If Jefferson founded the Republican Party what place do Democrats have in America?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And all this because someone confused the Republican party of the late 1700's with today's Republican party. A very common mistake, then to cover the mistake tried to convert the Republican party of today into today's liberal party or something like that? In any case it is a mistake that is quite common with high school students and even lower division college students.

What difference does it make which word was used by what political to describe his group of sympathizers 200 years ago?

Getting a Liberal of today to state clearly what he believes like asking him to reveal the secret of the Universe. He simply will not do it because he simply does not know.

Yes, a liberal will lack the IQ to know what liberalism is, but he will nevertheless derive tremendous confidence from knowing, or feeling, that liberalism is legitimately American and connected to the Founding. When he finds out that liberalsim is actually anti-American or even treasonous he will have lost the only foundation he has.

 

[sealybobo]

And all this because someone confused the Republican party of the late 1700's with today's Republican party. A very common mistake, then to cover the mistake tried to convert the Republican party of today into today's liberal party or something like that? In any case it is a mistake that is quite common with high school students and even lower division college students.

What difference does it make which word was used by what political to describe his group of sympathizers 200 years ago?

Getting a Liberal of today to state clearly what he believes like asking him to reveal the secret of the Universe. He simply will not do it because he simply does not know.

Yes, a liberal will lack the IQ to know what liberalism is, but he will nevertheless derive tremendous confidence from knowing, or feeling, that liberalism is legitimately American and connected to the Founding. When he finds out that liberalsim is actually anti-American or even treasonous he will have lost the only foundation he has.

But Jefferson disagrees with the righties on the Supreme Court.

Marshall and Jefferson presented two diametrically opposed views of the nature of constitutional interpretation, and it is regrettable that Marshall’s view has been virtually uncontested in the United States during the past century; Jefferson was correct to warn that giving the Supreme Court sole ultimate power to interpret the Constitution would shift supremacy from the text of the Constitution to the subjective wishes of Supreme Court justices.

Perhaps it is time to give each branch of government the sovereignty to judge for itself what is constitutional, and the ability to act as a check against misinterpretations by the other branches.

 

[regent]

There was some disagreement as to who would define and apply the constitution. It was assumed by some that it would be the Court, by others the states, or Congress or even the executive. Perhaps that's why the founders never explicitly gave the power to any entity including the Court in the Constitution. In any case the Court grabbed the power and still has it. No matter who took, or was given the power, it would end up as political, by politicians reflecting their party. The one saving grace of today's Court is the appointment for life. That has given a few justices the ability to drop the political part. Perhaps some day we will have a computer-Court.

 

[Dragon]

Getting a Liberal of today to state clearly what he believes like asking him to reveal the secret of the Universe.

Bullshit. You are simply constructing your question so as to exclude any meaningful answer. You want a definition based on MEANS, when liberalism is actually defined by its ENDS.

 

[code1211]

Getting a Liberal of today to state clearly what he believes like asking him to reveal the secret of the Universe.

Bullshit. You are simply constructing your question so as to exclude any meaningful answer. You want a definition based on MEANS, when liberalism is actually defined by its ENDS.

Ah! So there is no obligation to the law, any principles, rational thought or due process as long as the End is a good one?

If that is the case, then how does your party define good? Is a good enough end a justification for the worst process? The worst methods? Dishonesty? Moral corruption? Thievery? Constitutional abandonment?

If you abandon all need to have an overarching MO, then you are open to all kinds of shenanigans. It does explain allot about Liberalism that rigorously avoids making any plan whatsoever when in power. How's that 2009 budget coming anyway?

Admitting you have none and denying you need one does not eliminate the need for a plan or the disaster that follows when you don't use one.

As Yogi Berra said, "If you don't know where you're going, you're probably not going to get there."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Getting a Liberal of today to state clearly what he believes like asking him to reveal the secret of the Universe.

Bullshit. You are simply constructing your question so as to exclude any meaningful answer. You want a definition based on MEANS, when liberalism is actually defined by its ENDS.

1) all political philosophies will purport to achieve superior ends. Is there one where the ends are said to be inferior by its adherents?

