Podcast Episode Summary

Podcast: New Books Network
Host: Morteza Hajizadeh
Guest: Dr. Kevin M. Schultz
Book Discussed: Why Everyone Hates White Liberals (Including White Liberals): A History (U Chicago Press, 2025)
Date: October 10, 2025

Overview

This episode features a lively and introspective discussion between host Morteza Hajizadeh and historian Kevin M. Schultz about Schultz’s new book, which explores the complicated, often fraught, yet central role of "white liberals" in American political culture. The conversation tracks the historical rise and transformation of liberalism, the contentious meaning of “white liberal,” the waves of criticism from both the right and the left, and the present prospects for American centrist traditions. Schultz blends word history, political critique, and cultural observation, offering both a detailed genealogy and a set of provocative questions for the future.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Book’s Title and Cover Design

• The Mirror Cover: The book’s cover is intentionally reflective, using a mirror-like material so readers see themselves. This reflects the book’s thesis about the blurred boundaries of liberal identity.
  • Schultz: “When you hold it up, you sort of see your own face in there. I guess they were assuming that white liberals would be the predominant buyers of the book.” (02:34-02:57)
• Why "White Liberal"?
  • It’s a “hot button” marketing term but also central to a real historical arc, referencing how marginalized groups, especially Black civil rights leaders, began to critique liberalism’s inadequacies and hypocrisies in the 1960s and beyond.

The Rise and Transformation of Liberalism in America

• Origins of the American Liberal Tradition:
  • Schultz traces how “liberalism” was forged as a centrist project in response to both far-left (communism) and far-right (fascism) extremism, especially under FDR.
  • FDR adopted the “liberal” label to distinguish New Deal reforms from socialism or communism, arguing for regulation of capitalism rather than its destruction.
    • Schultz: “He wanted to say, no, I actually want to shore up capitalism, I actually want to regulate capitalism and save capitalism from itself.” (06:42-07:00)
  • Before FDR, “liberal” was not a mainstream American political identity—unlike in parts of Europe.

The "Rhetorical Assassination" of Liberalism

• Attacks from Multiple Sides:

  1. The Right:
     • William F. Buckley Jr. and others crafted conservatism not by outlining an alternative but by opposing liberalism, framing it as the gateway to socialism or communism.
     • Example: Buckley’s book Up from Liberalism compared 20th-century liberalism to 19th-century slavery.
  2. The Left:
     • Figures like Saul Alinsky and Irving Howe argued liberals only shielded capitalism from radical change: "the liberals are capitalism's beard." (15:35)
     • Modern analogs include Bernie Sanders and AOC.
  3. Black Civil Rights Leaders:
     • Leaders like James Baldwin, Lorraine Hansberry, and MLK Jr. criticized "white liberals" for failing to deliver on promises of equality, often practicing NIMBYism (“Not In My Backyard”).
     • Schultz draws on Baldwin’s The Fire Next Time: “If they fail this time, all hell is going to bring loose... it'll be the Fire Next Time.” (19:01)
     • Other marginalized groups—Chicano rights, women’s, Native American, gay rights, Palestinian advocates—subsequently adopted and expanded this critical tradition.

• Metaphors of Destruction:

  • Schultz calls this cumulative assault a “rhetorical assassination,” likening the attacks to a “circular firing squad.”
    • “They all shoot liberalism in the center, and they end up going on to shoot themselves as well.” (22:24)

Liberalism’s Changing and Disputed Meaning

• Word History:

  • Liberalism’s root is from Latin liber (free), but its core values and perceived enemies have shifted across centuries—from monarchy, to the church, to big capitalists.
  • Schultz: “If you tell me what you think a liberal is, I’ll actually tell you what your politics are. Your understanding of what a liberal is, tells me more about you than it tells me about liberals.” (25:48)

• Differences between U.S. and Global Uses:

  • In the U.S., “liberal” has come to mean something closer to Labour or welfare-state parties in other countries, unlike the more market-based “liberal” parties of Europe or Australia.

• Is Liberalism Always Wedded to Capitalism?

  • Schultz argues liberalism has been both a champion of markets and, later, of market regulation: “In this nineteenth-century moment, free market capitalism gets yoked to liberalism not as a founding principle... but as a way, a tool... to further express individual freedom.” (28:32)
  • Over time, as the nature of "oppressors" shifted, liberals alternately embraced or restrained market forces.

Conservative Critiques & The Culture of Mockery

• Sophisticated vs. Populist Critiques:

  • Some conservative (often religious) critiques accuse liberalism of too much individualism and eroding the social fabric, but most popular attacks cast liberals as effete, out-of-touch elites, betraying “real” working people.
  • Schultz: “I saw a t-shirt... ‘I oil my guns with liberal tears.’ It was all about dunking on the liberals as these soft people.” (41:36)

• Political Strategy:

  • Kevin Phillips’s The Emerging Republican Majority (1969) mapped out a path by mocking "elitist" liberals in the Northeast/West Coast and consolidating the South and Midwest (53:33–54:29).
  • The "limousine liberal" stereotype drew bipartisan fire for hypocrisy, and was amplified by media and politicians throughout the late 20th century.

