Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

When Barack Obama was elected, many heralded it as a day when things would finally change "for the better" and in a rather dramatic fashion.

Many seemed disappointed when they finally figured out that there are two sides and that they really did not get trasnported to Shangri la the day after he was sworn in.

Tides reversed and those on the left became disenchanted. Consequently, the house slipped away very fast and the senate went to the GOP four years later.

I am not sure people are as concerned about who is left and who is right (this is a gross oversimplification) as much as they want leadership and an end to the rancor of day.

So, I don't see liberalism as being exhausted any more than I see conservatism being exhausted.

I think this next election will be telling.

So far, all I've seen is why Hillary sucks.

I don't see any huge issues hitting. Immigration will be fascinating (I think it is going to get driven to the front) because neither side has a consistent or workable message that is going to be "popular".

These are my observations and guesses.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

When Barack Obama was elected, many heralded it as a day when things would finally change "for the better" and in a rather dramatic fashion.

Many seemed disappointed when they finally figured out that there are two sides and that they really did not get trasnported to Shangri la the day after he was sworn in.

Tides reversed and those on the left became disenchanted. Consequently, the house slipped away very fast and the senate went to the GOP four years later.

I am not sure people are as concerned about who is left and who is right (this is a gross oversimplification) as much as they want leadership and an end to the rancor of day.

So, I don't see liberalism as being exhausted any more than I see conservatism being exhausted.

I think this next election will be telling.

So far, all I've seen is why Hillary sucks.

I don't see any huge issues hitting. Immigration will be fascinating (I think it is going to get driven to the front) because neither side has a consistent or workable message that is going to be "popular".

These are my observations and guesses.

Within the context of this discussion however, I think as Goldberg is using it, liberalism is synonymous with leftism, statism, progressivism. It is the willingness to give up our individual choices, options, opportunities, and liberties to a large, all powerful, central government to manage on the theory that everybody will then be happier and better off.

That means they want the government to manage the money and all resources sometimes including commerce and industry, redistribute the wealth, provide compensation when there is less prosperity, capitulate to the ideas of other nations that they see as superior to anything called an 'American value', and order society to conform to what they consider righteous, noble, compassionate, and tolerant but deny anybody who disagrees with them the ability to exercise a different righteousness, nobility, compassion, tolerance, etc.

I am not saying at all that every person who identifies himself/herself as liberal embraces or would say he/she condones all that. But essentially that, IMO, is what modern American liberalism is and what those who identify as liberals mostly endorse either by commission or omission.

Goldberg I think is saying that more and more people are beginning to see that and reject it in favor of more traditional and conservative values as a better way to live, to prosper, to be happy.

 

[Pogo]

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?

When Barack Obama was elected, many heralded it as a day when things would finally change "for the better" and in a rather dramatic fashion.

Many seemed disappointed when they finally figured out that there are two sides and that they really did not get trasnported to Shangri la the day after he was sworn in.

Tides reversed and those on the left became disenchanted. Consequently, the house slipped away very fast and the senate went to the GOP four years later.

I am not sure people are as concerned about who is left and who is right (this is a gross oversimplification) as much as they want leadership and an end to the rancor of day.

So, I don't see liberalism as being exhausted any more than I see conservatism being exhausted.

I think this next election will be telling.

So far, all I've seen is why Hillary sucks.

I don't see any huge issues hitting. Immigration will be fascinating (I think it is going to get driven to the front) because neither side has a consistent or workable message that is going to be "popular".

These are my observations and guesses.

Within the context of this discussion however, I think as Goldberg is using it, liberalism is synonymous with leftism, statism, progressivism. It is the willingness to give up our individual choices, options, opportunities, and liberties to a large, all powerful, central government to manage on the theory that everybody will then be happier and better off.

That means they want the government to manage the money and all resources sometimes including commerce and industry, redistribute the wealth, provide compensation when there is less prosperity, capitulate to the ideas of other nations that they see as superior to anything called an 'American value', and order society to conform to what they consider righteous, noble, compassionate, and tolerant but deny anybody who disagrees with them the ability to exercise a different righteousness, nobility, compassion, tolerance, etc.

I am not saying at all that every person who identifies himself/herself as liberal embraces or would say he/she condones all that. But essentially that, IMO, is what modern American liberalism is and what those who identify as liberals mostly endorse either by commission or omission.

Goldberg I think is saying that more and more people are beginning to see that and reject it in favor of more traditional and conservative values as a better way to live, to prosper, to be happy.

Goldberg's simply wrong in his premise, that's all. Liberalism is not at all synonymous with that stuff. It's a strawman, and the objective of that strawman is to divide and polarize.