2) if liberalism has no coherent methodology to achieve its ends it is by definition based on stupidity and dreams since there is so much history from which to judge various methodologies.

3) If liberalism is not conservatism then it ought to have a standard critique of conservatism stating its basic objection. Why doesn't it? Ans: because it has no intelligence with which to understand conceptual methodologies. Liberals is simple the default position for dumb people.

 

[regent]

It does get complicated, maybe go back to the idea that Hamilton was a liberal and wanted more democracy for America, and of course, it's hard to cope with the charge that Hitler was a socialist, I mean look at what NAZI stands for. How about Hoover disliked apple sellers, or maybe Jefferson wanted the government to build churches, so many of these historical problems. I like Palin's account of Revere warning the British, or Reagan reduced the debt, maybe by now paid off the debt.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It does get complicated, maybe go back to the idea that Hamilton was a liberal and wanted more democracy for America, and of course, it's hard to cope with the charge that Hitler was a socialist, I mean look at what NAZI stands for. How about Hoover disliked apple sellers, or maybe Jefferson wanted the government to build churches, so many of these historical problems. I like Palin's account of Revere warning the British, or Reagan reduced the debt, maybe by now paid off the debt.

what?????????

 

[Dragon]

Ah! So there is no obligation to the law, any principles, rational thought or due process as long as the End is a good one?

We can continue this discussion when you feel an obligation not to distort things I have said and put words in my mouth. Until then, there's no point to it. I don't waste time with dishonest people.

 

[regent]

It does get complicated, maybe go back to the idea that Hamilton was a liberal and wanted more democracy for America, and of course, it's hard to cope with the charge that Hitler was a socialist, I mean look at what NAZI stands for. How about Hoover disliked apple sellers, or maybe Jefferson wanted the government to build churches, so many of these historical problems. I like Palin's account of Revere warning the British, or Reagan reduced the debt, maybe by now paid off the debt.

what?????????

It occurred to me that five of the above, are charges I have seen on these boards, can you pick them out? How accurate are the charges? Are any of the above charges correct?

 

[code1211]

Ah! So there is no obligation to the law, any principles, rational thought or due process as long as the End is a good one?

We can continue this discussion when you feel an obligation not to distort things I have said and put words in my mouth. Until then, there's no point to it. I don't waste time with dishonest people.

Then put your own words in your mouth.

It occurred to me that you might be in a place where i was in the 80's. I was raised in the People's Republic of Minnesota. I went to school in the 70's. It was simply not cool to be a Conservative. Who wants to be like Nixon?

In an almost Gestalt way, i found that I was a Conservative. I admired those who are self sufficient, wanted to make my own way, was and am proud to be able to do so, refused to accept that others controlled my future and was driven to make a good life for myself and my family.

I resent the government, being told what to do, accepting the arrogance of power, settling for seconds, being controlled and being told that i don't know what's best for me.

I resent the government setting goals that are ill conceived, spending money in a wasteful fashion and constantly spending more when the results demonstrate with no doubt left that they are ignorant and blind mismanagers who can't direct their own efforts save those of others.

As a result of this, the certain knowledge that government is inept and corrupt, government workers are disinterested and lethargic, the truly motivated are in the private sector and the truly interested are those who hold a stake in the game, I came to the realization that the growth of government is a mistake and the work of government needs to be limited.

Our leaders squander our money to buy votes to continue their hurtful careers, kill our young in wars of self aggrandizement and pass laws only to give them a chance to crow. They are the worst and most corrupt group of citizens in the country and the current crop in the White House are the worst of this dismally corrupt crowd.

We know from the outset that they will steal from us, will never be fair, will use our money to buy the votes of their sycophants and will create and join unholy alliances based on lies, supported by the uninformed and achieve the worst of any possible array of choices. The unConstitutional and poorly conceived, rigged and deceptive Obamacare being a wonderful example of this. In the 80's it was the WIN buttons, Hostages and the misery index.

It was with this knowledge, which arrived for me suddenly, that I had a dramatic and permanent paradigm shift. I was not a Liberal after all. How could i be when i suddenly became aware of what is happening in the real world. It was as if a veil was lifted.

