Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[Pogo]

I see no point in deliberately using terms in a way one already knows to be wrong. Goldberg and his ilk are to be corrected -- not humored. Enabling Dumbdown serves only the cause of Dumbdownity.

Or as my elementary school teachers used to say, "if 'everybody else' jumped in the lake, would you jump in too?"

Seems like we were just touching elsewhere on this point about groupthink. This is a good example of taking a position, in this case defining terms, because "everybody else is (seemingly) doing it", despite the fact that what 'everybody else' is doing has no validity on its own.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I see no point in deliberately using terms in a way one already knows to be wrong. Goldberg and his ilk are to be corrected -- not humored. Enabling Dumbdown serves only the cause of Dumbdownity.

Or as my elementary school teachers used to say, "if 'everybody else' jumped in the lake, would you jump in too?"

Seems like we were just touching elsewhere on this point about groupthink. This is a good example of taking a position, in this case defining terms, because "everybody else is (seemingly) doing it", despite the fact that what 'everybody else' is doing has no validity on its own.

That this must be explained at all is both sad and telling.

 

[Foxfyre]

Then gentlemen, please feel free not to post in this thread. Start your own and make them whatever your hearts desire. Structured Debate is intended for the OP to specify what the topic is and how the discussion will be directed.

I accept that you both think I'm clueless and wrong and whatever other unattractive adjectives you wish to attach to me, and I don't care. I understand that you hate the topic. That's fine. Others have started topics I disagree with too and/or have no interest in.

But I have as much right to define terms as I define them as you have the right to define them in your own threads. And nowhere in the forum guideliness do I see that participants can change the rules in an established thread to suit themselves. So unless you have reason to believe I have fewer rights and privileges at USMB than you do, please do your own thing and allow me to do mine. Thank you very much.

 

[Pogo]

None so blind...
Has nothing to do with "thread rules" Foxy -- your premise has been debunked.

 

[Foxfyre]

None so blind...
Has nothing to do with "thread rules" Foxy -- your premise has been debunked.

If you will look at the OP, I didn't have a premise. Goldberg had a premise and I presented it along with the question to be discussed which basically was he right?

And I'm sorry, but amidst all the whining and caterwauling and accusations and complaints about definitions and terms used and me and Goldberg himself, I don't think I've seen a single serious argument in all of that to conclude that Goldberg's premise has been debunked.

 

[Ravi]

No.

 

[Pogo]

None so blind...
Has nothing to do with "thread rules" Foxy -- your premise has been debunked.

If you will look at the OP, I didn't have a premise. Goldberg had a premise and I presented it along with the question to be discussed which basically was he right?

And I'm sorry, but amidst all the whining and caterwauling and accusations and complaints about definitions and terms used and me and Goldberg himself, I don't think I've seen a single serious argument in all of that to conclude that Goldberg's premise has been debunked.

You just proved the point of my first three words above.

 

[Foxfyre]

None so blind...
Has nothing to do with "thread rules" Foxy -- your premise has been debunked.

If you will look at the OP, I didn't have a premise. Goldberg had a premise and I presented it along with the question to be discussed which basically was he right?

And I'm sorry, but amidst all the whining and caterwauling and accusations and complaints about definitions and terms used and me and Goldberg himself, I don't think I've seen a single serious argument in all of that to conclude that Goldberg's premise has been debunked.

You just proved the point of my first three words above.

No I didn't. I have seen not a single argument that is much more than objecting to Goldberg's argument and other sources posted. If I missed one, I would very much appreciate somebody pointing it out to me.

I have posted several sourced links that support Goldberg's argument and I have looked for a serious rebuttal to his argument and have been unable to find one. I would welcome a well thought out post offering a good argument in rebuttal to his argument. But complaining that he has an argument (the generic) you don't agree with is not a rebuttal. Even legislation that has been passed by state or federal legislative bodies, while pertinent, is not a rebuttal.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I disagree. Liberalism, particularly populist Liberalism remains a potent political force. Many folks are disillusioned after the civil war within the GOP. Radical Conservatism is not everyone's cup of tea.

Issues like wage disparity, civil rights, America's place on the international stage and out propensity to wage war first, ask questions later are turning folks away from the hard core stances offered from the political opposition to Liberalism.

Folks are starting to understand that the policies offered from the Conservatives are actually against their self interests. That's why a Tea Party type cannot and will not win the nomination from the GOP in 2016.

