Arguments for liberal policies, strong during the early and middle 1960s, had reached an impasse by the end of the decade. They had developed an ad hominem character, leading to conclusions that their proponents could not accept. This progression is illustrated with respect to civil rights, the welfare state, and foreign policy. In each case, the liberal was stymied between the argument of the radical and that of the conservative. An approach to overcoming the impasse is sketched briefly, and a coda brings the article up to date in 2013. This essay (without the coda) originally was presented at the 1983 NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation at Alta, Utah. It is reprinted from Argument in Transition: Proceedings from the Third Summer Conference on Argumentation (D. Zarefsky, M.O. Sillars, & J. Rhodes, Ed.) (pp. 365–379), and is reprinted by permission of the National Communication Association.