Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[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.

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.

Communism is the logical extension of liberalism and exactly what I was talking about when I said liberals radicalize when in power. They decide that the workers paradise and the equality of all people they envision could only be realized by suspending elections and restricting the activities of what you probably call counterrevolutionaries.

The worst bastards of recent history are those who take it upon themselves to dictate to others what they need.

 

[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.

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.

I'm sure that examples of liberals who became tyrants would be helpfully illustrative of you point?

 

[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.

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.

Communists, or at least communism in the forms it has taken as a government system so far, is the ultimate in liberalism as the term is most commonly used and defined in America.

 

[Pogo]

Communism is the logical extension of liberalism

Can you explain how you get from point A to point Q there?
Is it that both believe in a classless society? Is that it?

and exactly what I was talking about when I said liberals radicalize when in power. They decide that the workers paradise and the equality of all people they envision could only be realized by suspending elections and restricting the activities of what you probably call counterrevolutionaries.

The worst bastards of recent history are those who take it upon themselves to dictate to others what they need.

What does authoritarianism have to do with Liberalism? The latter dismissed the former to birth this country. The thumb of Authority -- at the time the Church and Nobility -- was what we threw off. That is after all what Liberalism is.

 

[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.

I'm sure that examples of liberals who became tyrants would be helpfully illustrative of you point?

Lenin/Stalin and Castro come immediately to mind. Both promised utopia and workers paradise if people would just yield to their new ideas for benevolent government. Away with the old systems and values and religious nonsense and all that and let's march together into a brave new righteous, moral, virtuous, and noble world!!! And we will take care of your every need. Noble rhetoric that sounded so good sort of like ". . .This is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal. . ."

It sounds so good. It sounds so right. And it hands over power to people who then use it for their own self-serving purposes and somehow that never includes the best interests of the people at all and sometimes takes away what little they had.

Liberalism looks to powers or others for what they want or need. Conservatism puts faith in the individual and all it wants is for the people to have the opportunity to do for themselves.

 

[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.

Communism is the logical extension of liberalism and exactly what I was talking about when I said liberals radicalize when in power. They decide that the workers paradise and the equality of all people they envision could only be realized by suspending elections and restricting the activities of what you probably call counterrevolutionaries.

The worst bastards of recent history are those who take it upon themselves to dictate to others what they need.

Lets see... Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, and Carter were all liberals who fought against communism.

"I should like to remind the gentlemen who make these complaints that if events had been allowed to continue as they were going prior to March 4, 1933, most of them would have no business left for the Government or anyone else to interfere with--and almost surely we would have socialism in this country, real socialism, not the kind they define."
-- Harry S Truman; from speech in Butte, Mt. (May 12, 1950)

 

[Spare_change]

First, yes, liberalism has worn itself out. What you hear now is simply the death throes of a defeated political ideology.

Why? Most things, and politics most of all, experience the pendulum effect.

People see what government (an inherently bad actor, by definition) is doing, and they don't like it. Whether it be a conservative or liberal leaning government, when its excesses become unacceptable, the citizen body is raised to object. They look for someone who offers an alternative - not just in practice, but in concept, as well - that will correct all the ills of the extremists who have ridden that last swing of the pendulum into power.

We never have massive swings in political ideology. Rather, it is a series of transitions until it reaches a position unacceptable to the citizen masses. When the political pendulum reaches its penultimate edge, it is drawn back by the people. We end up with transitions like Carter - Reagan - Clinton - Bush - Obama. (Yes, I am fully aware that this means that Clinton was more conservative than Bush). The American experience shows, interestingly enough, that when we transition from the most liberal back to conservative, it is dynamic and drastic, whereas when we transition from conservative to liberal, it is a much more gradual movement.

History would tell us that Hillary Clinton has virtually no chance of being elected unless she can portray herself as being significantly less liberal (therefore, more conservative) than Barack Obama. Her problem is that, 8 years ago, she tied herself to his star, and now will suffer from it. She is forced to do a political jig on the head of pin, and I don't think she can pull it off. The nation has experienced the impact of a grossly liberal government, and found it wanting..The cries from the left will become more shrill, more vitriolic, and more vicious, but to no avail.

The left will cry, as did conservatives 8 years ago, that the death of our country as we know it is at hand. They will both be right.

 

[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.

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.

Communism is the logical extension of liberalism and exactly what I was talking about when I said liberals radicalize when in power. They decide that the workers paradise and the equality of all people they envision could only be realized by suspending elections and restricting the activities of what you probably call counterrevolutionaries.

