Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[Foxfyre]

Recent elections are not necessarily indicative of this as OP suggests. That said, Liberalism is in about the same state today that conservatism was in during Nixon's Administration--clawing it's way back into the mainstream, and making considerable compromises along the way.

Yes Goldberg did touch on the fact that who wins elections is not necessarily indicative of the electorate's core values. Those who get elected are usually the ones who are most attractive on camera, who are able to say just the right things to the right audience even if it is something opposite from what they say to a different audience, and those who are able to most effectively demonize their opponents.

But can I draw from your comment that you think liberalism, as it is most commonly defined in modern day America, isn't losing favor with the people at this time? Please clarify.

 

[rdean]

What conservatives want to "debate" is what they consider their definition of "liberalism" to be as opposed to their equally imagined definition of conservatism. No wonder people who don't know the difference between fascism, communism and socialism want to compare all three to liberalism.
On the other hand, their definition of conservatism is very strange considering what their actual policies are.
Ask liberals what their policies are and the majority of Americans agree. Ask conservatives what their policies are and you don't actually get policies. You get empty slogans. I know. I've tried again and again on the USMB. "Make better" and "we want our country back" and "put Jesus back in schools" is NOT policy. Those are slogans.

However, you have to admit the "debate" between what conservatives imagine liberalism to be and what we know of today's modern conservative policies is quite amusing. Just the fact that self described conservatives say "we don't all feel that way" is laughable when you know that if the majority feel that way, then who cares what the position of minority. It's not like they are a coalition.

From what I've seen, you are more left that you are liberal.

BTW: Liberals and Conservatives don't have policies. Republicans and Democrats do.

And no, we don't have to admit anything (starting a sentence with such a statement assumes you are correct in your claim.....your sentence does not make any sense.....a debate between an imagined philosophy and modern policy ?????.....this is he way the leftist democrat might speak).

The fruit of conservative's imagined philosophy are their political policies. If there is no real world connection, then it's a senseless and useless debate better left for master debaters.

 

[Agit8r]

Recent elections are not necessarily indicative of this as OP suggests. That said, Liberalism is in about the same state today that conservatism was in during Nixon's Administration--clawing it's way back into the mainstream, and making considerable compromises along the way.

Yes Goldberg did touch on the fact that who wins elections is not necessarily indicative of the electorate's core values. Those who get elected are usually the ones who are most attractive on camera, who are able to say just the right things to the right audience even if it is something opposite from what they say to a different audience, and those who are able to most effectively demonize their opponents.

But can I draw from your comment that you think liberalism isn't losing favor with the people at this time? Please clarify.

I would say that liberalism (both social and economic) was at it's lowest point during the early 2000's. When Obama ran for the presidency in 2008, his stated agenda was basically the same as John McCain's legislative record. He has had to compromise on almost everything regarding legislation and budgets, and yet there have been good common sense reforms pushed through, better regulation of Wall Street, a Justice Department concerned with things such as police misconduct. Liberalism has made gains here and there, despite the country being far more right-wing than it was a few decades ago.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Roe v Wade dictated, from the federal level, what the law re abortion will be instead of leaving that to the states or local communities to decide. And states that have tried to get around that law with their own laws have been consistently shot down in the courts because of Roe v Wade.

Be careful about the ad hominem even in so broad an area as 'red states'. The thread rules clearly do not allow that.

? Who brought up "red states"?...

And I will not get into a war of semantics with you. "Liberal" as it is commonly used in American vernacular is synonymous with leftist, statist, progressive, political class. That is what modern American liberalism is.

No, it is not. And when you try to distort it that way I'll continue to correct it. As I said it's counterproductive to dialogue when you deliberately distort terms.

If you don't define the word that way, then use whichever of those words or choose another that suits you. We won't quibble so long as you address the thread topic.

You defined it-- I corrected it. Stop misdefining and I won't have to. Every single time I've been on this issue it's in reaction to one of these misdefiinitions. Every one.