Political trends come and go. But once the hard working American family realizes that their rights to collective bargaining and the programs that favor the wealthy in some magical attempt to have wealth 'trickle down' upon them are mere pipedreams in a rigged game, watch the public scorn radical Conservatism.

This is only a projection.

Like it or not....the Senate and House are both more conservative than they have been for a long time (as per Michael Tomasky and others).

Libertarians are gaining the foothold in New Hampshire they've been working for for over a decade. They are getting stronger each election cycle.

Those are facts.

I am not boasting...I am simply pointing out that your claim does not jive with what is (or should be) going on.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

From the article:

This might seem counterintuitive given that Obama was re-elected that year, but there’s an obvious explanation. Obama has a singular skill: getting Barack Obama elected. In all of the elections since 2008, he has shown a remarkable inability to get anyone else elected or to move public opinion in his favor. (Obamacare, for instance, remains stubbornly unpopular.) Measured in terms of statehouses, state legislatures, and House and Senate seats, the GOP is stronger today than any point since the 1920s. If you still think Obama has generous coattails, ask Rahm Emanuel for a second opinion.

While this may play out....it does not address the fact that getting elected president is different from getting elected to a state or district office.

If the liberals can continue to garner the kind of electoral college returns they've gotten in the past......they will be in the WH for a long long time.

Goldburg can't translate is arguments against liberals to their ability to keep the WH.

 

[Foxfyre]

From the article:

This might seem counterintuitive given that Obama was re-elected that year, but there’s an obvious explanation. Obama has a singular skill: getting Barack Obama elected. In all of the elections since 2008, he has shown a remarkable inability to get anyone else elected or to move public opinion in his favor. (Obamacare, for instance, remains stubbornly unpopular.) Measured in terms of statehouses, state legislatures, and House and Senate seats, the GOP is stronger today than any point since the 1920s. If you still think Obama has generous coattails, ask Rahm Emanuel for a second opinion.

While this may play out....it does not address the fact that getting elected president is different from getting elected to a state or district office.

If the liberals can continue to garner the kind of electoral college returns they've gotten in the past......they will be in the WH for a long long time.

Goldburg can't translate is arguments against liberals to their ability to keep the WH.

He didn't try to translate his arguments in that way though did he? He conceded that Barack Obama has a great talent for being elected. But his implication I think is that liberalism didn't have a great deal to do with that. I concur as I think Barack Obama ran as anything BUT a liberal in 2008. And in 2012 he didn't win as a liberal but he won as a black man and not being Romney who received negative press many times over compared to how Obama was treated in the 2012 election cycle.

When it comes to state and local government, I would venture that at least a plurality if not a majority of voters couldn't tell you the track record or positions of the people they vote for. They vote for a party or via name recognition or for the pretty face or the one they "like" the best or the one they dislike the least.

So Goldberg was not commenting on the ability of conservative or liberal thought to get people elected. He was commenting on where the majority of the people, in his opinion, are on the ideological scale.

And he believes that more and more people are tillting right and abandoning the failed philosopies of the left. I hope he is right, because if we do manage to put true conservatives into power as opposed to the permanent political class who pretend to be conservatives, we might actually start reversing much of the damage that has been done and start reinstating what made this country great in the first place.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

He didn't try to translate his arguments in that way though did he? He conceded that Barack Obama has a great talent for being elected. But his implication I think is that liberalism didn't have a great deal to do with that. I concur as I think Barack Obama ran as anything BUT a liberal in 2008. And in 2012 he didn't win as a liberal but he won as a black man and not being Romney who received negative press many times over compared to how Obama was treated in the 2012 election cycle.

I think I said that.

What I said was, you can't ignore the fact that if another charismatic figure shows up from the left....he easily could win.

When it comes to state and local government, I would venture that at least a plurality if not a majority of voters couldn't tell you the track record or positions of the people they vote for. They vote for a party or via name recognition or for the pretty face or the one they "like" the best or the one they dislike the least.

This is the shame of conservatives. They are the ones who scream and yell about government being local....but they still only seem to focus on national issues.

So Goldberg was not commenting on the ability of conservative or liberal thought to get people elected. He was commenting on where the majority of the people, in his opinion, are on the ideological scale.

It still does nothing to say the WH will go to the GOP.

And he believes that more and more people are tillting right and abandoning the failed philosopies of the left. I hope he is right, because if we do manage to put true conservatives into power as opposed to the permanent political class who pretend to be conservatives, we might actually start reversing much of the damage that has been done and start reinstating what made this country great in the first place.

This vaporous group you call "true conservatives". Where are they ? And what do they espouse that is different from the Ted Cruz's of the world (or is he part of that group ?) ?