Liberalism and the Working Class

• Shift from Quantitative to Qualitative Liberalism:
  • 1930s: focused on lifting people from poverty, creating jobs, Social Security.
  • 1950s–60s: with economic growth, turned to issues of quality of life (education, environment).
  • Result: Many working-class whites felt left behind, fueling right-wing populism.

Neoliberalism: Redefining the Debate

• Multiple Origins and Meanings:
  • “Neoliberalism” emerges in the 1970s–80s, both as a Democratic rebranding (neo-liberal/“New Democrats” like Clinton, Biden) and as market fundamentalism (deregulation, globalization—think Reagan, Thatcher, Friedman, Hayek).
  • Schultz: “Even though this is a Republican politic in origin... Democrats sort of say, okay, we need to embrace some of this economic responsibility... But now, Democrats have to carry the albatross of neoliberalism.” (65:00)
• Political Jujitsu: Republicans negotiate global trade deals (like NAFTA), but Democrats, who later sign and implement them, are blamed as “globalists” by both right and left.

The Case for Retiring "Liberalism"

• Semantic Trap: Schultz suggests advocates for centrist/progressive reform should let go of the “liberal” label, as it is now burdened with too much negative baggage to be reclaimed.
  • “[Calling yourself a liberal,] you’re just playing into the sort of rhetorical trap that has already been set for you by those on the right...” (67:30)

Prospects for Alliances and the Future

• Progress through Coalition:

  • Historically, major progressive reforms succeeded when the center (liberals) partnered with the left (socialists, civil rights advocates).
  • Schultz: “...the United States has passed its most progressive legislation...when the far left...has combined with the liberal centrist tradition to push legislation.” (47:07)

• The '60 Percent' Majority:

  • On issues from abortion to guns to wealth inequality, a stable majority of Americans hold centrist, pragmatic views, contrary to the polarized debates of the media and politics.
  • Schultz: “...on these numerous issues there is this bell curve...where [Americans] actually have more common ground and the rise and amplification of the extremes plays into politicians’ hands.” (76:00)

• Reasons for Optimism:

  1. Historical Cycles: Politics has swung between extremes before and can coalesce again.
  2. Coalitional Potential: When center and left act together, real reform is possible.
  3. Untapped Voters: 1/3 of Americans did not vote—mobilizing them remains a key opportunity.
  4. Policy Consensus: A “grand centrist tradition” exists—as shown by polling—even if it is politically dormant.

  “I am optimistic for the future, but I think it’s going to be a rough road there... But... history shows us that when the left and the center find some common ground and coalesce, we do have this dynamic uptick in progressive legislation.” (72:31)

Notable Quotes & Moments (Timestamps)

• On the Book’s Cover and Audience:

  “When you hold it up, you sort of see your own face in there. I guess they were assuming that white liberals would be the predominant buyers of the book.”
  — Kevin Schultz (02:42)

• On Liberalism’s Shifting Identity:

  “If you tell me what you think a liberal is, I’ll actually tell you what your politics are. Your understanding of what a liberal is tells me more about you than it tells me about liberals.”
  — Kevin Schultz (25:48)

• On the Contemporary Dilemma:

  "Calling yourself a liberal, you’re just playing into the sort of rhetorical trap that has already been set for you by those on the right..."
  — Kevin Schultz (67:37)

• On the 'White Liberal' Critique:

  “So white liberals get imagined to be something quite different than the right sees them, something quite different than the left sees them... all these people who are all talk and no substance.”
  — Kevin Schultz (18:32)

• On Progress and Coalitions:

  “...the United States has passed its most progressive legislation...when the far left out of the socialist tradition...has combined with the liberal centrist tradition to push legislation.”
  — Kevin Schultz (47:07)

• On the 60% Majority:

  “I’m actually working on a piece called the 60% because it hovers between 55 and 60% of Americans believe basically there should be some economic redistribution.”
  — Kevin Schultz (77:00)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:34] – The public face and meaning behind the book's reflective cover
• [06:42] – FDR's invention of "liberalism" in U.S. politics
• [13:20] – Why “white liberal” is central to this history
• [18:32] – Black leaders’ critiques and the transformation of the liberal image
• [25:48] – Liberalism as a mutable and diagnostic political label
• [41:36] – Conservative popular culture's mockery of liberals
• [53:33] – The shift from economic (“quantitative”) to cultural (“qualitative”) liberalism
• [65:00] – The emergence and evolution of “neoliberalism”
• [67:37] – The argument for dropping the liberal label
• [72:31] – Four reasons for optimism in America’s political future
• [77:00] – The persistent, overlooked "bell curve" of centrist majority opinion in polling

Conclusion

Schultz’s narrative is a textured, candid exploration of how “white liberalism” became the favorite target of multiple political traditions—even its own adherents. The history, he contends, is not one of straightforward decline, but of meaning drift, self-inflicted wounds, and rhetorical sleights of hand (both friendly and hostile). His analysis points to the enduring (if battered) potential for coalition politics and policy progress in the American center-left, provided activists, politicians, and thinkers can move beyond both nostalgia and a toxic label, and reinvigorate the substantive, democratic core that consistently attracts majorities—even (and especially) in a polarized age.

End of Summary