Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[candycorn]

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.

It would be easy to prove (if the OP wanted to). Simply find a conservative that someone has heard of that wants to get rid of NASA, FEMA, the Air Force, legalize drugs, prostitution, is for the government not caring what you do to your body in terms of abortion, pre-teen sex, homosexual rights etc...

If Conservatism really has nothing to do with politics or the Bible...and is all about freedom to the people and getting the government and their laws totally out of the way...this person should be easy to find.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

It would be easy to prove (if the OP wanted to). Simply find a conservative that someone has heard of that wants to get rid of NASA, FEMA, the Air Force, legalize drugs, prostitution, is for the government not caring what you do to your body in terms of abortion, pre-teen sex, homosexual rights etc...

If Conservatism really has nothing to do with politics or the Bible...and is all about freedom to the people and getting the government and their laws totally out of the way...this person should be easy to find.

That would be those un-American Libertarians.

 

[candycorn]

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.

It would be easy to prove (if the OP wanted to). Simply find a conservative that someone has heard of that wants to get rid of NASA, FEMA, the Air Force, legalize drugs, prostitution, is for the government not caring what you do to your body in terms of abortion, pre-teen sex, homosexual rights etc...

If Conservatism really has nothing to do with politics or the Bible...and is all about freedom to the people and getting the government and their laws totally out of the way...this person should be easy to find.

That would be those un-American Libertarians.

She seems to want to call Libertarians (I agree with you) conservatives. We found out that there are conservatives who think gay marriage is just peachy and pro choice. Foxfyre couldn't name any but who are we to question the OP?

 

[Agit8r]

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.

I think that we can divide that into statist and non-statist. There are some of each sort that consider themselves "conservative" or "liberal". If state regulation of cannabis is indeed the conservative position, Obama has been more conservative on that than the announced GOP presidential candidates, other than perhaps Rand Paul.

If I may digress further, the Social Conservatives seem to me an offshoot of paleo-progressivism, more than that of classical conservativism or classical liberalism. And unfortunately they seem to rule the party they belong to.

 

[Meathead]

Liberalism, by its nature, overreaches in short order when in power. Liberals radicalize easily and try to change things more rapidly than electorates are willing to accept. That is one of the reasons liberalism can only endure by force and often seizes the reigns of power with little regard for democracy. Fortunately, democracy is too entrenched in the USA

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

It would be easy to prove (if the OP wanted to). Simply find a conservative that someone has heard of that wants to get rid of NASA, FEMA, the Air Force, legalize drugs, prostitution, is for the government not caring what you do to your body in terms of abortion, pre-teen sex, homosexual rights etc...

If Conservatism really has nothing to do with politics or the Bible...and is all about freedom to the people and getting the government and their laws totally out of the way...this person should be easy to find.

That would be those un-American Libertarians.

She seems to want to call Libertarians (I agree with you) conservatives. We found out that there are conservatives who think gay marriage is just peachy and pro choice. Foxfyre couldn't name any but who are we to question the OP?

I would go so far as to say that one of the failures of Goldberg's post is that not only does he fail in his identification (but let's leave it as it is for now) it also so seems to fail with regard to the context in which it might be fading or not.

In thinking about it further....it would seem that society is moving more away from some of the things you mentioned (called social issues by some....I think they are a third class of issues by themselves...things like gay marriage).

However, it would seem that liberals (the left) are fading with regard to fiscal discussions (i.e. more funding for more programs). Even Obama had to sell the ACA on the idea it would save money in the long run.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Conservatives put great value on free speech such as being able to express their views without violating some arbitrary government rule about hate speech and without fear that some angry mob will descend upon them and try to hurt them, their livelihood, anybody who supports them etc. because they dared to be politically incorrect. I haven't seen too much of that kind of free speech being supported by those who self-identify as liberals.

I think the majority of Americans, when they can evaluate that phenomenon outside of political partisanship noise believe people should be able to say what they think without fear of retaliation. In other words lean toward the conservative point of view.

Conservatives know that there is nothing in the Constitution that specifies 'freedom from religion.' The Constitution specifies that nobody can require us to be religious or dictate to us what religious beliefs we must endorse. And it very clearly allows people to hold and live whatever religious beliefs they hold with impunity from anybody or any part of government so long as they infringe on nobody else's rights. I don't see a lot of liberals endorsing that concept.

I think most Americans think those who want to practice and express their faith should be able to do it without fear and without restraint so long as they violate nobody else's rights to practice their own faith or belief or practice no faith.

Conservatives also embrace the right to privacy meaning that intercepted private conversations cannot be used against them just because they are politically incorrect and that government should not be eavesdropping on private conversations or allowing government agencies to snoop into people's private affairs. I don't see too many who self-identify as liberals speaking out for that kind of right to privacy.

I think most law abiding Americans would like to know their private life is private and not subject to scrutiny by Big Brother scrutiny.