There isn't much constructive conversation going around what the issues and what can be done about them. Nobody at the federal level on the right has shown much in the way of leadership qualities. That is not a criticism. That is being as objective as possible.

 

[Foxfyre]

He didn't try to translate his arguments in that way though did he? He conceded that Barack Obama has a great talent for being elected. But his implication I think is that liberalism didn't have a great deal to do with that. I concur as I think Barack Obama ran as anything BUT a liberal in 2008. And in 2012 he didn't win as a liberal but he won as a black man and not being Romney who received negative press many times over compared to how Obama was treated in the 2012 election cycle.

I think I said that.

What I said was, you can't ignore the fact that if another charismatic figure shows up from the left....he easily could win.

When it comes to state and local government, I would venture that at least a plurality if not a majority of voters couldn't tell you the track record or positions of the people they vote for. They vote for a party or via name recognition or for the pretty face or the one they "like" the best or the one they dislike the least.

This is the shame of conservatives. They are the ones who scream and yell about government being local....but they still only seem to focus on national issues.

So Goldberg was not commenting on the ability of conservative or liberal thought to get people elected. He was commenting on where the majority of the people, in his opinion, are on the ideological scale.

It still does nothing to say the WH will go to the GOP.

And he believes that more and more people are tillting right and abandoning the failed philosopies of the left. I hope he is right, because if we do manage to put true conservatives into power as opposed to the permanent political class who pretend to be conservatives, we might actually start reversing much of the damage that has been done and start reinstating what made this country great in the first place.

This vaporous group you call "true conservatives". Where are they ? And what do they espouse that is different from the Ted Cruz's of the world (or is he part of that group ?) ?

There isn't much constructive conversation going around what the issues and what can be done about them. Nobody at the federal level on the right has shown much in the way of leadership qualities. That is not a criticism. That is being as objective as possible.

I think we might be arguing different things here though--you can correct me if I am reading it wrong.

"Leadership" may play a part in achieving social contract, but the topic is social contract and not government leadership or who gets elected. The focus is whether those who do get elected are upholding the concept of social contract if in fact we believe it is their duty to do so.

Let's veer the train back on the tracks here. The question(s) to be answered are:

Is Social Contract as defined above a valid concept?

If so, is the U.S. Constitution social contract? State and local governments?

If so, has the spirit and intent of social contract been preserved in current times?

Do you agree with Locke that laws and policies that violate social contract invalidates the law and the government that imposes them? That social contract should be the single most guiding principle in what government and laws should be?

And who should get to decide that?

It is generally understood that those elected to federal office take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America:

The Congressional Oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

The Presidential Oath:

• 
  
  
  • "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

SCOTUS

• 
  
  
  • "I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

So are they holding up their sworn obligation? And if they do not, then what is our responsibility as citizens? Of course we can make our opinions known to those we elect, but if they ignore us and continue to bribe, coerce, and buy their re-election, what can we do?

Do you agree with Locke that when they don't follow the law, it nullifies what they replace the law with?

 

[Foxfyre]

Holy Cow, I just revisted this thread to get a link and saw my last post. . . .absolutely wrong for this thread--was supposed to be posted in a different thread. So everybody please ignore my post #233. I saw the error too late to delete it.

 

[Foxfyre]

But now I remember something I did want to post in this thread.

Last year, Jerome C. Foss PhD published a thought provoking, sensitive, balanced, and non-confrontational essay on the life and thoughts of John Rawls who is credited by some of being the father of modern liberalism. Rawls, while not going as far as some modern day American liberals do, supported concepts of income redistribution and confiscation of wealth from those who have excessively more than they need etc.

But the one of Foss's closing paragraphs caught my eye because in describing Rawls' view of reason, in my opinion he summarizes the disconnect between liberal and conservative thought and why it is so difficult to have a good discussion on a topic like this:

. . .The divide between John Rawls and the Founders has deep roots. Ultimately, they disagree on the purpose of government and its relationship to permanent standards. This dispute is further complicated by the fact that Rawls’s theory changes the rules of civic discourse. He claims for himself the mantle of reason, while his interlocutors can be labeled unreasonable if they refuse to limit their arguments to the terms of public reason. In other words, Rawls and his followers not only want something new, but also create a new language to justify it. From the point of view of Rawls’s theory, the Founders were unreasonable, and those who think the political thought of the Founding is right and worth defending are likewise deemed unreasonable, no matter how lucid their reasons for agreeing with the Founders. . . .​

John Rawls Theorist of Modern Liberalism

 

[candycorn]

Liberalism is anything but exhausted. The country is more liberal now than it ever has been and the trend will continue.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberalism is anything but exhausted. The country is more liberal now than it ever has been and the trend will continue.