That's why I refuse to take gadflies like this seriously.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

When Barack Obama was elected, many heralded it as a day when things would finally change "for the better" and in a rather dramatic fashion.

Many seemed disappointed when they finally figured out that there are two sides and that they really did not get trasnported to Shangri la the day after he was sworn in.

Tides reversed and those on the left became disenchanted. Consequently, the house slipped away very fast and the senate went to the GOP four years later.

I am not sure people are as concerned about who is left and who is right (this is a gross oversimplification) as much as they want leadership and an end to the rancor of day.

So, I don't see liberalism as being exhausted any more than I see conservatism being exhausted.

I think this next election will be telling.

So far, all I've seen is why Hillary sucks.

I don't see any huge issues hitting. Immigration will be fascinating (I think it is going to get driven to the front) because neither side has a consistent or workable message that is going to be "popular".

These are my observations and guesses.

Within the context of this discussion however, I think as Goldberg is using it, liberalism is synonymous with leftism, statism, progressivism. It is the willingness to give up our individual choices, options, opportunities, and liberties to a large, all powerful, central government to manage on the theory that everybody will then be happier and better off.

That means they want the government to manage the money and all resources sometimes including commerce and industry, redistribute the wealth, provide compensation when there is less prosperity, capitulate to the ideas of other nations that they see as superior to anything called an 'American value', and order society to conform to what they consider righteous, noble, compassionate, and tolerant but deny anybody who disagrees with them the ability to exercise a different righteousness, nobility, compassion, tolerance, etc.

I am not saying at all that every person who identifies himself/herself as liberal embraces or would say he/she condones all that. But essentially that, IMO, is what modern American liberalism is and what those who identify as liberals mostly endorse either by commission or omission.

Goldberg I think is saying that more and more people are beginning to see that and reject it in favor of more traditional and conservative values as a better way to live, to prosper, to be happy.

If you constrain it like that...then it seems the answer is pretty obvious.

But it has become a thought experiment.

Just like the horsecrap thread on the UnAmerican nature of Libertarianism.....I don't find liberals to be what Goldberg described.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Within the context of this discussion however, I think as Goldberg is using it, liberalism is synonymous with leftism, statism, progressivism.

How ironic given that this was just posted in #241.

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.

Fallaciously equating liberalism with the negative term statism is an ad hom towards liberals and/or progressives since neither group embrace statism.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

When Barack Obama was elected, many heralded it as a day when things would finally change "for the better" and in a rather dramatic fashion.

Many seemed disappointed when they finally figured out that there are two sides and that they really did not get trasnported to Shangri la the day after he was sworn in.

Tides reversed and those on the left became disenchanted. Consequently, the house slipped away very fast and the senate went to the GOP four years later.

I am not sure people are as concerned about who is left and who is right (this is a gross oversimplification) as much as they want leadership and an end to the rancor of day.

So, I don't see liberalism as being exhausted any more than I see conservatism being exhausted.

I think this next election will be telling.

So far, all I've seen is why Hillary sucks.

I don't see any huge issues hitting. Immigration will be fascinating (I think it is going to get driven to the front) because neither side has a consistent or workable message that is going to be "popular".

These are my observations and guesses.

Within the context of this discussion however, I think as Goldberg is using it, liberalism is synonymous with leftism, statism, progressivism. It is the willingness to give up our individual choices, options, opportunities, and liberties to a large, all powerful, central government to manage on the theory that everybody will then be happier and better off.

That means they want the government to manage the money and all resources sometimes including commerce and industry, redistribute the wealth, provide compensation when there is less prosperity, capitulate to the ideas of other nations that they see as superior to anything called an 'American value', and order society to conform to what they consider righteous, noble, compassionate, and tolerant but deny anybody who disagrees with them the ability to exercise a different righteousness, nobility, compassion, tolerance, etc.

I am not saying at all that every person who identifies himself/herself as liberal embraces or would say he/she condones all that. But essentially that, IMO, is what modern American liberalism is and what those who identify as liberals mostly endorse either by commission or omission.

Goldberg I think is saying that more and more people are beginning to see that and reject it in favor of more traditional and conservative values as a better way to live, to prosper, to be happy.

Goldberg's simply wrong in his premise, that's all. Liberalism is not at all synonymous with that stuff. It's a strawman, and the objective of that strawman is to divide and polarize.

That's why I refuse to take gadflies like this seriously.

Then swell. Nobody is requiring you to like or agree with Goldberg's definition or his premise. I am just saying that his definition has absolutely no bearing on the topic he is offering us for discussion. And those who can't get past the definition he uses in order to discuss the topic, well then they just can't. I hope you find a discussion more to your liking elsewhere. (And look up the definition of 'straw man' as his definition is in no sense a straw man.)