Liberals, as they are defined in modern day America, may indeed say all men are created equal. But they sure don't seem to be pushing programs and rules and laws and attitudes that promote equality for anybody other than those groups they champion. And that may be becoming apparent to more Americans and they aren't appreciating it. Which could explain why MSNBC that offers little more than promotion of liberal doctrine and bashing conservative points of view hasn't been able to attract much audience as Goldberg suggests.

Again that's conflating different groups as if they're one and the same. They're not.

Again, my dear friend, if you are unable to discuss the thread topic unless it does not include a word that the vast majority of Americans use to describe a particular ideology, then you really should start your own thread to discuss that or find another thread that is less annoying.

Again the thread topic is not how I or Goldberg or anybody else is using a word as it is most commonly used and understood. But if that is the most important component for you here and is the game changer for you, and you can't discuss the topic unless that is changed, then you shouldn't participate in this discussion and should start your own.

I wish you would reconsider that and give us some good insight on the topic itself.

 

[Foxfyre]

Recent elections are not necessarily indicative of this as OP suggests. That said, Liberalism is in about the same state today that conservatism was in during Nixon's Administration--clawing it's way back into the mainstream, and making considerable compromises along the way.

Yes Goldberg did touch on the fact that who wins elections is not necessarily indicative of the electorate's core values. Those who get elected are usually the ones who are most attractive on camera, who are able to say just the right things to the right audience even if it is something opposite from what they say to a different audience, and those who are able to most effectively demonize their opponents.

But can I draw from your comment that you think liberalism isn't losing favor with the people at this time? Please clarify.

I would say that liberalism (both social and economic) was at it's lowest point during the early 2000's. When Obama ran for the presidency in 2008, his stated agenda was basically the same as John McCain's legislative record. He has had to compromise on almost everything regarding legislation and budgets, and yet there have been good common sense reforms pushed through, better regulation of Wall Street, a Justice Department concerned with things such as police misconduct. Liberalism has made gains here and there, despite the country being far more right-wing than it was a few decades ago.

But recently, do you think most Americans are appreciative and supportive of the gains you see as made by liberalism?

 

[Agit8r]

Recent elections are not necessarily indicative of this as OP suggests. That said, Liberalism is in about the same state today that conservatism was in during Nixon's Administration--clawing it's way back into the mainstream, and making considerable compromises along the way.

Yes Goldberg did touch on the fact that who wins elections is not necessarily indicative of the electorate's core values. Those who get elected are usually the ones who are most attractive on camera, who are able to say just the right things to the right audience even if it is something opposite from what they say to a different audience, and those who are able to most effectively demonize their opponents.

But can I draw from your comment that you think liberalism isn't losing favor with the people at this time? Please clarify.

I would say that liberalism (both social and economic) was at it's lowest point during the early 2000's. When Obama ran for the presidency in 2008, his stated agenda was basically the same as John McCain's legislative record. He has had to compromise on almost everything regarding legislation and budgets, and yet there have been good common sense reforms pushed through, better regulation of Wall Street, a Justice Department concerned with things such as police misconduct. Liberalism has made gains here and there, despite the country being far more right-wing than it was a few decades ago.

But recently, do you think most Americans are appreciative and supportive of the gains you see as made by liberalism?

I doubt that a majority of Americans know about them. The things that we hear most about are social issues. But that is a mixed bag for liberals. They have had victories in the realm of gay rights for instance. But on the other hand, in many states reproductive rights are more restricted now than at any time since 1973.

 

[Foxfyre]

Recent elections are not necessarily indicative of this as OP suggests. That said, Liberalism is in about the same state today that conservatism was in during Nixon's Administration--clawing it's way back into the mainstream, and making considerable compromises along the way.

Yes Goldberg did touch on the fact that who wins elections is not necessarily indicative of the electorate's core values. Those who get elected are usually the ones who are most attractive on camera, who are able to say just the right things to the right audience even if it is something opposite from what they say to a different audience, and those who are able to most effectively demonize their opponents.

