Revitalizing liberalism

The Tyee has this piece by Crawford Kilian on a perceived reversal between liberals and conservatives over the last half-century. Before I get into the more interesting points, a couple of obvious problems with the article:

(1) Anybody who thinks that current Canadian conservatives are happier and more optimistic than liberals is missing some obvious signs.
(2) The American military history in the article doesn't seem in touch with reality. It was a direct attack on the U.S., not a triumph of liberalism, that rallied the country in WWII. And I'm not quite sure how the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam and (especially) the overthrow of Allende are supposed to be examples of liberal hubris.

With that nit-picking out of the way, on to the substance. I'll readily agree with Kilian's viewpoint that today's liberals (and I don't mind using the term interchangeably with "progressive" so long as nobody tries to make it a large L) need to start taking a long-term view, starting by reshaping the frames of reference within which political conversations are conducted. This isn't news.

The more important questions are: first, in what directions do we want to reshape the discussion? And second, how do we go about reshaping it?

The foreign-aid debate is an important example, even if it doesn't seem like a winning domestic issue at first glance. There should be far more of a debate on issues such as what we hope to accomplish through foreign aid, whether .7% is a realistic target (or enough to accomplish our goals), and whether other policy changes such as removing trade barriers can benefit us as well as poorer countries. And by pointing out the plight of the least-fortunate globally and demanding concrete action, we can also hint at similar problems (and solutions) in the first world.

Climate change is another issue where we can put forward solutions to an important and immediate problem. Note that even Bushco (aside from the whole "refusing to accept science" element) seems to be adopting interesting language on the issue - though we should be the first to point out that his backing for new technologies can't hide his consistent pro-oil policies. The key on this issue will be to propose both new technologies, and new means of promoting existing ones. While we should aim to reach the Kyoto targets, it should be as a side effect of good policy leading to greater emission declines in the future, not as an end in itself.

Health care is another problem that presents an opportunity for meaningful change. Rather than merely defending the status quo, progressives should emphasize that we can bolster the system through added funding, and more importantly that we can focus in new areas (greater prescription care, preventative medicine, etc.) to resolve access issues that have remained despite our public system. Yes, people have a lot to take for granted now - but there's still a lot more to be won if we're willing to fight for it. We need to make the case as to why the fight is worth it.

The more important conclusion out of Kilian's article is that we shouldn't shy away from tough issues based solely on conventional wisdom about immediate political gain. While it's important to keep the apple cart upright, it'll be able to stay that way longer if we have the foresight to confront obstacles before they're unavoidable, and the ingenuity to build a smoother path.

If liberalism's past strength lay in confronting problems such as the Depression and a world war, surely the above issues involve equally important problems, with an equal amount of need for great ideas to solve them. Let's get to it.