You may be on the verge of a similar epiphany. If you cannot define the workings of the party to which you ascribe your loyalty, it may be because you are a Conservative with all that this implies and yet still understand yourself to be a Liberal. This would cause a bit of a conundrum for you.

How can I believe this when this is not what I believe?

If you feel that you are powerless, are weak, that your future needs to be controlled by others, that your work needs to accrue to the benefit of others chosen by the elite, that your prosperity is only at the pleasure of those that control you, then you are a Liberal.

If, on the other hand, you feel that your are the captain of your own ship and the master of your own soul, then you are a Conservative.

Read the poem "If" by Rudyard Kipling. If your thought is, "This guy is a real sap", you are a Liberal. If your thought is, "I would like to live my life as he does", you are a Conservative.

In our discussions, I think I know which way you are leaning, but, like me in the 80's, are not yet at the point where you can see it. Reconciling your inner beliefs with your political affiliation becomes much easier with greater understanding.


If by Rudyard Kipling

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It does get complicated, maybe go back to the idea that Hamilton was a liberal and wanted more democracy for America, and of course, it's hard to cope with the charge that Hitler was a socialist, I mean look at what NAZI stands for. How about Hoover disliked apple sellers, or maybe Jefferson wanted the government to build churches, so many of these historical problems. I like Palin's account of Revere warning the British, or Reagan reduced the debt, maybe by now paid off the debt.

what?????????

It occurred to me that five of the above, are charges I have seen on these boards, can you pick them out? How accurate are the charges? Are any of the above charges correct?

Do Democrats have a place in America given that the Founding was Republican?

 

[Dragon]

Then put your own words in your mouth.

I have already done so. To repeat myself, liberalism is about maximizing the liberty and well-being of the common person, against the interests of the wealthy and powerful. That's equally true of "classical" and modern liberalism, although the means to that end differ slightly between the two.

As for the rest of your post, I remind you once more that I am older than you are. It's unlikely I'm going to mature into agreement with your position.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Liberalism is about maximizing the liberty and well-being of the common person, against the interests of the wealthy and powerful. .

thats of course perfectly idiotic since it assumes the wealthy limit
the liberty of the common man.

Steve Jobs and Henry Ford limit liberty by providing affordable phones and cars to the common man?? See why we are positive a liberal will be slow? What other conclusion is possible?

 

[regent]

what?????????

It occurred to me that five of the above, are charges I have seen on these boards, can you pick them out? How accurate are the charges? Are any of the above charges correct?

Do Democrats have a place in America given that the Founding was Republican?

You keep confusing the label of America's early liberal party with today's conservative party. Today's Republican party began in the 1850's and are at this time considered America's conservative party. The liberal party of 1794 was also called Republican. True, this does confuse some people but most seem to have mastered that little word problem.
Your posts would probably make more sense just using the words liberal and conservative instead of Republican for all the political groups.
Anyway, see how a former conservative general uses the term liberal:
"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought." General Douglas MacArthur

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The liberal party of 1794 was also called Republican.

you mean classical liberal( look it up) or modern conservative as in, for limited government.

"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought." General Douglas MacArthur

too stupid, he's using the definition, change, not the definition, small government. See why we are positive a liberal will be slow? In any case if our founders were Republicans where do liberals fit into American History?

 

[code1211]

Then put your own words in your mouth.

I have already done so. To repeat myself, liberalism is about maximizing the liberty and well-being of the common person, against the interests of the wealthy and powerful. That's equally true of "classical" and modern liberalism, although the means to that end differ slightly between the two.

As for the rest of your post, I remind you once more that I am older than you are. It's unlikely I'm going to mature into agreement with your position.

I think you said in an earlier post that you're are 53. No? If that's the case, then I envy your youth.

You're saying that the role of government is to intrude into the interrelationships of the individuals who are citizens to protect the "common people" from the "wealthy and powerful".

This is a controlling interest in the lives of the individuals. It also assumes that the "common people" are weak and inept.

I see the role of government as one that regulates the activities of all individuals with extreme equality allowing none to transgress against another, but allowing all to prosper to their fullest potential. See the difference? Limitations as to intrusion into the lives of others but encouragement to excel.

