Is Liberalism Dead?

Not long ago, September 2009 to be exact, Random House published The Death of Conservatism by New York Times Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus, which, according to Publisher's Weekly, "argues that Republicans must moderate their focus on ideological purity if they are to return from the political wilderness."  The same review also tells us the book "argues that the contemporary Right define[s] itself less by what it yearns to conserve than by what it longs to destroy -- and that pragmatic Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have usurped the Republicans' once winning focus on social stability."

Well, fourteen short months later, we could all say to Tanenhaus -- depending on our level of rudeness and vulgarity -- hardeeharhar, ROTFLMAO, or eat my shorts.

But this isn't to make fun of the editor --  or even to get back at him (well, maybe a little) for there having been no review of my latest book in the NYTBR when all the previous ten, written when I was a liberal, had one.

No, this is to point out how treacherous, even foolhardy, political predictions are.  Nevertheless, I am going to make one. For the foreseeable future, liberalism is dead.  To go further, as the great Preston Sturges once said of chivalry, liberalism "is not only dead, it's decomposed."

Whence comes this decomposition?  Primarily from the fact that society is aging so fast it can no longer afford liberalism's various Ponzi schemes engendered by Keynesian economics. We can barely pay these entitlements now, which are the principal ornaments of liberalism, let alone in the future.  Then it will be a disaster.  We're all growing broke.  Some of us are just going broke faster.  And going broke fastest of all may be the United States of America.