I disagree with your nihilist theory. I think that liberalism has instead evolved in to what I call "Logo Realism", the belief that language / rhetoric is the fundamental reality. You can see that in your own cite — it's not that Obama believes in nothing, but that he's good with words and that's real power. The Modern American Left believes in doing "good", but "good" is achieved by skillful use of rhetoric. That's why so much "argument" is by sound bite and platitudes. What you consider "argument" requires the axiom that there is an objective reality superior to language.

This is not unprecendented — it's the modern form of sympathetic magic, except with words instead of materials (e.g., the act of saying "I am doing good in the world" causes one to be doing good).

"Logo Realism" just begs the question. If language is power, then what do you want to DO with your power? If you want to "do good," then what IS "good?"

You can't answer those questions unless you have a philosophy that is in some way bigger than yourself. If you don't, you are a nihilist--you believe in nothing.

Or rather, you believe in only yourself. But that is a perilous and painful spiritual position to be in, and invariably that person will attempt to hide from this reality. Liberals, I believe, are "wearing" liberalism, or various causes, like the Invisible Man wore bandages, to give to nothingness some shape that could be seen.

Another escape is to anesthetize oneself with hedonism, or with the many toys that modern life offers. we see a lot of that too, and often in the same people.

I think you err in thinking the Left was ever about liberating oppressed peoples from fascist dictators. It fought against Monarchies, which of course had tradition behind them, and installed democracies, which they thought would lead to a new society, you know, "The people united can never be defeated", etc. Notice Liberals didn't lift a finger to hinder Stalin, the exemplar fascist dictator.

Well, if you are going to call Stalin a fascist, you've made the word pretty much meaningless, and might as well just refer to generic dictators.

And in fact many liberals did fight against Stalinist tyrannies...Cold War, Korean War, Vietnam War. I'd say that Truman or JFK were liberals with some principles and patriotism that they were willing to fight for and take risks for.

But (this is all armchair theorizin') they were on slippery ground, because their principles were things they had inherited from earlier generations, not their own worked-out philosophies. They were in fact applying Christian principles to politics, without retaining a firm grip on their Christianity. So their philosophy was not something they could teach, or transmit to the next generation....

I think fascist can be safely applied to any totalitarian dictator. Lots of room left for Authoritarian dictators like Franco and the one in South America who's name I can't recall(shame). And I didn't start calling Stalin a Fascist, the liberals did that when the right tried to hold the communists accountable for Stalin. As to the Cold War, the liberals didn't fight, that's why it was a "cold" war. The Left did the minimum needed to stay in power, read some of Truman's papers talking about "feeding the beasts". Korea was started because of incompetence on the part of Truman's White House(I'm referring to the speech by Marshall? that left Korea out of our sphere of influence). And Vietnam was useful to JFK, who looked weak after the Bay of Pigs, and destroyed the South Vietnam democracy when he had their elected ruler assassinated. Not a good track record for the Liberals. I think the Liberals are a wing of the Left, with their hearts in the French Revolution, who lack the courage to rack up that kind of body count. I think that's why they keep sucking up to Monsters. They are held back by a Christianity they don't believe in, but makes them feel guilty. They admire the ones they see as having successfully moved past the guilt, to do "what is needed". Remember, the only problem the Left had with Hitler was that he attacked Stalin.

Nihilism is infact far more common in politics than principled positions. In India all parties are nihilist at present (and have been for quite a long time). Even the misleadingly labelled Hindu nationalists did nothing when Hindus got expelled en masse from Kashmir.

Annoying Old Guy:
"I think that liberalism has instead evolved in to what I call "Logo Realism", the belief that language / rhetoric is the fundamental reality."
If belief itself is a construct of language & rhetoric they've got a point.

I need to write a long post on exactly that subject. They do have a point, but it's not the one they think. There is, in fact, a socially constructed reality, one that is manipulated purely symbolically, by language (in the general sense). Where the Post-Modernists go wrong is to take this for the primary or fundamental reality. It's just one more layer of reality, no less real than the others, but neither more so.