After Michael Dukakis's loss to George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election, how might the word liberal be successfully defended?
This is one view. Plus, Dukakis seriously fumbled on the issue of crime.Framing the Sixties: The Use and Abuse of a Decade from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush
By Bernard von Bothmer, University of Massachusetts Press, 2010.
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...ly twenty points during the campaign"&f=false
' . . . The percentage of voters who considered Dukakis a liberal rose nearly twenty points during the campaign. Historian William Berman called the 1988 campaign "a good example of using the sixties as a bludgeon." Dukakis became the unwilling but hapless target of the Right's enduring anger toward "the sixties." . . . '
Yes, I agree, it's a tough challenge. That's kind of what makes it interesting!That's a tough one, since I think it was the results of trends well established and moving. . .
Yes, I agree, it's a tough challenge. That's kind of what makes it interesting!![]()
Yes, but also the word itself. In fact, conservatives accuse liberals of hiding behind the word progressive. I think they would have been better off if they (me!) had just kept using the word liberal.. . .
What this thread seems to be about is something rather different: not about Democrats abandoning the *word* liberalism, but some of the policies associated with it before the 1990's.
Had Michael Dukakis not got in that damn tank...