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

When Barack Obama was elected, many heralded it as a day when things would finally change "for the better" and in a rather dramatic fashion.

Many seemed disappointed when they finally figured out that there are two sides and that they really did not get trasnported to Shangri la the day after he was sworn in.

Tides reversed and those on the left became disenchanted. Consequently, the house slipped away very fast and the senate went to the GOP four years later.

I am not sure people are as concerned about who is left and who is right (this is a gross oversimplification) as much as they want leadership and an end to the rancor of day.

So, I don't see liberalism as being exhausted any more than I see conservatism being exhausted.

I think this next election will be telling.

So far, all I've seen is why Hillary sucks.

I don't see any huge issues hitting. Immigration will be fascinating (I think it is going to get driven to the front) because neither side has a consistent or workable message that is going to be "popular".

These are my observations and guesses.

Within the context of this discussion however, I think as Goldberg is using it, liberalism is synonymous with leftism, statism, progressivism. It is the willingness to give up our individual choices, options, opportunities, and liberties to a large, all powerful, central government to manage on the theory that everybody will then be happier and better off.

That means they want the government to manage the money and all resources sometimes including commerce and industry, redistribute the wealth, provide compensation when there is less prosperity, capitulate to the ideas of other nations that they see as superior to anything called an 'American value', and order society to conform to what they consider righteous, noble, compassionate, and tolerant but deny anybody who disagrees with them the ability to exercise a different righteousness, nobility, compassion, tolerance, etc.

I am not saying at all that every person who identifies himself/herself as liberal embraces or would say he/she condones all that. But essentially that, IMO, is what modern American liberalism is and what those who identify as liberals mostly endorse either by commission or omission.

Goldberg I think is saying that more and more people are beginning to see that and reject it in favor of more traditional and conservative values as a better way to live, to prosper, to be happy.

If you constrain it like that...then it seems the answer is pretty obvious.

But it has become a thought experiment.

Just like the horsecrap thread on the UnAmerican nature of Libertarianism.....I don't find liberals to be what Goldberg described.

What do you mean by 'thought experiment'?

Did Goldberg describe liberals? I thought he was describing liberalism and its effects. (I'll go back and re-read his essay because I don't recall everything that was in it.) But what do you see different about liberalism, i.e. how do you think he got it wrong about the concepts that he says people are becoming disenchanted with?

I mean whether you call it liberalism or something else, do you think he is right or wrong in his thesis?

 

[Pogo]

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?

When Barack Obama was elected, many heralded it as a day when things would finally change "for the better" and in a rather dramatic fashion.

Many seemed disappointed when they finally figured out that there are two sides and that they really did not get trasnported to Shangri la the day after he was sworn in.

Tides reversed and those on the left became disenchanted. Consequently, the house slipped away very fast and the senate went to the GOP four years later.

I am not sure people are as concerned about who is left and who is right (this is a gross oversimplification) as much as they want leadership and an end to the rancor of day.

So, I don't see liberalism as being exhausted any more than I see conservatism being exhausted.

I think this next election will be telling.

So far, all I've seen is why Hillary sucks.

I don't see any huge issues hitting. Immigration will be fascinating (I think it is going to get driven to the front) because neither side has a consistent or workable message that is going to be "popular".

These are my observations and guesses.

Within the context of this discussion however, I think as Goldberg is using it, liberalism is synonymous with leftism, statism, progressivism. It is the willingness to give up our individual choices, options, opportunities, and liberties to a large, all powerful, central government to manage on the theory that everybody will then be happier and better off.

That means they want the government to manage the money and all resources sometimes including commerce and industry, redistribute the wealth, provide compensation when there is less prosperity, capitulate to the ideas of other nations that they see as superior to anything called an 'American value', and order society to conform to what they consider righteous, noble, compassionate, and tolerant but deny anybody who disagrees with them the ability to exercise a different righteousness, nobility, compassion, tolerance, etc.

I am not saying at all that every person who identifies himself/herself as liberal embraces or would say he/she condones all that. But essentially that, IMO, is what modern American liberalism is and what those who identify as liberals mostly endorse either by commission or omission.

Goldberg I think is saying that more and more people are beginning to see that and reject it in favor of more traditional and conservative values as a better way to live, to prosper, to be happy.

Goldberg's simply wrong in his premise, that's all. Liberalism is not at all synonymous with that stuff. It's a strawman, and the objective of that strawman is to divide and polarize.

That's why I refuse to take gadflies like this seriously.

Then swell. Nobody is requiring you to like or agree with Goldberg's definition. I am just saying that his definition has absolutely no bearing on the topic he is offering us for discussion.

Then why did you just bring it up again?

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

When Barack Obama was elected, many heralded it as a day when things would finally change "for the better" and in a rather dramatic fashion.