Conservatives believe that voting is a serious and important thing and that it must be kept honest in perception and in reality. So conservatives favor a system of registration and voting that ensures fair, honest, elections including voter I.D among other things. Those who self-identify as liberals seem to resist efforts to see that the reality and perception of honest elections is ensured.

I think most Americans want assurance that the election process is honest, accurate, and untainted by political mischief.

Reminder: liberal and conservative in this context are how they are mostly commonly understood and used in modern day American vernacular and not as they are most commonly defined in the dictionary.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberalism, by its nature, overreaches in short order when in power. Liberals radicalize easily and try to change things more rapidly than electorates are willing to accept. That is one of the reasons liberalism can only endure by force and often seizes the reigns of power with little regard for democracy. Fortunately, democracy is too entrenched in the USA

I tend to agree but many on this thread will argue with that which is okay. But it does introduce a somewhat different perspective which is that liberalism doesn't allow the public values and attitudes to produce a better society, but look to government to do that often against the will of the people. They sure as hell wouldn't have put Obamacare on the ballot as a referendum item would they? It would have surely gone down in flames.

 

[Agit8r]

Liberalism, by its nature, overreaches in short order when in power. Liberals radicalize easily and try to change things more rapidly than electorates are willing to accept. That is one of the reasons liberalism can only endure by force and often seizes the reigns of power with little regard for democracy. Fortunately, democracy is too entrenched in the USA

If conservatism could be accomplished without force, Pinochet wouldn't be remembered as a tyrant.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Your invocation of "vast majority" doesn't carry a link. Ipse dixit (slash Argumetum ad populum). That doesn't make a point. Again, with one hand you keep spamming this misdefinition of Liberalism, while with the other you try to shoo me away when I correct you. Then you do it all over again to make sure you get the last word on said misdefinition. Even though you keep saying it doesn't matter what we call it, you then turn right back to making sure the term Liberalism, specifically, is misdefined.

Let's call it "leprechaun" per prior suggestion. And with that let's confront the thrust of the topic request:

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? -- Less.
What their kids have for lunch at school? -- Neutral
What kind of car or lightbulb or toilet they will be able to buy? -- Neutral
What laws will govern speed limits or abortion or obscenity? -- Neutral
What wages they are allowed to work for? -- not sure what this means
What liberty they have to exercise and practice their personal religious, moral, and ethical beliefs? --- Less
What choice and options they have in their healthcare? -- Less​

Now those would more represent my own views than "most people" -- we don't have much perspective on 'most people'
here on an internet message board which tends to be full of argumentative whiner and partisans, but I doubt most people really care about CFLs or speed limits and that sort of triviality. Too, there's a definite Randian element on the internets that further distorts our perspectives.

But make no mistake, those are my views as a Liberal. But not as a leprechaun.

 

[Meathead]

Liberalism, by its nature, overreaches in short order when in power. Liberals radicalize easily and try to change things more rapidly than electorates are willing to accept. That is one of the reasons liberalism can only endure by force and often seizes the reigns of power with little regard for democracy. Fortunately, democracy is too entrenched in the USA

If conservatism could be accomplished without force, Pinochet wouldn't be remembered as a tyrant.

As opposed to Castro, Chavez, the Kim boys, Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin and so on? At the very least, Pinochet left behind a thriving economy while the others ruined popular rule and economies.

 

[Pogo]

Reminder: liberal and conservative in this context are how they are mostly commonly understood and used in modern day American vernacular and not as they are most commonly defined in the dictionary.

Why does this sound like "we're gonna use my definitions, I don't care what the real one is"?

Love ya Foxy.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

The thread topic is not the definition of the word.

The thread topic is not whether the word is being used correctly or incorrectly. The OP chose to use a word as it is most commonly used and understood in American these days. Members may use that word or whatever word they prefer, but they will be expected to address the topic and not derail the thread with a discussion of definitions.

The thread topic is not what I do or do not distort.

Either focus on the thread topic or start your own thread or find one that suits you better. But please stop attempting to derail or change the topic of this one. Thank you very much.

 

[Foxfyre]

Reminder: liberal and conservative in this context are how they are mostly commonly understood and used in modern day American vernacular and not as they are most commonly defined in the dictionary.

Why does this sound like "we're gonna use my definitions, I don't care what the real one is"?

Love ya Foxy.

Yes, it is my thread and I chose the topic for it and will insist that the topic be discussed by those who are interested in discussing it. And if that means I won't allow the topic to be changed to a discussion on definitions, and that brands me as a control freak, so be it.

When you start your thread you can define the terms any way you want and I will respect that or I will not participate in your thread. Deal?

 

[Pogo]

Liberalism, by its nature, overreaches in short order when in power. Liberals radicalize easily and try to change things more rapidly than electorates are willing to accept. That is one of the reasons liberalism can only endure by force and often seizes the reigns of power with little regard for democracy. Fortunately, democracy is too entrenched in the USA

I tend to agree but many on this thread will argue with that which is okay. But it does introduce a somewhat different perspective which is that liberalism doesn't allow the public values and attitudes to produce a better society, but look to government to do that often against the will of the people. They sure as hell wouldn't have put Obamacare on the ballot as a referendum item would they? It would have surely gone down in flames.