Why?

 

[Foxfyre]

His previous work isn't on trial here though. His article outlined several reasons that he sees as evidence that liberalism is wearing out is welcome with the American people. IThe fact that liberal media doesn't do well is just one of them, though in his piece, he equated this with the canary in the coal mine.

I would certainly think that if Fox News conservative commentators and conservative talk radio hadn't been able to attract audience and post successful numbers, we should at least consider that there is little interest or enthusiasm for conservative thought and commentary.

Another signal he saw as noteworthy were the results of the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections, each suggesting increasing disatisfaction with the liberalism of the current administration.

And his third point was in this paragraph:

Meanwhile, the cultural left has disengaged from mainstream political arguments, preferring instead the comforts of identity-politics argy-bargy. You judge political movements not by their manifestos but by where they put their passion. And on the left these days, the only things that arouse passion are arguments about race and gender.​

And if you read back through this thread you will see the singlemost often mentioned issue used to defend liberalism is all the states that have legalized gay marriage. (Of course there are numerous conservatives and libertarians who also don't oppose gay marriage, but let's not worry about that right now.) The point is, if you don't have anything other than gay marriage to point to for the liberal manifesto, Goldberg might be right that the movement is losing favor.

So far several have objected to the thesis of the thread and/or Jonah Goldberg and/or that they can't comment without having terms defined to their satisfaction. There have been a couple of poll results, nothing really recent, showing liberalism ticking up a bit as an I.D.

I don't know whether Goldberg has really made his case. But unless I missed the post, I don't know that anybody has really rebutted it either.

Not putting anything "on trial" Foxy -- I'm just noting in passing tht the author has gone down this specious reasoning road before, and therefore it's a pattern. When you put up a topic for debate you kinda have to expect that here and there someone might want to take issue with it.

Media is my area of experience so that's why I pounced on this point. While it may not be his sole supporting evidence, it does seem to be his star witness, after which all else follows, but it's based on a conclusion without a basis. The 'bridge' that gets him to this conclusion is the assumption that audience ratings are directly proportional to ideological assent. But that assumption is erroneous, ergo my challenge of it.

Which means the author has failed to justify the premise that his whole suggestion rests on. His idea of "exhaustion" is based on the premise of some sort of "decline", but he fails to make the case that such 'decline' exists in the first place.

None of which is to touch on the question of what he means by "liberalism". Inasmuch as he seems to use "liberal" and "left" interchangeably, it's a fair bet that he doesn't know -- or thinks his readers don't know -- the difference. Which, again, would fit previous patterns.

You say he has failed to show a decline. But where is your rebuttal argument? Just saying you don't like the author or what he says doesn't get you very far in the debate--we're talking generic you here and not you personally. I don't CARE what else he has said on other subjects. I want to know if he has a point in this article. So far nobody has been able to show he is wrong in the illustrations he used. In order to do that you strip away his personal prejudices and focus on the points made.

The point of the thread was discuss whether his interpretation of those points have any merit and if they do not, why not. Not liking the author and not liking the points he used to illustrate his thesis just isn't going to earn debate points.

I'm not making the opposite case that there is an "ascent", nor do I wish to.

I'm simply deconstructing what he thinks is his case of "decline". Pointing out that he hasn't made one.
It's not a matter of we have to have one or the other. I'm simply saying we have no theory to discuss because the author failed to make his case.

None of that has squat to do with "liking" the author. I don't know where you're pulling that from.

This may all be moot anyway, for even if we can get past the author's premise in a legitimate way, what he means by "liberalism" is, within the article, undefined --- which is why we seek clues in his previous work, to define terms. And that previous work would indicate that his definition is at the least sui generis and more realistically, highly suspect. Unfortunately that leaves the onus on us (hee hee) to define it, and we've never been able to do that.

And I thought the illustrations he used were pretty good to reinforce his opinion/perspective. I personally interpret his use of the term liberalism to be synonymous with statism/leftism/Progressivism/political class/leftwing and there is nothing in the article to suggest he meant it to be interpreted any other way. You have expressed in the past that you did not agree with that definition, but IMO that is the definition as it is most commonly used in modern day America.