Many seemed disappointed when they finally figured out that there are two sides and that they really did not get trasnported to Shangri la the day after he was sworn in.

Tides reversed and those on the left became disenchanted. Consequently, the house slipped away very fast and the senate went to the GOP four years later.

I am not sure people are as concerned about who is left and who is right (this is a gross oversimplification) as much as they want leadership and an end to the rancor of day.

So, I don't see liberalism as being exhausted any more than I see conservatism being exhausted.

I think this next election will be telling.

So far, all I've seen is why Hillary sucks.

I don't see any huge issues hitting. Immigration will be fascinating (I think it is going to get driven to the front) because neither side has a consistent or workable message that is going to be "popular".

These are my observations and guesses.

Within the context of this discussion however, I think as Goldberg is using it, liberalism is synonymous with leftism, statism, progressivism. It is the willingness to give up our individual choices, options, opportunities, and liberties to a large, all powerful, central government to manage on the theory that everybody will then be happier and better off.

That means they want the government to manage the money and all resources sometimes including commerce and industry, redistribute the wealth, provide compensation when there is less prosperity, capitulate to the ideas of other nations that they see as superior to anything called an 'American value', and order society to conform to what they consider righteous, noble, compassionate, and tolerant but deny anybody who disagrees with them the ability to exercise a different righteousness, nobility, compassion, tolerance, etc.

I am not saying at all that every person who identifies himself/herself as liberal embraces or would say he/she condones all that. But essentially that, IMO, is what modern American liberalism is and what those who identify as liberals mostly endorse either by commission or omission.

Goldberg I think is saying that more and more people are beginning to see that and reject it in favor of more traditional and conservative values as a better way to live, to prosper, to be happy.

Goldberg's simply wrong in his premise, that's all. Liberalism is not at all synonymous with that stuff. It's a strawman, and the objective of that strawman is to divide and polarize.

That's why I refuse to take gadflies like this seriously.

Then swell. Nobody is requiring you to like or agree with Goldberg's definition. I am just saying that his definition has absolutely no bearing on the topic he is offering us for discussion.

Then why did you just bring it up again?

Um, because it is the topic is liberalism and whether it is declining? We can't very well do that without discussing what it is. And the basic framework for discussion, which we are not necessarily limited to, is Goldberg's illustrations he used to define what he means by liberalism.

You don't have to agree with his definition. But it is necessary to accept it for this discussion or we get bogged down hopelessly in yet another boring discussion of semantics and never get to the topic. The topic is not the defintion of liberalism, but rather whether liberalism as Goldberg defines and describes it is now being rejected by the people.

Use a different word for what he is describing if you like. But are people embracing it more? The same? Or less as he suggests?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The topic is not the defintion of liberalism, but rather whether liberalism as Goldberg defines and describes it is now being rejected by the people.

Fortunately for We the People Goldberg is not the sole arbiter of the fate of liberalism.

Instead we have polling on the matter. Rightwing pollster Gallup is showing the highest percentage of Americans self identifying as liberals since 1992.

U.S. Liberals at Record 24 but Still Trail Conservatives

So the facts disprove the OP question.

 

[Foxfyre]

The topic is not the defintion of liberalism, but rather whether liberalism as Goldberg defines and describes it is now being rejected by the people.

Fortunately for We the People Goldberg is not the sole arbiter of the fate of liberalism.

Instead we have polling on the matter. Rightwing pollster Gallup is showing the highest percentage of Americans self identifying as liberals since 1992.

U.S. Liberals at Record 24 but Still Trail Conservatives

So the facts disprove the OP question.

I don't recall anything in the OP that counts liberals. The topic is the attitudes of the people about liberalism as Goldberg illustrates it. It doesn't matter how a person identifies himself/herself. It does matter, for this discussion, the views he/she holds about all the components that go into an ideology. Your statistic only shows how many people label themselves. It says nothing about their attitudes about liberalism. You have disproved nothing.

 

[Pogo]

When Barack Obama was elected, many heralded it as a day when things would finally change "for the better" and in a rather dramatic fashion.

Many seemed disappointed when they finally figured out that there are two sides and that they really did not get trasnported to Shangri la the day after he was sworn in.

Tides reversed and those on the left became disenchanted. Consequently, the house slipped away very fast and the senate went to the GOP four years later.

I am not sure people are as concerned about who is left and who is right (this is a gross oversimplification) as much as they want leadership and an end to the rancor of day.

So, I don't see liberalism as being exhausted any more than I see conservatism being exhausted.

I think this next election will be telling.

So far, all I've seen is why Hillary sucks.

I don't see any huge issues hitting. Immigration will be fascinating (I think it is going to get driven to the front) because neither side has a consistent or workable message that is going to be "popular".

