Intolerable prickliness

In Friday's Washington Post, Sally Kohn, who's been dubiously praised as "the progressive answer to Glenn Beck," brooded over the Liberal Paradox: that in being so tolerant of others' views, liberals only invite the full flowering of others' intolerance. I permit Ms. Kohn the floor, which she took after slapping President Obama around for the following sin:

The real problem isn’t a liberal weakness. It’s something liberals have proudly seen as a strength — our deep-seated dedication to tolerance. In any given fight, tolerance is benevolent, while intolerance gets in the good punches. Tolerance plays by the rules, while intolerance fights dirty. The result is round after round of knockouts against liberals who think they’re high and mighty for being open-minded but who, politically and ideologically, are simply suckers.

That may be, although I don't see it as liberals' "real problem," or, at least, their most easily remedied real problem -- which isn't tolerance, but internal intolerance.

"Liberal" is an ambiguous word; it has been ever since liberals capitulated to the right's insistence that "liberalism" is a dirty word, hence liberals became "progressives." Well, some did. I'd venture that many of those who did were also the ones, often younger, who felt most keenly their politically strategic genius and activist spirit. Ever since, we've had the feisty progressives and what we could call the old-school liberals -- those in possession of more moderation, experience in the world's ways, a willingness to compromise, and so on, you get the idea.

The resulting bifurcation produced not only two schools of political approach, however. It has produced a distinct brand of internal warring, best represented here by the difference between Obamian liberalism and the activist blogosphere. Though light bulbs do on occasion appear over the heads of the latter, Obama's more moderate approach generally appears to them utterly incomprehensible and even abhorrent. For nearly two years the two sides barely spoke to each other and though presently subdued that prickliness will, no doubt, soon return.

All of which reminded me of modern conservatism's orginal factional breach and the strategic, philosophical closing thereof. There were, in the beginning, loosely, the traditionalists (Burkeans) and those of self-described reason (libertarians) and the two had been warring endlessly and costing themselves electoral victories. Until, that is, conservative strategist Frank Meyer, he of the Hegelian dialectic and National Review and Modern Age stepped in, in 1960, and guidingly wrote:

Conservatism, to continue to develop today, must embrace both: reason operating within tradition.... It can only be achieved by a hard-fought dialectic -- but a dialectic in which both sides recognize not only that they have a common enemy [liberalism and socialism], but also that, despite all differences, they hold a common heritage.

It seems to me that today's progressives see themselves as operating within a fighting tradition, while liberals see themselves as operating within the governing imperatives of reason. Yet, as conservatives of the 1950s and '60s recognized, does this not present a dialectic to be embraced, rather than differences prolonged?

It's not excessive tolerance of others, but an intolerance of each other, Ms. Kohn, that restricts their general numbers and retards liberal progress.

Comments

[Bobfr]

And if anyone understands the need for that dialectic, and the intrinsic tolerance it requires, that person is President Obama.

For him it's not an abstract concept, it is how he has conducted his life of public service.

[Alli]

bravo sir. bravo.

my comments are always very short because there isn't anything else to add.

[GT]

You must be smoking. Have you not noticed that Obama did not even fight for the Public Option?

Did Obama even try to strength labor rights?

What power or clout do Progressives have?
Where??

In any case, no matter what happens I will never again vote for Obama or another Democrat.

Nader in 2012!

[JRinDallas]

Yeah, because the last time libtards backed Nader things worked out so well for the progressive cause.

[KN]

The Nader debacle was the most compelling illustration that I can think of that our plurality voting system is broken beyond repair, yet nobody seems to want to talk about this. At least the Brits are starting to get it right with their AV referendum. So long as we use a plurality system, we'll continue to be faced with a tactical voting nightmare.

You want to vote for a non-Democrat? Good for you, but let's work to change the voting system first.

[CJ]

It's hard for me to look at any dialectic which produced Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck as its ultimate outcome on the right, and think that liberals need to in any way emulate it.

Tradition and reason may have been the starting points, but they cancelled out and all that was left were the contradictions and hypocrisies.

[GT]

@JRinDallas and all others:

I prefer to vote for "None of the Above" rather than vote again for the moral coward Obama.

My point is that let us not pretend that Obama (along with Geithner, Summers, etc.) is not also a tool of Wall Street.

Tragically, the worst mistake Obama and the Democrats made was to continue the Bush-Paulson policy of bank bailouts with no conditions attached.

America has a one-party system with two factions.

The American Business Party has two factions known as Republicans and Democrats.

Good thing that the Congress passed the bank bailout legislation with no strings attached -- otherwise there might be restricted lending and Unemployment!

[wtf]

JRinDallas--"Libtard"? Is that how you build bridges to people--call them retards? Do you mock people with Down Syndrome when you see them on the street? You're a shithead.

GT--The people who read this blog are, for the most part, Obamabots and ignorant about finance and banking. If you point out Obama's many programs to benefit the banks (TARP, which he supported, being only the tip of the iceberg) they'll tell you he had to support them, we made the money back, etc, etc. Obama's financial reform was the minimum he could get away with doing--a joke cooked up by the very people who caused the disaster. And it's only been further watered down by Geithner in his loyalty to his mentor/benefactor Bob Rubin.

Where's Eric Holder's prosecution of Wall Street? Nowhere. The big criminal banks continue their crimes unscathed. The glaring, criminal Obama lapse to prosecute has nothing to do with Republican control of the House. Obama opposes looking back at the past when it comes to white collar torturers or financial terrorists. Law is to be used against the middle class and poor. Obama and his cohorts are above the law.