Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[Meathead]

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...

It is in the nature of conservatism to repeal the extremes of liberalism. Getting rid of useless and unproductive bodies of government is among them, Unprecedented military adventurism is not among them. All American wars except for the two Gulf wars were instigated by liberals including both World Wars, Korea and Vietnam while the more conservative leadership of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan ended wars.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

Ok --- oh great and wise one ---- please grace us with your wisdom. What is your definition of liberalism today?

 

[Pogo]

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?

Strange question. Answer one: none of them, by definition. Answer two: Congress is what increases the size of government.

which one had not tried to make societal change by govt decree?

See Answer one.

What HRC said is very telling about how liberals operate today.

I wouldn't know what that is. I do see a paraphrase of -- something -- above, but strange as it seems I don't trust the source.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

It is safe to say that increasing the size and authority of government is definitely a modern liberal trait. And since both major political parties have done that for a very long time now, we have to acknowledge that a lot of people labeled as 'conservative' were not conservative at all.

This is one of the major failings of modern liberalism as it is most often defined these days. They ignore or turn a blind eye or refuse to acknowledge that bigger, more powerful, more intrusive, more expensive government will always increasingly drain liberties and resources from the people. That becomes a massive addiction because those in power and the few beneficiaries of that power are never satisfied. They never think anything is enough but demand more and more.

 

[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.

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

You cannot have an intelligent discussion until you define the parameters of the discussion - to allow posting of incorrect and irrelevant postulations without response validates and encourages perpetuation of the problem. Ignorance needs to be challenged at every turn.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Ok --- oh great and wise one ---- please grace us with your wisdom. What is your definition of liberalism today?

already gave it. a couple of posts ago.

But actions of liberals should define it for you: obamacare, tax increases, common core, open borders, basing decisions on emotions rather than logic and facts, assuming that blacks cannot care for themselves without govt intervention, food stamps and SS for illegals, a weak military, supporting criminals instead of police, lying, taking bribes from foreign interests (clintons).

 

[Pogo]

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.

Ok --- oh great and wise one ---- please grace us with your wisdom. What is your definition of liberalism today?

That's what I've tried to clarify throughout this thread, but I refer you to my most recent from today:

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.

 

[Redfish]

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.

It is safe to say that increasing the size and authority of government is definitely a modern liberal trait. And since both major political parties have done that for a very long time now, we have to acknowledge that a lot of people labeled as 'conservative' were not conservative at all.

This is one of the major failings of modern liberalism as it is most often defined these days. They ignore or turn a blind eye or refuse to acknowledge that bigger, more powerful, more intrusive, more expensive government will always increasingly drain liberties and resources from the people. That becomes a massive addiction because those in power and the few beneficiaries of that power are never satisfied. They never think anything is enough but demand more and more.

good points and there are liberals in both parties.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

Ok --- oh great and wise one ---- please grace us with your wisdom. What is your definition of liberalism today?

already gave it. a couple of posts ago.

But actions of liberals should define it for you: obamacare, tax increases, common core, open borders, basing decisions on emotions rather than logic and facts, assuming that blacks cannot care for themselves without govt intervention, food stamps and SS for illegals, a weak military, supporting criminals instead of police, lying, taking bribes from foreign interests (clintons).

I appreciate that you did --- but I wasn't asking you. The question was in response to a post by Pogo.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Ok --- oh great and wise one ---- please grace us with your wisdom. What is your definition of liberalism today?

That's what I've tried to clarify throughout this thread, but I refer you to my most recent from today:

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.

when we look at who calls themselves liberals today, and what they do and believe, the definition becomes quite clear.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Ok --- oh great and wise one ---- please grace us with your wisdom. What is your definition of liberalism today?

already gave it. a couple of posts ago.

But actions of liberals should define it for you: obamacare, tax increases, common core, open borders, basing decisions on emotions rather than logic and facts, assuming that blacks cannot care for themselves without govt intervention, food stamps and SS for illegals, a weak military, supporting criminals instead of police, lying, taking bribes from foreign interests (clintons).

I appreciate that you did --- but I wasn't asking you. The question was in response to a post by Pogo.

sorry

 

[Redfish]

I think a better title for this discussion would be: Has liberalism succeeded or failed in the USA over the last 60 years? Are there fewer in poverty since the trillions spent on the war on poverty? NO.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Ok --- oh great and wise one ---- please grace us with your wisdom. What is your definition of liberalism today?

already gave it. a couple of posts ago.

But actions of liberals should define it for you: obamacare, tax increases, common core, open borders, basing decisions on emotions rather than logic and facts, assuming that blacks cannot care for themselves without govt intervention, food stamps and SS for illegals, a weak military, supporting criminals instead of police, lying, taking bribes from foreign interests (clintons).

I'm afraid you're all over the map here, rationally.
Obamacare is illiberal.
Tax increases -- irrelevant.
Common core ---
Open borders -- perhaps
Basing decisions on emotions -- doesn't even relate to politics or philosophy, but to logic, and then individually so
Food stamps -- more leftist than Liberal
SS for illegals --
Weak military -- irrelevant
Supporting criminals instead of police -- see "basing decisions on emotions" above, see also "strawman" -- and irrelevant to Liberal
Taking bribes -- again, institutional or personal corruption is irrelevant to an outside philosophy.

See Foxy -- this is why terms need to be defined. In that spirit I very much agree with SpareChange in 365.

And RF, don't be sorry, your view is a welcome window to see what the actual perceptions are out there.