These are my observations and guesses.

Within the context of this discussion however, I think as Goldberg is using it, liberalism is synonymous with leftism, statism, progressivism. It is the willingness to give up our individual choices, options, opportunities, and liberties to a large, all powerful, central government to manage on the theory that everybody will then be happier and better off.

That means they want the government to manage the money and all resources sometimes including commerce and industry, redistribute the wealth, provide compensation when there is less prosperity, capitulate to the ideas of other nations that they see as superior to anything called an 'American value', and order society to conform to what they consider righteous, noble, compassionate, and tolerant but deny anybody who disagrees with them the ability to exercise a different righteousness, nobility, compassion, tolerance, etc.

I am not saying at all that every person who identifies himself/herself as liberal embraces or would say he/she condones all that. But essentially that, IMO, is what modern American liberalism is and what those who identify as liberals mostly endorse either by commission or omission.

Goldberg I think is saying that more and more people are beginning to see that and reject it in favor of more traditional and conservative values as a better way to live, to prosper, to be happy.

Goldberg's simply wrong in his premise, that's all. Liberalism is not at all synonymous with that stuff. It's a strawman, and the objective of that strawman is to divide and polarize.

That's why I refuse to take gadflies like this seriously.

Then swell. Nobody is requiring you to like or agree with Goldberg's definition. I am just saying that his definition has absolutely no bearing on the topic he is offering us for discussion.

Then why did you just bring it up again?

Um, because it is the topic is liberalism and whether it is declining? We can't very well do that without discussing what it is. And the basic framework for discussion, which we are not necessarily limited to, is Goldberg's illustrations he used to define what he means by liberalism.

You don't have to agree with his definition. But it is necessary to accept it for this discussion or we get bogged down hopelessly in yet another boring discussion of semantics and never get to the topic. The topic is not the defintion of liberalism, but rather whether liberalism as Goldberg defines and describes it is now being rejected by the people.

Use a different word for what he is describing if you like. But are people embracing it more? The same? Or less as he suggests?

As long as such a term is intentionally misdefined, that will be impossible to answer.
Given that lexicographical pollution, even that Gallup chart just posted isn't reliable to the extent such a misdefinition prevails. When the same term means different things to different people, nailing down a position on it becomes an impossibility.

Let alone the title of this thread.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The topic is not the defintion of liberalism, but rather whether liberalism as Goldberg defines and describes it is now being rejected by the people.

Fortunately for We the People Goldberg is not the sole arbiter of the fate of liberalism.

Instead we have polling on the matter. Rightwing pollster Gallup is showing the highest percentage of Americans self identifying as liberals since 1992.

U.S. Liberals at Record 24 but Still Trail Conservatives

So the facts disprove the OP question.

I don't recall anything in the OP that counts liberals. The topic is the attitudes of the people about liberalism as Goldberg illustrates it. It doesn't matter how a person identifies himself/herself. It does matter, for this discussion, the views he/she holds about all the components that go into an ideology. Your statistic only shows how many people label themselves. It says nothing about their attitudes about liberalism. You have disproved nothing.

If more people are self identifying as liberals that means that they are embracing the concepts and components of liberalism.

The fallacy of the OP is in statements such as these;

"no longer able to gain much if any traction in popular appeal. "​

Obviously if liberalism is now at the highest level ever measured by Gallup and still rising that means that it is gaining traction and has popular appeal. Conservatism has declined by 5% over the period while Liberalism has grown by 7%.

Polls measure the attitudes of We the People and as I mentioned before Gallup has a documented rightwing polling bias so if anything these numbers are understated.

The math doesn't lie and it disproves the premise of the OP and no amount of articles by Goldberg will change the fact that there is a 12% point swing in favor of America towards Liberalism.

 

[Foxfyre]

The topic is not the defintion of liberalism, but rather whether liberalism as Goldberg defines and describes it is now being rejected by the people.

Fortunately for We the People Goldberg is not the sole arbiter of the fate of liberalism.

Instead we have polling on the matter. Rightwing pollster Gallup is showing the highest percentage of Americans self identifying as liberals since 1992.

U.S. Liberals at Record 24 but Still Trail Conservatives

So the facts disprove the OP question.

I don't recall anything in the OP that counts liberals. The topic is the attitudes of the people about liberalism as Goldberg illustrates it. It doesn't matter how a person identifies himself/herself. It does matter, for this discussion, the views he/she holds about all the components that go into an ideology. Your statistic only shows how many people label themselves. It says nothing about their attitudes about liberalism. You have disproved nothing.

If more people are self identifying as liberals that means that they are embracing the concepts and components of liberalism.

