Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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 choiceHillary 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.
What is not true about what I said candycorn
Hillary does leave progressives cold, and they prefer "fake Indian" Liz Warren.
Liberal 2016 poll Elizabeth Warren beats Clinton - CNNPolitics.com
The truth hurts.....
Liberalism gives central government enormous power
Not sure why I am getting notifications about being quoted in this thread?
Liberalism gives central government enormous power
No, it does not. If anything it does the opposite.
Liberalism gives central government enormous power
No, it does not. If anything it does the opposite.
Then explain why it is mostly the left. . .the left that is commonly referred to as liberals in America. . . that endorses and defends Roe v Wade giving the government power over abortions; that endorses and defends thousands of new rules and regulations every year controlling society, commerce and industry, trade, and how we live our lives; that endorses and defends a program like Obamacare that controls every aspect of our healthcare; that endorses and defends a tax code and social engineering that targets and punishes people the left is critical of and rewards those the left purports to champion?
Is all that not enormous power given to the federal government? Power taken away from the states and local communities and individual choices? And is it not mostly the liberals/statists/leftists/political class who approve of it and vote for people who do more of it?
Goldberg's thesis suggests that more and more American people are becoming aware of the negative aspect of all that and are finding less favor with it.
Not sure why I am getting notifications about being quoted in this thread?
Liberalism gives central government enormous power
No, it does not. If anything it does the opposite.
Then explain why it is mostly the left. . .the left that is commonly referred to as liberals in America. . . that endorses and defends Roe v Wade giving the government power over abortions; that endorses and defends thousands of new rules and regulations every year controlling society, commerce and industry, trade, and how we live our lives; that endorses and defends a program like Obamacare that controls every aspect of our healthcare; that endorses and defends a tax code and social engineering that targets and punishes people the left is critical of and rewards those the left purports to champion?
Is all that not enormous power given to the federal government? Power taken away from the states and local communities and individual choices? And is it not mostly the liberals/statists/leftists/political class who approve of it and vote for people who do more of it?
Goldberg's thesis suggests that more and more American people are becoming aware of the negative aspect of all that and are finding less favor with it.
The left may do some of that (and point of clarification: Roe v Wade takes the government OUT of abortion, doesn't put it in) -- but Liberalism does not. That's a conflation that began in the Red Scare daze as a divisive tool to demagogue Democrats, and has no basis in fact.
The example I always go back to is:
To declare "all men are created equal" is Liberalism; to artificially force it into being with Affirmative Action is leftist.
Reminder of the thread topic:
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?
Not sure why I am getting notifications about being quoted in this thread?
me too, whats that about?
Liberalism gives central government enormous power
No, it does not. If anything it does the opposite.
Then explain why it is mostly the left. . .the left that is commonly referred to as liberals in America. . . that endorses and defends Roe v Wade giving the government power over abortions; that endorses and defends thousands of new rules and regulations every year controlling society, commerce and industry, trade, and how we live our lives; that endorses and defends a program like Obamacare that controls every aspect of our healthcare; that endorses and defends a tax code and social engineering that targets and punishes people the left is critical of and rewards those the left purports to champion?
Is all that not enormous power given to the federal government? Power taken away from the states and local communities and individual choices? And is it not mostly the liberals/statists/leftists/political class who approve of it and vote for people who do more of it?
Goldberg's thesis suggests that more and more American people are becoming aware of the negative aspect of all that and are finding less favor with it.
The left may do some of that (and point of clarification: Roe v Wade takes the government OUT of abortion, doesn't put it in) -- but Liberalism does not. That's a conflation that began in the Red Scare daze as a divisive tool to demagogue Democrats, and has no basis in fact.
The example I always go back to is:
To declare "all men are created equal" is Liberalism; to artificially force it into being with Affirmative Action is leftist.
Overreach of governmental power is certainly a concern. But to describe it as "Liberal" is not only disingenuous but counterproductive and divisive.
Thank you.
No, it cements a woman's right to privacy. How you characterize it is unimportant.Liberalism gives central government enormous power
No, it does not. If anything it does the opposite.
Then explain why it is mostly the left. . .the left that is commonly referred to as liberals in America. . . that endorses and defends Roe v Wade giving the government power over abortions;
When there is no regulation, you have the President on the way out of the White House borrowing $700B to bail out the banks to save them from themselves and the bad investments they made. And you have the Elk River getting polluted that people are still hesitant to drink from it because nobody in the vaunted state regulatory system thought to investigate the company that polluted the river....that endorses and defends thousands of new rules and regulations every year controlling society, commerce and industry, trade,
It does no such thing and you know it.and how we live our lives;
that endorses and defends a program like Obamacare that controls every aspect of our healthcare;
Mmm hmmm...it's pretty telling that the wealthiest 1% has taken a bath under Obama...oh wait; they're richer than ever.that endorses and defends a tax code and social engineering that targets and punishes people the left is critical of and rewards those the left purports to champion?
Yet only Conservatives seem to want to get a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Isn't marriage the most basic choice one can make as an adult?Is all that not enormous power given to the federal government? Power taken away from the states and local communities and individual choices? And is it not mostly the liberals/statists/leftists/political class who approve of it and vote for people who do more of it?
Liberalism gives central government enormous power
No, it does not. If anything it does the opposite.
Not sure why I am getting notifications about being quoted in this thread?
me too, whats that about?
Sorry you got dragged in here against your will due to somebody else's post. But if the thread topic interests you. would be happy to have you stay.
Reminder of the thread topic:
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?
for liberalism to survive it needs an ignorant population that is dependent on the government and that accepts everything the elites say and never questions them or their motives. Most of the US population has seen through this farse and is moving away from the dems and libs. They will always have their radical followers, but their numbers are getting smaller.
Liberalism gives central government enormous power
No, it does not. If anything it does the opposite.
It's great that you are making this distinction.
Keep it up.
I really mean it.
Many people don't understand it.