But can I draw from your comment that you think liberalism isn't losing favor with the people at this time? Please clarify.

I would say that liberalism (both social and economic) was at it's lowest point during the early 2000's. When Obama ran for the presidency in 2008, his stated agenda was basically the same as John McCain's legislative record. He has had to compromise on almost everything regarding legislation and budgets, and yet there have been good common sense reforms pushed through, better regulation of Wall Street, a Justice Department concerned with things such as police misconduct. Liberalism has made gains here and there, despite the country being far more right-wing than it was a few decades ago.

But recently, do you think most Americans are appreciative and supportive of the gains you see as made by liberalism?

I doubt that a majority of Americans know about them. The things that we hear most about are social issues. But that is a mixed bag for liberals. They have had victories in the realm of gay rights for instance. But on the other hand, in many states reproductive rights are more restricted now than at any time since 1973.

But is that an indication that people are leaning more left/liberal or more right/conservative?

Do you think most people want more or less central government power over those things that are most important to them?
Maybe things like:
Their property and assets?
What their kids have for lunch at school?
What kind of car or lightbulb or toilet they will be able to buy?
What laws will govern speed limits or abortion or obscenity?
What wages they are allowed to work for?
What liberty they have to exercise and practice their personal religious, moral, and ethical beliefs?
What choice and options they have in their healthcare?

 

[candycorn]

What conservatives want to "debate" is what they consider their definition of "liberalism" to be as opposed to their equally imagined definition of conservatism. No wonder people who don't know the difference between fascism, communism and socialism want to compare all three to liberalism.
On the other hand, their definition of conservatism is very strange considering what their actual policies are.
Ask liberals what their policies are and the majority of Americans agree. Ask conservatives what their policies are and you don't actually get policies. You get empty slogans. I know. I've tried again and again on the USMB. "Make better" and "we want our country back" and "put Jesus back in schools" is NOT policy. Those are slogans.

However, you have to admit the "debate" between what conservatives imagine liberalism to be and what we know of today's modern conservative policies is quite amusing. Just the fact that self described conservatives say "we don't all feel that way" is laughable when you know that if the majority feel that way, then who cares what the position of minority. It's not like they are a coalition.

From what I've seen, you are more left that you are liberal.

BTW: Liberals and Conservatives don't have policies. Republicans and Democrats do.

And no, we don't have to admit anything (starting a sentence with such a statement assumes you are correct in your claim.....your sentence does not make any sense.....a debate between an imagined philosophy and modern policy ?????.....this is he way the leftist democrat might speak).

The fruit of conservative's imagined philosophy are their political policies. If there
is no real world connection, then it's a senseless and useless debate better left for master debaters.

Very well put.

 

[candycorn]

Recent elections are not necessarily indicative of this as OP suggests. That said, Liberalism is in about the same state today that conservatism was in during Nixon's Administration--clawing it's way back into the mainstream, and making considerable compromises along the way.

Yes Goldberg did touch on the fact that who wins elections is not necessarily indicative of the electorate's core values. Those who get elected are usually the ones who are most attractive on camera, who are able to say just the right things to the right audience even if it is something opposite from what they say to a different audience, and those who are able to most effectively demonize their opponents.

But can I draw from your comment that you think liberalism isn't losing favor with the people at this time? Please clarify.

I would say that liberalism (both social and economic) was at it's lowest point during the early 2000's. When Obama ran for the presidency in 2008, his stated agenda was basically the same as John McCain's legislative record. He has had to compromise on almost everything regarding legislation and budgets, and yet there have been good common sense reforms pushed through, better regulation of Wall Street, a Justice Department concerned with things such as police misconduct. Liberalism has made gains here and there, despite the country being far more right-wing than it was a few decades ago.

But recently, do you think most Americans are appreciative and supportive of the gains you see as made by liberalism?

I doubt that a majority of Americans know about them. The things that we hear most about are social issues. But that is a mixed bag for liberals. They have had victories in the realm of gay rights for instance. But on the other hand, in many states reproductive rights are more restricted now than at any time since 1973.

