Until recently, liberals in America were known as people with bleeding hearts, especially if we think of them before the late ’90s. They were characterized as emotional, impractical, and weak. This criticism came from conservative television personalities, radio presenters, and other commentators.
It was echoed by practical Democrats after the thumping defeat in the 1990s, who turned to Bill Clinton to bring them back to power. Which he did by marginalizing the Democratic base support and the spokespeople of the emotive element of the Democratic Party.
These elements began to develop after the death of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. The Democratic Party was, however, still dominated by stoic reformers and the belief that the social and economic system could be reformed through gaining political office.
This tradition of Reform politics died with Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis. The death of JFK in 1963 had raised the question if having political office was worth doing if you are killed for trying to change things in it. With Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.’s death, the answer became obvious to most Democrats: it certainly wasn’t worth it.
Instead, inspired by hippyism and other social movements, a new idea was considered. It was first considered in the 1940s after the nuclear attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in church seminaries on the West Coast of America, particularly New York. The view was that social change could only come from awakening the heart of the American people.
The general idea of bleeding-heart liberalism was born: that America had become cruel and needed to be rescued from its own worst instincts by a heartfelt politics which would persuade people through gentle persuasion to give up their cruel ways. In this way, it took the hippy message of love, but rather than breaking away from society, it eagerly engaged.
This idea, through the democratic base, spread like wildfire. What was once a religious vision of a Protestant seminary school in the 1940s would be secularized, finding its vision embraced by people of all faiths, skin tones, and income brackets of a liberal persuasion. The only difficulty is that the Democratic leadership totally rejects this idea.
It saw it as fanciful and somewhat naive. They were happy enough to use the words of love to get their voters out to the ballot box, but they, however, always felt it was stupid to let the heart rule the head.
Both Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford used the Democratic base beliefs as a rallying call to undecided voters: “These people just aren’t rational and can’t make tough decisions.” It worked, allowing both Nixon and Ford to be elected.
Then came Jimmy Carter: well-spoken, down-to-earth, and kind—everything the democratic base dreamed of. After two “strong men,” it wasn’t only the democratic base who wanted that kind of leadership. The illegal behavior and misuse of both former presidents helped propel this desire forward to election victory.
Then, to put it simply, Jimmy Carter didn’t really deliver. He became more of a stoic reformer. Which came off weak, while failing to act toward any reform or creating a spirit of a more loving America.
Ronald Reagan would expertly use this to bring a hammer blow to liberalism, but most heartfelt by bleeding-heart liberals. He would paint the bleeding-heart democrat as negligent and foolish, unable to govern a nation while being best left to run charity raffles. A young Bill Clinton, who would vote for Ronald Reagan, would take this to heart.
However, the bleeding-heart liberals, despite being very disorganized, would somewhat recover. In a strange way, a Republican presidential candidate, George H.W. Bush would champion their cause. His belief in ‘A gentler America for a kinder world’ would appeal to a large number of bleeding-heart liberals while maintaining a conservative economic platform. This paved the way for a massive Republican party win.
Then, Bill Clinton came to the forefront as a pragmatist with a ruthless streak who may be liberal. He is definitely not conservative, but he doesn’t quite seem liberal. Believing the Democratic Party was weak and needed to be remade to seek office by getting rid of its brand as emotional and weak, that meant removing the bleeding-heart liberals.
A long campaign of often humiliating and removing democratic officials and activists who were part of the emotive tradition. This was done usually by legal but cruel means. Here comes the birth of Woke.
The bleeding-heart tradition was born out of a belief in persuasion through debate. It didn’t care to use the government legislatively to promote the love between peoples it sought. In reality, the bleeding-heart liberal didn’t really have any idea what they would do with the government, a main reason for their consistent failure.
The children of the activists and campaigners Clinton would push aside, seeing their grandparents and parents humiliated, would decide that their parents had been foolish and too soft. That a tougher form of liberalism was needed.
In the universities of America since the 1970s, there was an idea called the New Left. It was something only liked by lecturers at first, only in the social sciences and not many. Then it found an audience of influential middle-income children of activists from Democrat families.
They found in it something alluring: the use of government to protect the vulnerable. Socialism of old was about redistributing resources and everyone having an equal slice of the cake. It had failed in the Soviet Union and led to the gulag and a lot of killing. The Old Left never appealed, but the New Left with its chivalry of protecting the less fortunate through government did.
Then these children of activists would grow up and get jobs in education, charity, politics, and some would even join the priesthood. They would announce a new vision of love through the government. It has reached a young generation which sadly forgot that the government can’t make people love one another any better. It has now been exported worldwide.
Through the death of Charlie Kirk we have seen the mutation of this strange idea into something terrible through frustration which seeks to blame conservatives for all the horror of the world. Instead of accepting the imperfection of humanity and the inescapability of cruelty, Woke-minded people are having psychotic breaks as their belief system is being disbanded. Not because they are weak necessarily but because the foundation of their belief they built their whole lives is collapsing.
Conservatism for liberals of this view can’t be the cure. The notion of rationalism and value-based rules, born of a non-sentimental vision of politics, could hurt the very psychology of the Woke person.
Conservatives can also be very emotive too, but have not built their belief and values around emotion.
As Woke always tended to appeal to naturally more emotive people, who by personality may be simply more emotive, trying to change their personality may damage their mental setup. Those who at this point of life have built so much on the central belief, removing it could really cause a psychotic break.
Also, it would merely be replaced by a new left-wing view. The collectivist instinct always remains in someone in every generation, as shown by human history. Maybe a natural result of a natural minority of people wanting a higher level of collectivism than wish to express individualism, which could be explained by social, psychological, or biological reasons—maybe all three.
Facing this fact, instead, maybe conservatives should do something unexpected. Let’s consider, rather than trying to dam the emotional flood of left-wing thinking, conservatives could redirect it to a less harmful form. That means bringing back bleeding-heart liberalism.
It is still out there, if only in broken remnants in historical churches and other religious buildings where they say, ‘we love everyone’. It is still in the charity sector where they say it is not through government but charity we help people.
Even now it has retreated from politics, a belief still held. Maybe strangely conservative should approach such people and offer indirect support . In legal donations through super Pacs and offer organizational support in political expertise etc.
To bring Bleeding heart liberals out of retirement and rejoin the politics of the Democratic Party. In a more organized form with a clear purpose for seeking office .Maybe to form a whole new political party, which I would suggest they call the National Unity Party. In doing this, Wokery could be rechanneled into a more respectable kind of liberalism.
Which conservatives can say is impractical and naive, but can’t call it evil. It would be a more worthy and stable opponent. Especially as despite all conservative effort, liberalism seems to persist; it may as well be nice liberalism.
Which at least has one beautiful virtue of being kind. Which can be a helpful accountability tool to remind conservatives to embrace compassionate emotional thinking when appropriate. Sometimes conservative do need a reminder to use the heart rather than the head for some issues .
Even with their economic interventionism and naive view about love conquering all, it makes them the best option for a new liberalism. Maybe if it is successful in America, it can be embraced elsewhere too.
It wouldn’t hurt conservatives at all in the short term. A new party approach would split the Democratic Party, assuring Republican conservative victory in the election. While their return to the Democratic Party would internally divide the Democrats, weakening them. In the long term, it would create a competitive opponent, but in democracy, that is essential.