The worst bastards of recent history are those who take it upon themselves to dictate to others what they need.

Lets see... Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, and Carter were all liberals who fought against communism.

Or at least, "communism" -- "as the term is most commonly used and defined in America".

Which itself would be a worthy definition....

 

[Meathead]

Do you honestly think liberalism is an island? Liberalism tries to bring about change in societies and then overextends, often moving even further left to the point that only totalitarianism can withstand more conservative forces. A review of 20th century history can leave little doubt.

Conservationism, by its nature, calls for more gradual change in pace with that which society can adjust.

 

[Spare_change]

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?

Maybe I LIKE being controlled ......

 

[Pogo]

Do you honestly think liberalism is an island? Liberalism tries to bring about change in societies and then overextends, often moving even further left to the point that only totalitarianism can withstand more conservative forces. A review of 20th century history can leave little doubt.

Conservationism, by its nature, calls for more gradual change in pace with that which society can adjust.

Which post is this responding to?

Can you, or can you not, explain how "liberalism overextends" to totalitarianism? Not just repeating it over and over but show the dynamics? How do you get from point A to point Q?

You also seem to conflate left with Liiberal. Can you explain the difference?

 

[Redfish]

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.

Great post !

I see liberalism as a frame of mind.

The left is a political entity.

The left is not as "liberal" as they'd like to think. In fact they are no more tolerant than the right.

Thank you.

Liberalism, which built this country, is a philosophy that lives in Democrats, Republicans and the unaffiliated. It's under seige from both the right and the left. I wish more would understand this rather than continually falling back on soundbite-level oversimplicity. All that does is break down dialogue and polarize.

again, you need to define liberalism, for this discussion, in the way liberals act today, not 200 years ago. the liberals of 1776 are the conservatives of today.

Liberalism today means huge government which controls every aspect of our lives, even to the point of telling us what to believe. As HRC said, liberals think that we need to revise our religious beliefs to be in compliance with the liberal mantra of today.

liberals today are the nazis of yesterday.

 

[Meathead]

Do you honestly think liberalism is an island? Liberalism tries to bring about change in societies and then overextends, often moving even further left to the point that only totalitarianism can withstand more conservative forces. A review of 20th century history can leave little doubt.

Conservationism, by its nature, calls for more gradual change in pace with that which society can adjust.

Which post is this responding to?

Can you, or can you not, explain how "liberalism overextends" to totalitarianism? Not just repeating it over and over but show the dynamics? How do you get from point A to point Q?

You also seem to conflate left with Liiberal. Can you explain the difference?

As I said, review the history of the 20th century and you'll be able to connect the dots yourself.

 

[Agit8r]

Do you honestly think liberalism is an island? Liberalism tries to bring about change in societies and then overextends, often moving even further left to the point that only totalitarianism can withstand more conservative forces. A review of 20th century history can leave little doubt.

Conservationism, by its nature, calls for more gradual change in pace with that which society can adjust.

What are you talking about? These days "liberalism" has been reduced nearly to conserving the status quo--keeping the gains that society made. Meanwhile, most so-called "conservatives" are the ones proposing radical changes:

• Dismantling Social Security

• Getting rid of the EPA

• Banning all abortion

• Unprecedented military adventurism

• Getting rid of the departments of Energy, Commerce, and one other one... oops, I forget...

 

[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.

Overreach of governmental power is certainly a concern. But to describe it as "Liberal" is not only disingenuous but counterproductive and divisive.

Thank you.

Great post !

I see liberalism as a frame of mind.

The left is a political entity.

The left is not as "liberal" as they'd like to think. In fact they are no more tolerant than the right.

Thank you.

Liberalism, which built this country, is a philosophy that lives in Democrats, Republicans and the unaffiliated. It's under seige from both the right and the left. I wish more would understand this rather than continually falling back on soundbite-level oversimplicity. All that does is break down dialogue and polarize.

again, you need to define liberalism, for this discussion, in the way liberals act today, not 200 years ago. the liberals of 1776 are the conservatives of today.

Liberalism today means huge government which controls every aspect of our lives, even to the point of telling us what to believe. As HRC said, liberals think that we need to revise our religious beliefs to be in compliance with the liberal mantra of today.

liberals today are the nazis of yesterday.

No, that's not what it means at all. I do understand that's the conflation deliberately propagated here but it has no rational or realistic base.

