Brian Morton's article in Dissent tracking the rise of the "the 'new' new left" and talking about how I'm awesome makes a point that doesn't, in general, get enough attention. "Because most of these writers came of political age after the end of the Cold War," writes Morton, "they're not afraid of being red-baited, and this fearlessness in some curious fashion makes them freer to mount radical critiques of U. S. policy than older generations of writers grouped around Dissent and schooled in the socialist tradition." I've always thought this is a pretty central change in the liberal mindset. Liberals who came of age after the decline, and in particular, after the fall, of the Soviet Union have a tremendously different understanding of the constraints and range of the conversation than do certain older liberals. For instance, I can argue about suboptimal outcomes of market capitalism without anyone thinking I'm advocating massive command-and-control socialism. Or, at least, without many people thinking that, and without having to care whether or not they do. Similarly, one of the differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on foreign policy is that when Clinton speaks, you can hear the echoes of a liberalism that was torn to shreds because it seemed too weak to face down an existential threat. The Clintons, as part of the neoliberal reaction to those fears, make a big show of demonstrating toughness. Obama, who's not particularly steeped in that conversation, seems to find the Democratic strategy of protecting their flank by loudly declaring their support for wars they think a bad idea a bit of a confusing way to project surefooted confidence. These are, to be sure, as much changes in tone as in content. But they matter.