Specific to this issue, as a Liberal I don't like Obamacare. It's illiberal. Didn't like it when it was Romneycare in New England either.

 

[Agit8r]

Liberalism, by its nature, overreaches in short order when in power. Liberals radicalize easily and try to change things more rapidly than electorates are willing to accept. That is one of the reasons liberalism can only endure by force and often seizes the reigns of power with little regard for democracy. Fortunately, democracy is too entrenched in the USA

If conservatism could be accomplished without force, Pinochet wouldn't be remembered as a tyrant.

As opposed to Castro, Chavez, the Kim boys, Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin and so on? At the very least, Pinochet left behind a thriving economy while the others ruined popular rule and economies.

What does that have to do with liberalism? Communists were not liberals. They did not share an economic philosophy with present day liberals. On the other hand, Pinochet did share an economic philosophy with present day conservatives, which is why Chile always comes up when they talk about privatizing social security.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberalism, by its nature, overreaches in short order when in power. Liberals radicalize easily and try to change things more rapidly than electorates are willing to accept. That is one of the reasons liberalism can only endure by force and often seizes the reigns of power with little regard for democracy. Fortunately, democracy is too entrenched in the USA

If conservatism could be accomplished without force, Pinochet wouldn't be remembered as a tyrant.

As opposed to Castro, Chavez, the Kim boys, Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin and so on? At the very least, Pinochet left behind a thriving economy while the others ruined popular rule and economies.

But let's stay on point here. For sure the more 'liberal' (as it is most commonly understood in American vernacular) or left or statist or political class or progressive a government is, the more likely it is to produce tyrants. Some believe that the American government is very close to that tipping point as it assumes essentially unlimited power to interpret the Constitution any way it wishes to do so and power to do to the people whatever it wants to do.

And the American people seem to be becoming more aware of that too, and I believe most don't like it.

 

[Pogo]

Liberalism, by its nature, overreaches in short order when in power. Liberals radicalize easily and try to change things more rapidly than electorates are willing to accept. That is one of the reasons liberalism can only endure by force and often seizes the reigns of power with little regard for democracy. Fortunately, democracy is too entrenched in the USA

If conservatism could be accomplished without force, Pinochet wouldn't be remembered as a tyrant.

As opposed to Castro, Chavez, the Kim boys, Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin and so on? At the very least, Pinochet left behind a thriving economy while the others ruined popular rule and economies.

But let's stay on point here. For sure the more 'liberal' (as it is most commonly understood in American vernacular) or left or statist or political class or progressive a government is, the more likely it is to produce tyrants. Some believe that the American government is very close to that tipping point as it assumes essentially unlimited power to interpret the Constitution any way it wishes to do so and power to do to the people whatever it wants to do.

And the American people seem to be becoming more aware of that too, and they don't like it.

See? You just did it yet again.
You're obsessed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberalism, by its nature, overreaches in short order when in power. Liberals radicalize easily and try to change things more rapidly than electorates are willing to accept. That is one of the reasons liberalism can only endure by force and often seizes the reigns of power with little regard for democracy. Fortunately, democracy is too entrenched in the USA

I tend to agree but many on this thread will argue with that which is okay. But it does introduce a somewhat different perspective which is that liberalism doesn't allow the public values and attitudes to produce a better society, but look to government to do that often against the will of the people. They sure as hell wouldn't have put Obamacare on the ballot as a referendum item would they? It would have surely gone down in flames.

Specific to this issue, as a Liberal I don't like Obamacare. It's illiberal. Didn't like it when it was Romneycare in New England either.

So you could be going with the more conservative point of view on that if you see the free market and freedom of choice and options as the best way to deliver healthcare.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberalism, by its nature, overreaches in short order when in power. Liberals radicalize easily and try to change things more rapidly than electorates are willing to accept. That is one of the reasons liberalism can only endure by force and often seizes the reigns of power with little regard for democracy. Fortunately, democracy is too entrenched in the USA

If conservatism could be accomplished without force, Pinochet wouldn't be remembered as a tyrant.

As opposed to Castro, Chavez, the Kim boys, Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin and so on? At the very least, Pinochet left behind a thriving economy while the others ruined popular rule and economies.

But let's stay on point here. For sure the more 'liberal' (as it is most commonly understood in American vernacular) or left or statist or political class or progressive a government is, the more likely it is to produce tyrants. Some believe that the American government is very close to that tipping point as it assumes essentially unlimited power to interpret the Constitution any way it wishes to do so and power to do to the people whatever it wants to do.

And the American people seem to be becoming more aware of that too, and they don't like it.

See? You just did it yet again.
You're obsessed.

And I will keep doing it because I will not allow you or anybody else to derail this thread without objecting to that.