As you’re reading The Rauch Review, you’ll often see me and my contributors use the words liberalism, neoliberalism and centrism, as well as their conjugations (liberal, centrist, etc). You may also see “gradualism” and its conjugations. If you’re a self-described liberal or conservative living in the U.S., you likely ascribe different definitions to these words.
To leftists such as myself, however, these political labels are synonymous. Based on context, I choose varied verbiage from this selection, but my intended meaning is always the same.
When I have this conversation with my Democratic Party-voting friends, family members and colleagues, confusion and surprise are usually their initial reactions. Sometimes they become offended. ‘How can you say those things are the same?’ ‘I’m a liberal, not a neoliberal or a centrist.’ ‘I’m on the left, not in the center.’
As I explain in my friendly open letter to our liberal readers, my intention is not to be pejorative or condescending. We simply disagree on definitions. By linking to explanatory articles such as this one, I aim to expose a politically diverse readership to enlightening ideas that are normally discussed only in far left circles.
It All Comes Down to the Same Vote and Party Support
In terms of opinions, self-described liberals are not a monolith. Some want our government to send weapons to Israel; others don’t. Within liberal communities, there are debates on major policy issues, including immigration and censorship.
When it comes to voting habits, however, liberals have been near monolithic for decades. I have never met a self-described liberal who votes for a party other than the Democrats. The vast majority of liberals I speak to agree with my definition that to be a liberal means to vote for the Democratic Party, regardless of enthusiasm for the candidate.
These liberals often believe they are on the left side of the political spectrum, because they believe the Democratic Party is a left party. As I’m sure you’ve figured out by now, I disagree.
Combating Propaganda and Defining the American Political Center
During the past three or so decades, one of the most effective and destructive pieces of propaganda in American life is that the Democratic Party represents the left. This propaganda, disseminated by centrist media outlets, has several goals:
- Convince average people that there is no political center, that there is only left (the Democratic Party) and right (the Republican Party)
- Deny the existence of other political parties that claim to represent the left
- For people who are aware of these left political parties: convince them that the Democratic Party is the only legitimate and effective representative of the left
- Prevent the general public from discovering and advocating for truly left/populist policies, a goal that was almost 100% successful until Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential run
Expanding on point #1, black and white thinking is both a cognitive distortion and symptom of being propagandized. ‘Us vs. them’ is a complementary propaganda tactic employed to pit large populations of average people against each other. If you believe the Democratic Party is the left, why would you look leftward? If you believe middle and working-class Republican voters are the greatest existential threat to your quality of life and that only the “left” party can fight back, why would you ever withhold your vote from the Democratic Party?
Throughout history, binary thinking has been fuel for discrimination and erasure. When people believe only straight and gay exist, they erase the bisexual identity. When people believe a person can only be one race or another, they erase the biracial identity. Politics may be different from these identities, but the tactic of identity erasure is the same.
A Policy-Based Perspective on the True Center and True Left
The Democratic Party is our centrist party. This framing is actually generous. Many on the left believe that both the Democratic Party and Republican Party are right parties, with the Republicans simply being further to the right on some policies.
The Green Party, one of our actual left parties, has an official platform that expresses left policies. We have listed a few of them below. The Democratic Party does not support any of these policies. A few progressive Democratic Party politicians claim to support some of these policies, but these partisans don’t have any plan to achieve the necessary legislation or political pressure.
- Single-payer universal healthcare
- Ceasing military aid to Israel
- Green New Deal
- Reduction of military budget
- Abolish the electoral college
- Ranked choice voting
- Reparations
Clinton Neoliberalism Has Been the Democratic Party Standard for Decades
In “Listen, Liberal,” a book I reviewed a while ago, author Thomas Frank masterfully explains how Bill Clinton established modern neoliberalism as the standard for the Democratic Party. Clinton accelerated the Democratic Party’s abandonment of the working class and embrace of Wall Street, job offshoring, welfare reduction and war. The Obama and Biden administrations have been an extension of Clinton’s broad policies.
Today the Democratic Party has moved even further from the left. Kamala Harris has proudly accepted endorsements from neoconservatives such as Liz and Dick Cheney.
MLK’s Prescient Description of a ‘Moderate’
In his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King Jr. described his disappointment with the stereotypical “white moderate.” King’s letter may be in the context of the civil rights movement, but I believe his points can be applied to many of today’s self-described liberals and their attitude about aggressively exiting the two-party system. If King was alive today, I don’t think he would vote within the two-party system.
Here is one of the most relevant passages:
“First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season.’ Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
In relation to our entrapment in the two-party system, today’s situation is similar. The people keeping us stuck in rapacious neoliberalism are not the minority of rightward extremists: January 6 rioters, abortion clinic protesters, vaccine denialists and so on. No, the people who slow our progress are the majority of moderates, the loyal two-party system voters.
When I talk to upholders of neoliberalism, I hear the same lines over and over again.
‘I agree with the policies you want, but I’m not going to vote outside the two-party system.’
‘Now isn’t the time to vote third party. We need to stop the Republicans first. Maybe I’ll vote for the Green Party four years from now.’
No matter what you call the philosophy — liberalism, neoliberalism, centrism, gradualism, being a moderate — it always boils down to a psychology of endless waiting, settling and fear.
Why Do You Define People’s Political Labels by Their Votes?
I believe voting choices are the defining characteristic of political identity. Some friends and family members have told me they think this attitude is unfair. They assert that voting is not necessarily an expression of values and desires, and I agree.
Voting is about impact. I think it’s fair to define political labels based on impact, not opinion or expressed wants.
For the vast majority of Americans, opinion alone does not have a significant impact. Unless you have a large platform, your opinion will not trigger any action that directly changes policy.
Even for well-known political commentators, voting is paramount. If your followers respect your intellect, they are more likely to mimic your voting habits. Why be a political commentator if you don’t want people to vote the way you do?
Mutual aid and activism can have a political impact, but most people are not interested in these practices, or they’re too busy. Voting is the one activity nearly all adults have the time and capability to perform.
Despite our generally undemocratic systems, every vote has an impact. If you vote blue in a solid blue state, you are assisting in the impact to keep that state in the two-party system. When people vote for the Green Party in a solid blue state, they are working against the effort to keep the state in the two-party system. When people don’t vote, they are choosing to not have an impact, which allows the voting population to hold more power over non-voters.
Liberalism means voting only for the Democratic Party. Regardless of differences between the Democratic and Republican parties, voting for the Democratic Party means voting to maintain the two-party system. The conversation is complicated, but the definition doesn’t have to be.
Get the latest of The Rauch Review in your inbox, discover books you won’t see in stores, stay up to date on the “Rauching to Judgment” podcast and more.