The fallacy of the OP is in statements such as these;

"no longer able to gain much if any traction in popular appeal. "​

Obviously if liberalism is now at the highest level ever measured by Gallup and still rising that means that it is gaining traction and has popular appeal. Conservatism has declined by 5% over the period while Liberalism has grown by 7%.

Polls measure the attitudes of We the People and as I mentioned before Gallup has a documented rightwing polling bias so if anything these numbers are understated.

The math doesn't lie and it disproves the premise of the OP and no amount of articles by Goldberg will change the fact that there is a 12% point swing in favor of America towards Liberalism.

Really? Do you have any evidence that everybody who identifies as a liberal supports Obamacare? Supports mostly unrestricted abortion on demand? Supports redefining marriage? Supports a 18+ trillion dollar national debt? Supports an endless barrage of laws, rules, and regulation that is choking American business? Approve of an ever growing, more authoritarian central government that is involving itself in more and more of our lives?

I have a lot of friends who identify themselves as liberal or mostly liberal who don't support any or most or a lot of those things. My own sister and niece who live right here in town self identify as liberals and don't agree with any or most of those things.

So why do you think those who self identify as liberals are the sole evidence of whether or not liberalism as Goldberg illustrates it is falling out of favor?

 

[Foxfyre]

Within the context of this discussion however, I think as Goldberg is using it, liberalism is synonymous with leftism, statism, progressivism. It is the willingness to give up our individual choices, options, opportunities, and liberties to a large, all powerful, central government to manage on the theory that everybody will then be happier and better off.

That means they want the government to manage the money and all resources sometimes including commerce and industry, redistribute the wealth, provide compensation when there is less prosperity, capitulate to the ideas of other nations that they see as superior to anything called an 'American value', and order society to conform to what they consider righteous, noble, compassionate, and tolerant but deny anybody who disagrees with them the ability to exercise a different righteousness, nobility, compassion, tolerance, etc.

I am not saying at all that every person who identifies himself/herself as liberal embraces or would say he/she condones all that. But essentially that, IMO, is what modern American liberalism is and what those who identify as liberals mostly endorse either by commission or omission.

Goldberg I think is saying that more and more people are beginning to see that and reject it in favor of more traditional and conservative values as a better way to live, to prosper, to be happy.

Goldberg's simply wrong in his premise, that's all. Liberalism is not at all synonymous with that stuff. It's a strawman, and the objective of that strawman is to divide and polarize.

That's why I refuse to take gadflies like this seriously.

Then swell. Nobody is requiring you to like or agree with Goldberg's definition. I am just saying that his definition has absolutely no bearing on the topic he is offering us for discussion.

Then why did you just bring it up again?

Um, because it is the topic is liberalism and whether it is declining? We can't very well do that without discussing what it is. And the basic framework for discussion, which we are not necessarily limited to, is Goldberg's illustrations he used to define what he means by liberalism.

You don't have to agree with his definition. But it is necessary to accept it for this discussion or we get bogged down hopelessly in yet another boring discussion of semantics and never get to the topic. The topic is not the defintion of liberalism, but rather whether liberalism as Goldberg defines and describes it is now being rejected by the people.

Use a different word for what he is describing if you like. But are people embracing it more? The same? Or less as he suggests?

As long as such a term is intentionally misdefined, that will be impossible to answer.
Given that lexicographical pollution, even that Gallup chart just posted isn't reliable to the extent such a misdefinition prevails. When the same term means different things to different people, nailing down a position on it becomes an impossibility.

Let alone the title of this thread.

Again I accept that you aren't willing or able to separate a definition from the concept being discussed. And that's kewl. I love you anyway. But you really would enjoy another discussion more and I hope you find one because I can separate the word used to define the concept from the concept being offered and a discussion of the concept is what I hoped to happen on this thread.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The topic is not the defintion of liberalism, but rather whether liberalism as Goldberg defines and describes it is now being rejected by the people.

Fortunately for We the People Goldberg is not the sole arbiter of the fate of liberalism.

Instead we have polling on the matter. Rightwing pollster Gallup is showing the highest percentage of Americans self identifying as liberals since 1992.

U.S. Liberals at Record 24 but Still Trail Conservatives

So the facts disprove the OP question.

How do you disprove a question ?

Brilliant.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The topic is not the defintion of liberalism, but rather whether liberalism as Goldberg defines and describes it is now being rejected by the people.

Fortunately for We the People Goldberg is not the sole arbiter of the fate of liberalism.

Instead we have polling on the matter. Rightwing pollster Gallup is showing the highest percentage of Americans self identifying as liberals since 1992.

U.S. Liberals at Record 24 but Still Trail Conservatives

So the facts disprove the OP question.

BTW: The graph also shows an increase in the number who identify as conservatives.

Hence, we see the polarization of the voting populace.

