Is liberalism dead?

In a recent article in the National Review Michael Ledeen, gloating in the re-election of his candidate, Mr. Bush, self-assuredly declares the death of American, indeed, Western liberalism.

This pronouncement, I humbly suggest, is at best premature.

First, the "hysterical reaction" to Bush's re-election by liberals, which Ledeen brands "violent language, numerous acts of violence, and demonization of Bush and his electorate" is overblown. Rhetorical flourish is the staple of politicians of all stripes and those seriously engaged in policy matters know that in a democratic process arguments for and against a position need necessarily be made. Hardly hysteria.

Ironically, the leaders Ledeen cites as targets of this "demonization:" America's Bush, Britain's Blair, Italy's Berlusconi, and Spain's Aznar all have several attributes in common. The first shared characteristic is their collective support for the war in Iraq. Their second common feature is that each hails from a country with a monarchy of one sort or another: the British Royal family, the Spanish monarchy, the papacy in Rome, and the Bush dynasty a la George H.W. Bush in the United States. A typical Burkean attitude.

Second, Ledeen claims that the only time liberals win elections these days are by running on conservative platforms. The fallacy here is twofold: equivalency and divine right. Conservatives like to argue that tax cuts, small government, and strong defense are their exclusive domain. Nothing is further from the truth.

Although Americans amuse themselves with conservative and liberal tags, the U.S. is largely pragmatic in its politics. Political leaders from both parties have discovered, sometimes to their chagrin, a lesson seemingly lost on Ledeen, that elected officials campaign to the party base and govern from the middle. Second, the assertion by conservatives of divine right to certain issues, like tax cuts, is presumptuous. Democrats wholeheartedly support tax cuts. Just not for millionaires who do not need tax cuts. Rather, the Democrats propose targeted tax cuts aimed at supporting the ownership society that the Republicans talk alot about, but do nothing to implement. Tax cuts, for example, directed towards middle and working class African Americans who need assistance in down payments for a first home. Or tax cuts for middle and working class Latino families to help send their kids to college instead of reducing federal assistance in the form of Pell grants. Or prescription coverage and dental and medical insurance to keep all Americans healthy and well.

Third, Ledeen waxes philosophical about the death of liberalism invoking and calling by name the philosophers most beloved by conservatives: Hegel and Marx. Initially praising the success of liberalism in achieving important American values like democracy, equality, and prosperity, he then cites, in true cold war fashion, the former Soviet Union---not the United States---as liberalism's best example of liberal democracy. Equating liberal democracy with communist totalitarianism is not only far-fetched and hallucinatory, but a leap of logic that confounds even the clearest of minds.Finally, Ledeen ends his unusual diatribe by parodying the favorite son of neo-conservatives: Francis Fukayama, the professor at Johns-Hopkins University and author of The End of History and the Last Man. That book presented the most sweeping of claims too. That conflict had ended with the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the spread of liberal democracy and free markets was transcendent, indeed, inevitable. In a post 9/11 world both Fukayama's claim of democracy ascendant and Ledeen's death notice for political dialectics require major reevaluation. An observation not lost on this liberal democrat