But is that an indication that people are leaning more left/liberal or more right/conservative?

Do you think most people want more or less central government power over those things that are most important to them?
Maybe things like:
Their property and assets?
What their kids have for lunch at school?
What kind of car or lightbulb or toilet they will be able to buy?
What laws will govern speed limits or abortion or obscenity?
What wages they are allowed to work for?
What liberty they have to exercise and practice their personal religious, moral, and ethical beliefs?
What choice and options they have in their healthcare?

OR What words words will be used in an internet forum?

 

[Agit8r]

Recent elections are not necessarily indicative of this as OP suggests. That said, Liberalism is in about the same state today that conservatism was in during Nixon's Administration--clawing it's way back into the mainstream, and making considerable compromises along the way.

Yes Goldberg did touch on the fact that who wins elections is not necessarily indicative of the electorate's core values. Those who get elected are usually the ones who are most attractive on camera, who are able to say just the right things to the right audience even if it is something opposite from what they say to a different audience, and those who are able to most effectively demonize their opponents.

But can I draw from your comment that you think liberalism isn't losing favor with the people at this time? Please clarify.

I would say that liberalism (both social and economic) was at it's lowest point during the early 2000's. When Obama ran for the presidency in 2008, his stated agenda was basically the same as John McCain's legislative record. He has had to compromise on almost everything regarding legislation and budgets, and yet there have been good common sense reforms pushed through, better regulation of Wall Street, a Justice Department concerned with things such as police misconduct. Liberalism has made gains here and there, despite the country being far more right-wing than it was a few decades ago.

But recently, do you think most Americans are appreciative and supportive of the gains you see as made by liberalism?

I doubt that a majority of Americans know about them. The things that we hear most about are social issues. But that is a mixed bag for liberals. They have had victories in the realm of gay rights for instance. But on the other hand, in many states reproductive rights are more restricted now than at any time since 1973.

But is that an indication that people are leaning more left/liberal or more right/conservative?

Do you think most people want more or less central government power over those things that are most important to them?

I think that centralized government power is on the decline, and that neither party is consistently supportive of it. Look at the recent legalization of cannabis by some state governments. I don't think that most liberals want Uncle Sam poking his nose into local affairs unless it involves civil rights. This has much to do with certain regions of the country becoming more right-wing, while others have become more liberal, such that sectional differences require a more neo-federal approach to federal governance.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes Goldberg did touch on the fact that who wins elections is not necessarily indicative of the electorate's core values. Those who get elected are usually the ones who are most attractive on camera, who are able to say just the right things to the right audience even if it is something opposite from what they say to a different audience, and those who are able to most effectively demonize their opponents.

But can I draw from your comment that you think liberalism isn't losing favor with the people at this time? Please clarify.

I would say that liberalism (both social and economic) was at it's lowest point during the early 2000's. When Obama ran for the presidency in 2008, his stated agenda was basically the same as John McCain's legislative record. He has had to compromise on almost everything regarding legislation and budgets, and yet there have been good common sense reforms pushed through, better regulation of Wall Street, a Justice Department concerned with things such as police misconduct. Liberalism has made gains here and there, despite the country being far more right-wing than it was a few decades ago.

But recently, do you think most Americans are appreciative and supportive of the gains you see as made by liberalism?

I doubt that a majority of Americans know about them. The things that we hear most about are social issues. But that is a mixed bag for liberals. They have had victories in the realm of gay rights for instance. But on the other hand, in many states reproductive rights are more restricted now than at any time since 1973.

But is that an indication that people are leaning more left/liberal or more right/conservative?

Do you think most people want more or less central government power over those things that are most important to them?

I think that centralized government power is on the decline, and that neither party is consistently supportive of it. Look at the recent legalization of cannabis by some state governments. I don't think that most liberals want Uncle Sam poking his nose into local affairs unless it involves civil rights. This has much to do with certain regions of the country becoming more right-wing, while others have become more liberal, such that sectional differences require a more neo-federal approach to federal governance.