Does anyone see this as good ?

 

[Foxfyre]

The topic is not the defintion of liberalism, but rather whether liberalism as Goldberg defines and describes it is now being rejected by the people.

Fortunately for We the People Goldberg is not the sole arbiter of the fate of liberalism.

Instead we have polling on the matter. Rightwing pollster Gallup is showing the highest percentage of Americans self identifying as liberals since 1992.

U.S. Liberals at Record 24 but Still Trail Conservatives

So the facts disprove the OP question.

BTW: The graph also shows an increase in the number who identify as conservatives.

Hence, we see the polarization of the voting populace.

Does anyone see this as good ?

I don't have a problem with how people identify themselves though. The fact is that fewer people are willing to identify themselves with a specific political party suggests that maybe we are possibly becoming less polarized? We can hope.

But for purposes of this thread, the point is not how people identify themselves but rather how they evaluate the various issues and what they think we as a society should be doing about it. Goldberg says that the fact that 'liberal' (as he defines it) media is unable to gain traction or gain audience suggests there isn't much passion for the liberal doctrines espoused or the conservative trashing that goes on in most of that form of media.

And this paragraph from his essay I thought interesting:

. . .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. . .​

I would add sexual orientation as well.

So I wonder if those folks who identify themselves as 'liberal', took a short quiz offering a comprehensive variety of option for their preferences on taxes, abortion, illegal immigration, work ethic, family, value of fathers in the home, government power, liberty, spending, social programs, etc., how many would find they are actually more right of center than left of center on most?

Oh, just to be sure, I looked up the definition of argy-bargy which the Oxford dictionary defined as noisy quarreling or wrangling.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The topic is not the defintion of liberalism, but rather whether liberalism as Goldberg defines and describes it is now being rejected by the people.

Fortunately for We the People Goldberg is not the sole arbiter of the fate of liberalism.

Instead we have polling on the matter. Rightwing pollster Gallup is showing the highest percentage of Americans self identifying as liberals since 1992.

U.S. Liberals at Record 24 but Still Trail Conservatives

So the facts disprove the OP question.

BTW: The graph also shows an increase in the number who identify as conservatives.

Hence, we see the polarization of the voting populace.

Does anyone see this as good ?

I don't have a problem with how people identify themselves though. The fact is that fewer people are willing to identify themselves with a specific political party suggests that maybe we are possibly becoming less polarized? We can hope.

But for purposes of this thread, the point is not how people identify themselves but rather how they evaluate the various issues and what they think we as a society should be doing about it. Goldberg says that the fact that 'liberal' (as he defines it) media is unable to gain traction or gain audience suggests there isn't much passion for the liberal doctrines espoused or the conservative trashing that goes on in most of that form of media.

And this paragraph from his essay I thought interesting:

. . .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. . .​

I would add sexual orientation as well.

So I wonder if those folks who identify themselves as 'liberal', took a short quiz offering a comprehensive variety of option for their preferences on taxes, abortion, illegal immigration, work ethic, family, value of fathers in the home, government power, liberty, spending, social programs, etc., how many would find they are actually more right of center than left of center on most?

Oh, just to be sure, I looked up the definition of argy-bargy which the Oxford dictionary defined as noisy quarreling or wrangling.

Goldberg says that the fact that 'liberal' (as he defines it) media is unable to gain traction or gain audience

What was Goldberg using to measure this "lack of traction" in the "liberal media"?

Polls?

Statistics?

Because if he wasn't then what was he basing his claim on?

His personal anecdotes?

Obviously not because if he did that he would lose credibility amongst his peers. Goldberg quoted various statistics to bolster his opinion in his article. What is fascinating is that Goldberg retracted his own claim in the final paragraph. Probably because in his statistical research he had come across the same Gallup poll and knew that he would be challenged unless he added that disclaimer.

In essence all that Goldberg did was offer a one sided opinion that even he knew was a specious claim but he has to maintain both his audience (AKA paycheck) and his credibility so he backpedaled and then covered it with a sarcastic dig.

The OP is based upon the opinion of someone who wasn't honest enough to quote all of the available data at the time because that would have ruined his partisan rant. Instead he weaseled his way around it hoping that those who read the article wouldn't do their own fact checking. And to a large extent he was spot on because he knew that his intended audience would take what he wrote on faith alone and never fact check it because it played directly into their chosen beliefs.

Goldberg was just preaching to his choir again.

 

[candycorn]

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

Why?

The nation is more liberal now because on the whole, the nation is more sophisticated than it has ever been. This was brought on by the democratization that Thomas Friedman spoke about in the Lexus and the Olive Tree. The democratization of finance (DOF), the democratization of information (DOI), and the democratization of technology (DOT).

