’t think liberalism overreached itself, rather I think the public just grew tired of it. You have to remember that liberals won every major battle they fought: civil rights, women’s rights (though some, me among them, would say this battle isn’t nearly over), abortion (more states allowed abortion than banned it even before Roe v. Wade), regulation of the economy (funny, how very few people oppose the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is economic regulation incarnate), and, most recently, gay rights. I don’t think liberals overreached. Rather, with all their major battles won, the only thing left is to endlessly extend the battlefields until they affect fewer and fewer people, until the public just can’t be inspired to give a damn anymore. At which point, the public switches into “I don’t give a damn” mode and vote conservative. (For a more adequate summation of the backlash against modern liberalism, see Zompists’ excellent article, The Last Century—What Went Wrong, which I cannot recommend enough as an invaluable read).
Posted by Radioactive afikomen | June 25, 2008, 12:48 pmSorry for the wall-of-text look in my last comment there. I now know why commenters use frequent paragraph breaks.
Posted by Radioactive afikomen | June 25, 2008, 12:49 pmThanks for the compliments PC and Collin! I’ll have to answer the questions in a bit; busy here…
Posted by Ames | June 25, 2008, 2:20 pm