 

[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.

You cannot have an intelligent discussion until you define the parameters of the discussion - to allow posting of incorrect and irrelevant postulations without response validates and encourages perpetuation of the problem. Ignorance needs to be challenged at every turn.

Maybe you're right but I am a glutton for punishment and I intend to try to promote an intelligent discussion despite those who say stupid or ignorant things, those who can't argue a concept without engaging in ad hominem and personal insults, and those who make it a blood sport to derail a thread however they choose to do that.

I have this (silly I know) notion that USMB has a lot of intelligent people with the ability to focus on and evaluate a concept and the ability to provide a coherent counter argument without feeling the need to point out the personal flaws or failings in another person or just expressing the contempt we feel for another person.

We just need to encourage more intelligent conversation and a whole lot less personal criticism and insults. For many, including myself at times, that requires some practice and thinking about what we are writing. And for those whose favorite thing is insulting and attacking others, this will certainly not be their cup of tea.

So the thread topic is: 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?

We don't have to mention a single person in the world to answer that question.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think a better title for this discussion would be: Has liberalism succeeded or failed in the USA over the last 60 years? Are there fewer in poverty since the trillions spent on the war on poverty? NO.

That would make an excellent structured discussion. I wish somebody would start one on that subject with sufficient rules to keep the discussion on topic.

It fits within this discussion only to the extent that IMO (and probably yours) it IS the failed liberal policies and/or the unintended negative consequences of them that is causing liberalism to fall out of favor.

If it is of course.

 

[Pogo]

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.

It is safe to say that increasing the size and authority of government is definitely a modern liberal trait. And since both major political parties have done that for a very long time now, we have to acknowledge that a lot of people labeled as 'conservative' were not conservative at all.

This is one of the major failings of modern liberalism as it is most often defined these days. They ignore or turn a blind eye or refuse to acknowledge that bigger, more powerful, more intrusive, more expensive government will always increasingly drain liberties and resources from the people. That becomes a massive addiction because those in power and the few beneficiaries of that power are never satisfied. They never think anything is enough but demand more and more.

Your analysis in the second paragraph is sound, as is the cautionary tone.

But it is in no way a "Liberal" trait, modern or otherwise. We might call it, for lack of a better term, a "statist" trait. Why don't we go with that, if we agree on it, and quit trying to distort an established philosophical term?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Ok --- oh great and wise one ---- please grace us with your wisdom. What is your definition of liberalism today?

already gave it. a couple of posts ago.

But actions of liberals should define it for you: obamacare, tax increases, common core, open borders, basing decisions on emotions rather than logic and facts, assuming that blacks cannot care for themselves without govt intervention, food stamps and SS for illegals, a weak military, supporting criminals instead of police, lying, taking bribes from foreign interests (clintons).

I'm afraid you're all over the map here, rationally.
Obamacare is illiberal.
Tax increases -- irrelevant.
Common core ---
Open borders -- perhaps
Basing decisions on emotions -- doesn't even relate to politics or philosophy, but to logic, and then individually so
Food stamps -- more leftist than Liberal
SS for illegals --
Weak military -- irrelevant
Supporting criminals instead of police -- see "basing decisions on emotions" above, see also "strawman" -- and irrelevant to Liberal
Taking bribes -- again, institutional or personal corruption is irrelevant to an outside philosophy.

See Foxy -- this is why terms need to be defined. In that spirit I very much agree with SpareChange in 365.

And RF, don't be sorry, your view is a welcome window to see what the actual perceptions are out there.

Obama is definitely non liberal if you go by the dictionary definition. He is pretty much 100% liberal or at least more so than any President we have ever had when we use 'liberal' as it is most commonly used and understood in modern day America. Whether that is a good thing or bad thing will be determined whether the person evaluating him is himself/herself liberal or conservative.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Assumes facts not in evidence!

"Communism in the forms it has taken as a government system" is extremely conservative in that it suppresses individual expression and any attempts to vary from party dogma.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

It is safe to say that increasing the size and authority of government is definitely a modern liberal trait. And since both major political parties have done that for a very long time now, we have to acknowledge that a lot of people labeled as 'conservative' were not conservative at all.

This is one of the major failings of modern liberalism as it is most often defined these days. They ignore or turn a blind eye or refuse to acknowledge that bigger, more powerful, more intrusive, more expensive government will always increasingly drain liberties and resources from the people. That becomes a massive addiction because those in power and the few beneficiaries of that power are never satisfied. They never think anything is enough but demand more and more.

Your analysis in the second paragraph is sound, as is the cautionary tone.

But it is in no way a "Liberal" trait, modern or otherwise. We might call it, for lack of a better term, a "statist" trait. Why don't we go with that, if we agree on it, and quit trying to distort an established philosophical term?

You are welcome to use statist. I have no problem with that. Or any other word you are more comfortable with. But I and others should also be allowed to use the word that we are most familiar with. Deal?

 

[Agit8r]

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?

Strange question. Answer one: none of them, by definition. Answer two: Congress is what increases the size of government.

which one had not tried to make societal change by govt decree?

See Answer one.

What HRC said is very telling about how liberals operate today.

I wouldn't know what that is. I do see a paraphrase of -- something -- above, but strange as it seems I don't trust the source.

Even this notion of the size of government is incorrect. There are fewer federal employees per capita now than there were at the turn of the century. The functions that have increased in number of workers during that time are "night-watchman" functions. The functions that have decreased in number of federal employees during that time include the Post Office, Education and National Parks.