“It’s a strange kind of freedom, this freedom to go bankrupt because you couldn’t afford to pay for the medical treatment that saved your life. Or the freedom to lose your home because the only job you know how to do is now done cheaper elsewhere.” — John Speranza, organizer, Seattle Democratic Socialists of America
Oxymorons have long been a staple of American politics, but few have inflicted as much havoc with the republic as the coupling of social liberalism with fiscal conservatism — an ongoing alchemy that could impact Democrats’ chances this November.
Born of French neoliberalism during the late 1800s, this flawed philosophy posits a clean separation between the worlds of society and economics — a pretzel logic theoretical dichotomy that allows the true believer to appear pragmatic and responsible, yet a caring and engaged citizen.
But the consequences aren’t nearly as theoretical, for central to this argument is the assumption Wall Street and Washington have something approaching a heart. That the vast array of for-profit businesses making up the US economic infrastructure will do right by the Head Start kids five blocks from the White House. That health insurance and employment training and public transportation are quality investments.
This cognitive and moral dissonance seems lost on those who adhere to a social liberal/fiscal conservative ethos, freeing them to advance a free-market secular gospel the opposite of classic liberalism: privatization, free trade, deregulation, globalization and austerity budgeting. Little wonder so many with a neoliberal bent look to the Reagan years with admiring eyes.
Democratic officeholders are not blameless when it comes naming and reversing this doctrine of denial, but there will be time enough to take stock no matter the outcome of the 2024 elections. The immediate challenge is to remain authentic Democrats, yet have something to offer the 12% of “Ambivalent Right” voters, as tracked in a 2021 Pew study. (These voters poll closest to a social liberal/fiscal conservative philosophy. Although a strong majority broke for Trump, 25% voted Democratic.)
Reality has become weirder than fiction now that a voting bloc named for an oxymoron is under such scrutiny. But then, oxymorons have long been a staple of American politics.
Don Rollins is a retired Unitarian Universalist minister in Jackson, Ohio. Email donaldlrollins@gmail.com.
From The Progressive Populist, May 1, 2024
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us