Originally Posted by TSGracchus

Liberalism still means that. What you are describing was a means to an end employed primarily in the 1970s. Given that the burning issues of that time were social, cultural, and moral rather than economic, it made a kind of sense, although in saying that I'm not endorsing any particular policies from that time.

We're starting to see a return to economics in liberal thought today, and away from the social issues. Obama's actually a good example of that, although he's been required to talk about race some recently due to this Wright thing. Mostly, though, he's about encouraging unions, modifying our so-called "free trade" policies to prevent instead of stimulate the loss of capital to third-world thugocracies, and weaning us off our oil addiction. Plus ending the war in Iraq, of course.

The argument here is between those who want to do those things, and those who would prefer to continue transferring wealth from the middle-class to the rich, which is what has happened steadily over the past 20 years and more to the point now where the economy itself is threatened by loss of consumer buying power. Everything else, including this Wright business, is only a tool used in that dialogue. It's all really about economics. Which means, arguably, that we have today begun to return to reality and real issues.