Yes, the above is all accurate; I do indeed submit that both the author and you are conflating "Liberalism" and "leftism" -- along with "statism" and the imaginary "Progressivism", an ambiguity no one here can even define. And this latest post seems to follow the same path. No, they are ot synonyms; they're blanket labels designed to homogenize and pave over nuance. They're intended by their originators to elevate the superficial over the substance.

I can only guess that the tactic is to dumb-down the entire discourse as an avoidance of inconvenient elements by diluting them into a soup so they need not be addressed. I don't think acquiescing to a dumb-down ever accomplishes anything productive, and on that basis I continue to resist it. If your original intent was to question whether "leftism-statism" is exhausted, well that's an entirely different question from the one stated. But this here stubborn conflation seems obviously to me an attempt to bury the inconvenient by throwing the baby out with the bath water.

What is it specifically that is not being addressed? If you mean that changing the topic to how terms are defined is being discouraged, you would be right. A thread on definitions would be a really interesting thread, but the topic of this thread is not how terms are defined..

So if you don't like Goldberg's definitions, or if you don't like mine, then use words you like better. But please direct them to whether liberalism, as Goldberg defines it either directly or by illustrations that he uses, has run out of steam.

The specific thread topic is:

1. THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED:
   Is liberalism exhausted, i.e. has it run its course in America and will fade into the background in coming years.

Goldberg's essay provides what is meant by 'liberalism' in this particular discussion. And he is using the term 'liberal' as it is mostly understood and defined in modern day American vernacular which, like conservatism, is very different from the most dictionary definitions.

For me, modern day American liberalism is interchangeable with modern American usage of the words statist, progressive, leftist, political class. And that is how I use it. I believe that is how Goldberg is using it. I can appreciate that you disagree with that usage, but nevertheless that is how it is being used in this discussion. If you use a different term, it will be helpful if you will define your own term within the context of the discussion.

I do think I am seeing a trend of people beginning to see the negative effects of liberal policy as Goldberg expressed it. And if so, in my opinion, that could be a very healthy trend for America and the world.

 

[Foxfyre]

He didn't try to translate his arguments in that way though did he? He conceded that Barack Obama has a great talent for being elected. But his implication I think is that liberalism didn't have a great deal to do with that. I concur as I think Barack Obama ran as anything BUT a liberal in 2008. And in 2012 he didn't win as a liberal but he won as a black man and not being Romney who received negative press many times over compared to how Obama was treated in the 2012 election cycle.

I think I said that.

What I said was, you can't ignore the fact that if another charismatic figure shows up from the left....he easily could win.

When it comes to state and local government, I would venture that at least a plurality if not a majority of voters couldn't tell you the track record or positions of the people they vote for. They vote for a party or via name recognition or for the pretty face or the one they "like" the best or the one they dislike the least.

This is the shame of conservatives. They are the ones who scream and yell about government being local....but they still only seem to focus on national issues.

So Goldberg was not commenting on the ability of conservative or liberal thought to get people elected. He was commenting on where the majority of the people, in his opinion, are on the ideological scale.

It still does nothing to say the WH will go to the GOP.

And he believes that more and more people are tillting right and abandoning the failed philosopies of the left. I hope he is right, because if we do manage to put true conservatives into power as opposed to the permanent political class who pretend to be conservatives, we might actually start reversing much of the damage that has been done and start reinstating what made this country great in the first place.

This vaporous group you call "true conservatives". Where are they ? And what do they espouse that is different from the Ted Cruz's of the world (or is he part of that group ?) ?

There isn't much constructive conversation going around what the issues and what can be done about them. Nobody at the federal level on the right has shown much in the way of leadership qualities. That is not a criticism. That is being as objective as possible.

Okay since I inadvertently responded to your post with something entirely inappropriate, let me try again.

Be careful about words like 'vaporous' in describing this group or that if you mean it as a negative term. The thread rules specifically disallow any ad hominem toward others members or any group. That does not mean that we cannot criticize the specific words or actions of any person or group. I just don't want the thread to dissolve into the usual insults and food fight so we will focus on those words or actions and not on the people expressing them.

I agree that there isn't much constructive conversation going on about the issues, but how does that relate to the thread topic? Do you think people are looking more right than left these days for constructive solutions to issues? That would address the thread topic head on. Who are more likely to look for constructive solutions? Conservatives or liberals as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America?

Certainly Ted Cruz does preach a conservative doctrine within that modern usage of the term so I don't see conservatives and Ted Cruz as being necessarily different at all, though certainly there are differences of points of view within conservatism. Where were you going with the question?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Vaporous means they don't exist.

It's not a criticism, it is an observation.