But you see, as I see it, looking to state rights to regulate cannabis instead of the federal government is a decidedly conservative point of view. So if you are right about that--I frankly haven't thought about it that much--that would be one indication of liberalism that is not in favor with the American people as a whole.

Likewise people who self-identify as conservative or libertarian right or right wing or classical liberals--all interchangeable terms in modern vernacular--but who would want the federal government to outlaw most abortion are not coming from a conservative point of view, but rather a liberal one.

 

[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.

But the thread topic is not Goldberg's methods nor his writing style or how well he did or did not make his argument.

The thread topic is whether he is or isn't right that liberalism is losing favor with the American public.

The math proves the thread topic question to be wrong. Liberalism is far from "exhausted". Goldberg was just making that up because that is what he gets paid to do.The OP hasn't provided any other substantiation other than anecdotes which are disproven by the facts.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What conservatives want to "debate" is what they consider their definition of "liberalism" to be as opposed to their equally imagined definition of conservatism. No wonder people who don't know the difference between fascism, communism and socialism want to compare all three to liberalism.
On the other hand, their definition of conservatism is very strange considering what their actual policies are.
Ask liberals what their policies are and the majority of Americans agree. Ask conservatives what their policies are and you don't actually get policies. You get empty slogans. I know. I've tried again and again on the USMB. "Make better" and "we want our country back" and "put Jesus back in schools" is NOT policy. Those are slogans.

However, you have to admit the "debate" between what conservatives imagine liberalism to be and what we know of today's modern conservative policies is quite amusing. Just the fact that self described conservatives say "we don't all feel that way" is laughable when you know that if the majority feel that way, then who cares what the position of minority. It's not like they are a coalition.

From what I've seen, you are more left that you are liberal.

BTW: Liberals and Conservatives don't have policies. Republicans and Democrats do.

And no, we don't have to admit anything (starting a sentence with such a statement assumes you are correct in your claim.....your sentence does not make any sense.....a debate between an imagined philosophy and modern policy ?????.....this is he way the leftist democrat might speak).

The fruit of conservative's imagined philosophy are their political policies. If there is no real world connection, then it's a senseless and useless debate better left for master debaters.

Conservatives don't make policy. Republicans do. What real world connection ? Ill advised Republican and Democratic policy permeate our lives. Much of it is senseless...but still intrusive.

 

[Pogo]

I would say that liberalism (both social and economic) was at it's lowest point during the early 2000's. When Obama ran for the presidency in 2008, his stated agenda was basically the same as John McCain's legislative record. He has had to compromise on almost everything regarding legislation and budgets, and yet there have been good common sense reforms pushed through, better regulation of Wall Street, a Justice Department concerned with things such as police misconduct. Liberalism has made gains here and there, despite the country being far more right-wing than it was a few decades ago.

But recently, do you think most Americans are appreciative and supportive of the gains you see as made by liberalism?

I doubt that a majority of Americans know about them. The things that we hear most about are social issues. But that is a mixed bag for liberals. They have had victories in the realm of gay rights for instance. But on the other hand, in many states reproductive rights are more restricted now than at any time since 1973.

But is that an indication that people are leaning more left/liberal or more right/conservative?

Do you think most people want more or less central government power over those things that are most important to them?

I think that centralized government power is on the decline, and that neither party is consistently supportive of it. Look at the recent legalization of cannabis by some state governments. I don't think that most liberals want Uncle Sam poking his nose into local affairs unless it involves civil rights. This has much to do with certain regions of the country becoming more right-wing, while others have become more liberal, such that sectional differences require a more neo-federal approach to federal governance.

But you see, as I see it, looking to state rights to regulate cannabis instead of the federal government is a decidedly conservative point of view. So if you are right about that--I frankly haven't thought about it that much--that would be one indication of liberalism that is not in favor with the American people as a whole.