In both views of government action, activities are regulated, but in yours, you endorse the limitation of some more than others. Exactly what defines an individual as "wealthy and powerful"? In any pecking order, most are greater than the least and only some are greater than the most.

To those on the bottom, everyone is wealthy and powerful. Do you propose penalizing anybody who is more powerful or more wealthy than anybody else?

At what point in an individual's achievement of his potential must your penalties be levied? Are they levied simply out of envy or must there be a hurtful action committed by a "wealthy and powerful" outside of just being a "wealthy and powerful"?

 

[Dragon]

You're saying that the role of government is to intrude into the interrelationships of the individuals who are citizens to protect the "common people" from the "wealthy and powerful".

You're putting words in my mouth again. Whether the government needs to "intrude into the interrelationships of individuals" depends very much on the material circumstances and the complexity of society.

There are certain things that a government MUST do in a complex, industrial economy, that it does NOT have to do in a simpler agrarian economy. In the simpler arrangement, government intrusion is, more often than not, on behalf of the wealthy and powerful, to uphold the privileges of the landed elite, to enforce laws that provide forced labor of one kind or another, to exclude ordinary people from land ownership or from entry into business. For the most part, in a situation like that, liberalism calls for the government simply to refrain from doing these things. That's an oversimplification, but it's largely true.

In a complex, industrial society, the government MUST set trade policy, labor policy, industrial regulations; taxes are higher because there is more wealth and greater demand for public services, so tax policy is more important in its effect on people's lives; most people make a living working in a paid job rather than owning their own farms or small craft businesses, so regulations affecting labor rights and obligations are more important, too. These are not areas where the government has any option of simply not "intruding." It MUST set trade policy, labor policy, tax policy; it must build infrastructure, fund education, manage health care; there are a great many things that the state must do in an advanced, modern economy that it does not need to do (and often couldn't do even if it wanted to) in a poorer, simpler, more decentralized, agrarian economy.

What matters to a liberal in a situation like that is on whose behalf the government does these things that it MUST AND WILL do, one way or another, regardless.

A liberal wants the government to set all these policies with a view to protecting ordinary people from the rapacity of the rich and powerful. A conservative wants it to set all these policies to benefit the privileged.

 

[regent]

The liberal party of 1794 was also called Republican.

you mean classical liberal( look it up) or modern conservative as in, for limited government.

"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought." General Douglas MacArthur

too stupid, he's using the definition, change, not the definition, small government. See why we are positive a liberal will be slow? In any case if our founders were Republicans where do liberals fit into American History?

By 1776 the liberals under Jefferson had already left the definition of classic liberalism. Jefferson saw a fallacy in classic liberalism. The evidence, other than his writings, is in his Declaration of Independence.
Of course, many of the founders were republicans but in 1787 republican was not the name of a political party but a term for a type of government. Remember when Mrs. Powel asks Franklin do we have a monarchy or a republic and his answer. It had nothing to do with a political party. The political parties began tp emerge over the battle to ratify the Consititution. 1788. As for "small government" being part of the definition of liberalism where is that written? To now it was always a goal not a definition.
There are problems with Mac's quote but small government is not one.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The liberal party of 1794 was also called Republican.

you mean classical liberal( look it up) or modern conservative as in, for limited government.

"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought." General Douglas MacArthur

too stupid, he's using the definition, change, not the definition, small government. See why we are positive a liberal will be slow? In any case if our founders were Republicans where do liberals fit into American History?

By 1776 the liberals under Jefferson had already left the definition of classic liberalism. Jefferson saw a fallacy in classic liberalism. The evidence, other than his writings, is in his Declaration of Independence.
Of course, many of the founders were republicans but in 1787 republican was not the name of a political party but a term for a type of government. Remember when Mrs. Powel asks Franklin do we have a monarchy or a republic and his answer. It had nothing to do with a political party. The political parties began tp emerge over the battle to ratify the Consititution. 1788. As for "small government" being part of the definition of liberalism where is that written? To now it was always a goal not a definition.
There are problems with Mac's quote but small government is not one.

but is there anything American about the Democratic philosophy?