Separate and Unequal: The Kerner Commission and the Unraveling of American Liberalism by Steven M. Gillon, and: The Harvest of American Racism: The Political Meaning of Violence in the Summer of 1967 ed. by Robert Shellow

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-404
Author(s):  
Daniel Geary
2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 591-620 ◽  
Author(s):  
KATRINA FORRESTER

Current interpretations of the political theory of Judith Shklar focus to a disabling extent on her short, late article “The Liberalism of Fear” (1989); commentators take this late essay as representative of her work as a whole and thus characterize her as an anti-totalitarian, Cold War liberal. Other interpretations situate her political thought alongside followers of John Rawls and liberal political philosophy. Challenging the centrality of fear in Shklar's thought, this essay examines her writings on utopian and normative thought, the role of history in political thinking and her notions of ordinary cruelty and injustice. In particular, it shifts emphasis away from an exclusive focus on her late writings in order to consider works published throughout her long career at Harvard University, from 1950 until her death in 1992. By surveying the range of Shklar's critical standpoints and concerns, it suggests that postwar American liberalism was not as monolithic as many interpreters have assumed. Through an examination of her attitudes towards her forebears and contemporaries, it shows why the dominant interpretations of Shklar—as anti-totalitarian émigré thinker, or normative liberal theorist—are flawed. In fact, Shklar moved restlessly between these two categories, and drew from each tradition. By thinking about both hope and memory, she bridged the gap between two distinct strands of postwar American liberalism.


2014 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 1111-1133 ◽  
Author(s):  
PATRICK ANDELIC

ABSTRACTThe 1970s was a decade of acute existential crisis for the Democratic party, as ‘New Politics’ insurgents challenged the old guard for control of both the party apparatus and the right to define who a true ‘liberal’ was. Those Democrats who opposed New Politics reformism often found themselves dubbed ‘neoconservatives’. The fact that so many ‘neoconservatives’ eventually made their home in the Grand Old Party (GOP) has led historians to view them as a Republican bloc in embryo. The apostasy of the neoconservatives fits neatly into the political historiography of the 1970s, which is dominated by the rise of the New Right and its takeover of the Republican party. Yet this narrative, though seductive, overlooks the essentially protean character of politics in that decade. This article uses the 1976 Senate campaign mounted by Daniel Patrick Moynihan – the dandyish Harvard academic, official in four presidential administrations, and twice US ambassador – to demonstrate that many ‘neoconservatives’ were advancing a recognizably liberal agenda and seeking to define a new ‘vital center’ against the twin poles of the New Politics and the New Right. A microcosm of a wider struggle to define liberalism, Moynihan's candidacy complicates our understanding of the 1970s as an era of rightward drift.


Author(s):  
Edward E. Curtis

The place of Muslims in the United States is a bellwether for the nation’s purported embrace of liberal values such as freedom of speech and religion, equal justice under law, and equal opportunity. The main argument of the book is that dominant forms of American liberalism, which are invested in anti-Black racism and American empire, have prevented the political assimilation of Muslim Americans. Muslim Americans have sometimes resisted and more frequently accommodated American liberalism, but, in either case, they have never been afforded full citizenship.


1971 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 3-39
Author(s):  
Robert C. Vowels

To detach oneself and treat others like so many objects is not to be value-free but to choose to devalue others. Charles Hampden-Turner Radical Man, The Process of Psycho-Social Development


Author(s):  
Benjamin Mangrum

The introduction begins by assessing standard historical accounts about the fracturing of the Democratic Party during the 1967–1968 presidential election. The standard account presents the period from 1945 to 1968 as the “apex of American liberalism,” presenting the election of Richard Nixon in 1968 as a result of Democratic conflicts over the Vietnam War and civil rights legislation. This book shows, however, that the cultural ideas that received intellectual prestige during the postwar decades complicate this standard narrative. The character of liberal thought underwent vast changes long before the mid-1960s, turning against the legacy of Roosevelt-era reform. The contrast between the political fiction of John Steinbeck from the 1930s and Norman Mailer from the 1950s illustrates one version of the transformation of liberal political culture. The introduction also describes the methodology of the book and outlines the subsequent chapters.


2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 1039-1061 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick Loessberg

The Kerner Commission examined the riots that occurred throughout the United States in 1967. The summary of its Final Report concluded that the nation was moving toward “two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal.” So powerful is the wording that it continues to be invoked whenever there is a Ferguson-type incident. While much has been written about the reaction to the Kerner Report, little has been known about the summary’s development or why it has endured. New interviews with key participants and an examination of Kerner Commission files have not only resulted in the discovery of information which runs counter to what was previously thought, but helps explain why the summary is still influential after almost fifty years.


1977 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
James A. Nuechterlein

American society over the past dozen years has undergone a general and continuing crisis. Almost everyone agrees on that point, but on the deeper meaning and significance of the crisis, on its origins and precise nature, there is massive disagreement. From all points of the political spectrum flow streams of mutually exclusive analyses and prescriptions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document