Likewise people who self-identify as conservative or libertarian right or right wing or classical liberals--all interchangeable terms in modern vernacular--but who would want the federal government to outlaw most abortion are not coming from a conservative point of view, but rather a liberal one.

Only in Oppositeland, Foxy.

See, you keep chiding me for correcting this definition, yet you are the one who keeps distorting it. It seems like some kind of crusade. If what we call it really doesn't matter, as you posted earlier -- they why are you so hung up on distorting the meaning of Liberalism specifically?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Conservatism indeed is pretty uniform in putting great value on the concepts the Founders built the country

Another false "appeal to authority"?

Liberals put great value in the "concepts the Founders built the country on" such as free speech, freedom from religion, privacy, voting rights, etc.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

But the thread topic is not Goldberg's methods nor his writing style or how well he did or did not make his argument.

The thread topic is whether he is or isn't right that liberalism is losing favor with the American public.

The math proves the thread topic question to be wrong. Liberalism is far from "exhausted". Goldberg was just making that up because that is what he gets paid to do.The OP hasn't provided any other substantiation other than anecdotes which are disproven by the facts.

This is what defines you.

You make these grand pronouncements. This is the end. The facts prove......

Guess what ? This thread will continue with or (preferably) without you.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

But the thread topic is not Goldberg's methods nor his writing style or how well he did or did not make his argument.

The thread topic is whether he is or isn't right that liberalism is losing favor with the American public.

The math proves the thread topic question to be wrong. Liberalism is far from "exhausted". Goldberg was just making that up because that is what he gets paid to do.The OP hasn't provided any other substantiation other than anecdotes which are disproven by the facts.

Your opinion is noted. I noted in the OP that he wasn't trying to substantiate anything but was offering an observation on a concept. Which concept happens to be the thread topic and not the method by which Goldberg presented it.

The 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?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

But the thread topic is not Goldberg's methods nor his writing style or how well he did or did not make his argument.

The thread topic is whether he is or isn't right that liberalism is losing favor with the American public.

The math proves the thread topic question to be wrong. Liberalism is far from "exhausted". Goldberg was just making that up because that is what he gets paid to do.The OP hasn't provided any other substantiation other than anecdotes which are disproven by the facts.

This is what defines you.

You make these grand pronouncements. This is the end. The facts prove......

Guess what ? This thread will continue with or (preferably) without you.

Sun Devil, please no more ad hominem. Address the members post and agree or disagree at will, but to comment on the member making the post is expressly not allowed.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And I will not get into a war of semantics with you. "Liberal" as it is commonly used in American vernacular is synonymous with leftist, statist, progressive, political class. That is what modern American liberalism is.

No ad homs allowed!

 

[Agit8r]

Do you think most people want more or less central government power over those things that are most important to them?
Maybe things like:

Their property and assets?

I don't think that is a conservative vs. liberal issue. Both sides are friendly to property, with a few exceptions on each side.

What their kids have for lunch at school?

Parents may still provide their own lunches for their children. If they are unable, they have already alienated that choice to the governing authority.

What kind of car or lightbulb or toilet they will be able to buy?

This is the only example here of a liberal policy that is top-down. Though the feds have always been intimately involved with the delivery of electricity, so it's perhaps more defensible.

What laws will govern speed limits

States have governed their own speed limits since the mid 90's

or abortion

SCOTUS has left states free to regulate or even ban late-term abortion

or obscenity?

SCOTUS largely restricts the ability of states to regulate internet pornography. Both conservative and liberal justices contributed to that decision

What wages they are allowed to work for?

This is largely left to the states, with the exception of the meager federal minimum wage.

What liberty they have to exercise and practice their personal religious, moral, and ethical beliefs?

This is not left to the states. The first amendment is enforced against the states, and they may not regulate religious opinion. State and federal governments are "left free to reach actions which [are] in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."

What choice and options they have in their healthcare?

The ACA is a neo-federal program. States must meet some minimum requirements, but are otherwise free to run their insurance exchanges and medicaid programs as they see fit