An interesting article at the New York Times (h/t Holly) about American Liberalism. Patricia Cohen writes:

The struggle among conservatives to define their movement in the post-Bush era may be getting more attention these days, but liberal intellectuals and writers are doing some soul-searching of their own. Not only are they trying to figure out what “the L word” now means, but also whether it could become a guiding philosophy in the 2008 presidential campaign by embracing the very ideas that are often seen as its greatest weaknesses: family values and a proactive government.

In several recent and forthcoming books (not to mention in bars and countless blog posts) liberals have been arguing over their past and their future. Al Gore’s new book, “The Assault on Reason,” with its merciless dissection of the Bush presidency, is getting the most attention. Unlike Mr. Gore, however, most of the other liberal authors are focused less on criticizing those in power than in defending and revitalizing their own philosophy.

There is a “new opening for a more robust liberalism,” said Michael Tomasky, editor at large of the liberal magazine The American Prospect. “It’s a very fascinating debate, because it’s also playing out to some extent in the world. Each of the three main Democratic candidates represents a specific and distinct place on the ideological continuum, from center to left, with Hillary Clinton towards the center, John Edwards towards the left, and Barack Obama occupying a still distinct place in between.”
[...]
And so many of the authors offer an analysis of why liberalism, which once defined America’s political life, lost support, and they identify a list of larger theoretical and policy issues that split the liberal camp, including national security, globalization and immigration, and tension between communal interests and individual rights, as well as liberalism’s recent arms-length relationship with religion and traditional values.

If there is a common thread linking the various books, though, it is an adjustment to President Bill Clinton’s famous campaign mantra: “It’s more than the economy, stupid.” Many aren’t satisfied with talking just about paychecks and changing the subject when values are raised, as some liberal and centrist Democrats have suggested. Indeed, they want to adopt the tactics of the Republican strategist Karl Rove and challenge their opponents’ greatest strengths on their own ground.

Again, it is a fascinating article, I encourage all of you to read it.

I find these kind of debates to be the most interesting aspect of politics. Often, blogging becomes summarizing what has happened in the world, and analyzing it in a way thousands of other people can do as well. However, in a debate like this, each voice represents something new, something distinct. Suddenly, one can truly add ideas, one can truly influence the way other people think. That is what it is all about, at least for me. This is essentially why I blog: I hope to learn and be influenced, but I also hope to influence others.

American liberalism and moral values: strange to talk about this. To many, American liberalism means quite the opposite of talking about moral values. Most liberals do not want to talk about the moral values dominating in a specific society, because they consider them to be a private affair, and not the business of the state.

Amy Sullivan believes that the Democratic Party should talk about morality and religion. She writes in “Liberalism for a New Century,” a collection of essays coming out next week, that quite some Republican voters “are not choosing one moral view over another. They are choosing the political party that talks about morality and religion over the party that doesn’t.”

E.J. Dionne (columnist for the Washington Post) writes in the same collection of essays: “American liberalism is, at its core, a set of moral commitments rooted in practical reason.”

Paul Starr, a Pulitzer Prize winner and Princeton sociologist, argues in “Freedom’s Power: The True Force of Liberalism,” that liberals “cannot allow themselves to become merely defensive and oppositional.”

They need, he writes, to “make the case for liberalism’s first principles, to renew the work of liberal innovation and to convince their fellow citizens to make the American project a liberal project once again.”

Patricia Cohen explains that liberals should not be afraid to proclaim that the government can be a force for good. Many Americans are, according to Paul Krugman (New York Times columnist), in favor of universal health care, believe that the government should help “the poorest members of society,” and that the government should protect the environment. These views are, Krugman explains, liberal views.

The debate about what constitutes American liberalism is also fought out in the area of foreign policy.

To noninterventionists the Iraq war provides sorrowful evidence of the dangers of exercising American power around the globe. The liberal internationalism that guided America through the cold war, however, linked security at home with the promotion of democracy abroad, and relied on international institutions and nonmilitary programs to win hearts and minds.

In his essay Mr. Tomasky (who is also editor of Guardian America, the London newspaper’s Web edition in the United States) offers a six-point program in which liberal hawks admit that the Iraq war was a mistake, and liberal doves acknowledge that their dislike of the Bush administration colored their judgment of the war and affirm that “we are not realists,” in the sense that tough-minded realpolitik should not necessarily override moral and humanitarian concerns.

There is also a debate going on in liberal circles about globalization: should globalization be countered, or is globalization inevitable and, in the end, a positive development?

It seems to me that liberals who say that the state does not have anything to do with morality, are a bunch of hypocrites: they do talk about morality when they talk about taxes, helping the poor, etc. Then, suddenly, it is about ‘helping’ the other and not being overly selfish. That is, of course, a moral value. In other words, liberals too pick and choose moral values they believe the goverment should defend, and criticize those who want the government to defend moral values they’re not happy with.

So, the question is, I guess, what kind of morals do liberals believe in and what kind of morals should the government defend?

UPDATE
Pamela answers my question(s) at The Democratic Daily. Go and read her post: she is, in her own words, a proud, JFK liberal.

UPDATE II
Same goes for Libby Spencer. Go and read this post by one of the liberal blogosphere’s finest bloggers (although I actually consider her to be more towards the Center than a pure Liberal… perhaps that’s why I think so highly of her. Just kidding of course).

UPDATE III
Finally, I also encourage you all to read this post by Ron Chusid: a great essay.

P.S.
I will come back at this issue tomorrow. All three, Pamela, Libby, and Ron, raise great points. I will address those issues tomorrow (as I said, this is my favorite part of politics).