 

[Pogo]

Do you honestly think liberalism is an island? Liberalism tries to bring about change in societies and then overextends, often moving even further left to the point that only totalitarianism can withstand more conservative forces. A review of 20th century history can leave little doubt.

Conservationism, by its nature, calls for more gradual change in pace with that which society can adjust.

Which post is this responding to?

Can you, or can you not, explain how "liberalism overextends" to totalitarianism? Not just repeating it over and over but show the dynamics? How do you get from point A to point Q?

You also seem to conflate left with Liiberal. Can you explain the difference?

As I said, review the history of the 20th century and you'll be able to connect the dots yourself.

So you concede you can't do it.

Strangely enough, that's my point.

 

[Spare_change]

Do you honestly think liberalism is an island? Liberalism tries to bring about change in societies and then overextends, often moving even further left to the point that only totalitarianism can withstand more conservative forces. A review of 20th century history can leave little doubt.

Conservationism, by its nature, calls for more gradual change in pace with that which society can adjust.

What are you talking about? These days "liberalism" has been reduced nearly to conserving the status quo--keeping the gains that society made. Meanwhile, most so-called "conservatives" are the ones proposing radical changes:

• Dismantling Social Security

• Getting rid of the EPA

• Banning all abortion

• Unprecedented military adventurism

• Getting rid of the departments of Energy, Commerce, and one other one... oops, I forget...

Rule no. 1. If you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and are forced in to ridiculous generalities and bumper sticker arguments, you're probably better off if you don't post at all.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Great post !

I see liberalism as a frame of mind.

The left is a political entity.

The left is not as "liberal" as they'd like to think. In fact they are no more tolerant than the right.

Thank you.

Liberalism, which built this country, is a philosophy that lives in Democrats, Republicans and the unaffiliated. It's under seige from both the right and the left. I wish more would understand this rather than continually falling back on soundbite-level oversimplicity. All that does is break down dialogue and polarize.

again, you need to define liberalism, for this discussion, in the way liberals act today, not 200 years ago. the liberals of 1776 are the conservatives of today.

Liberalism today means huge government which controls every aspect of our lives, even to the point of telling us what to believe. As HRC said, liberals think that we need to revise our religious beliefs to be in compliance with the liberal mantra of today.

liberals today are the nazis of yesterday.

No, that's not what it means at all. I do understand that's the conflation deliberately propagated here but it has no rational or realistic base.

which modern liberal has not increased the size of government? which one had not tried to make societal change by govt decree? What HRC said is very telling about how liberals operate today.

 

[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.

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.

Communism is the logical extension of liberalism and exactly what I was talking about when I said liberals radicalize when in power. They decide that the workers paradise and the equality of all people they envision could only be realized by suspending elections and restricting the activities of what you probably call counterrevolutionaries.

The worst bastards of recent history are those who take it upon themselves to dictate to others what they need.

Lets see... Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, and Carter were all liberals who fought against communism.

"I should like to remind the gentlemen who make these complaints that if events had been allowed to continue as they were going prior to March 4, 1933, most of them would have no business left for the Government or anyone else to interfere with--and almost surely we would have socialism in this country, real socialism, not the kind they define."
-- Harry S Truman; from speech in Butte, Mt. (May 12, 1950)

And communists have fought against other communists for that matter as well as free nations (including us) allying with communist nations to fight somebody else. Wars do not dictate ideology--they mostly, in my opinion, illustrate the fallibility of humankind--but they are always fought to obtain power or deny power to somebody else.

What mostly defines modern day liberalism and conservatism as ideologies is the amount of power they are willing to assign to a central government. Political parties generally represent more of one of those than the other, but affiliation with a political party in no way defines whether a person is liberal or conservative on any particular issue.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you honestly think liberalism is an island? Liberalism tries to bring about change in societies and then overextends, often moving even further left to the point that only totalitarianism can withstand more conservative forces. A review of 20th century history can leave little doubt.

Conservationism, by its nature, calls for more gradual change in pace with that which society can adjust.

What are you talking about? These days "liberalism" has been reduced nearly to conserving the status quo--keeping the gains that society made. Meanwhile, most so-called "conservatives" are the ones proposing radical changes:

• Dismantling Social Security

• Getting rid of the EPA

• Banning all abortion

• Unprecedented military adventurism

• Getting rid of the departments of Energy, Commerce, and one other one... oops, I forget...

Rule no. 1. If you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and are forced in to ridiculous generalities and bumper sticker arguments, you're probably better off if you don't post at all.

Welcome to the discussion SC, but let's focus on the topic and not each other please.