As a caring people, Americans are among the first to show up, lend a hand, and help others along the way. The DOI allows you to know about a baker in Indiana who was supposedly wronged. The DOF (i.e. a shift in the monetary system from hard currency to credit) allows you to financially help that baker and the DOT--your computer--allows you to make the transaction. This goes for that baker in Indiana to flood victims in Bangladesh to earthquake victims in Nepal.

The youth of today are eager to help, seldom do you hear the conservative whimper of "Why should I have to...." from the mouths of these wonderful kids.... I'm sure you could find examples but by and large the global force for good that is the United States of America is more focused on trying to elevate all instead of the conservative plan of shutting doors, privatizing institutions, and the tried and failed policies of trickle down...i.e. the stale "enrich the rich and they'll elevate the poor."

As for the premise...one only needs to look around and see what conservatives like to point to as skins on the wall.

Let's see. You guys are all for the government jumping into the bed between you and your partner and making sure one (or both) cannot enjoy the benefits of marriage (if they so choose) unless it's members of the opposite sex doing so. So, you've got that going for you....more government intervention. Of course, with young persons who identify themselves as conservatives, the issue was decided long ago. And you're not going to like the results: Your own youth has rejected you....

What else has made you guys uncharacteristically smile lately? Well, there was the Hobby Lobby decision where a company argued that it shouldn't have to pay for some forms of contraception under the ACA because of their objection to abortion (while buying billions of dollars of goods from China who forces couples into a one-child per family society by and large). Anyway back to the "victory". Hobby Lobby once supplied all of the drugs/devices it wanted to stop having to supply after the ACA was passed. But it "won". Now it only has to fund a health plan that has 11 types of contraception on it. Wow...some victory there. It would be a lot like winning a judgment saying you don't have to pay the plaintiff in 50's but you still must pay in $5's and $10's.

The 2014 election was great for you guys. Or at least you folks seem to want to call it a sea change. I supposed we'll see in 2016 but it's a pretty safe bet that the Senate will revert back to the Democrats. Currently Hillary is preferred in every poll worth it's salt over any Republican. And there is the facts that the 6th year of a two-term president is historically cruel to the party of that President.

---

The elephant in the room, however, is that

aside from the policies of "lets do less" which the conservatives are wrong about....
aside from the politics of "lets decide whom you can love" which you're wrong about....
aside from celebrating the victories of reducing business's responsibility to zero in all cases even when they are polluting the water, blowing up and causing collateral damage which you're wrong about...

The reason the country is becoming more liberal with each passing day is because the conservatives are simply repugnant persons. Here is a small snippet collected over the last month here and there.

She really a screaming nag when the cameras are off. A mean narcissistic bitch that feels we owe her. She thinks she's better than all of us.

why is she boring? she is old, tired, angry, arrogant, and narcissistic.

Ringling Brothers recently announced they are retiring all their elephants by 2018. Animal rights activists finally got their wish. Someone should retire Hillary to that elephant preserve.

She's a man hating piece of crap. We don't need her ass anywhere near the white house.

So you don't think we should extract the snuke from her snatch so she doesn't take out 3 branches of government during her first state of the union address?

Hillary looks a mess. Fat and dumpy. What american would vote for her.?

How can she manage the country when she can't even manage herself.? Looks like she eats ice cream all day and never gets any exercise. Same age as Romney and yet he looks healthy and fit!. And twenty years ago she was really pretty.

I doubt Rubio will win the nomination but at least the right is offering up some choices and not depending on some old, wrinkled, fat ass hag who has never accomplished a damn thing on her own as an only choice

Hillary leaves the progressives, greens, and leftwingnutjobs cold. She's too fat, old, and boring. She's viewed as a centrist.

They want a crazy cat lady with fake Injun blood!! They want Liz Warren!!

Get under my skin?

That is an understatement.

She is a lying entitled cunttt who thinks she is unique or special.

Fuck her

Uhuh, we will, you do the same. continue to push that old, tired, angry, shrill, corrupt, lying bitch. get behind her, send her all of your money, do it!

And if they go negative on the kunt she'll just play the sympathy card. Bill better watch out. You never know what an evil bitch like her will do.

Tell me if you're proud to hold conference with these folks. I know you'll disavow any knowledge of their actions and If I want to address it to address them. In other words, as always...you won't answer the question.

Which, in a very profound sense...is the loudest form of agreement. You can't justify anything done by your ideology so you will make a 3-4 paragraph statement about some bizarre virtue of conservatism, traditional marriage (half of all end in divorce--could gays really do much worse), or when you're in the mood what (you think) the "founders" wanted.

It's old, it's tired, it's played. So I guess this is my way of putting a quarter into the juke box....now play that old familiar song.