Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[Derideo_Te]

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.

In other words they become ultra conservatives in practice as soon as they had unlimited power.

 

[Agit8r]

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.

Yes. Communism was always more Hegelian than it was Left.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Poverty was on a steady decline until 2001 then it began to rise again after massive unwarranted tax cuts and social welfare spending cuts started to harm the economy.

 

[Pogo]

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.

OK well you said two contradictory things there but I'll agree with the first one.

Freudian slip? .

Btw (again) do you have any idea how many times you've trotted out the phrase "as it is most commonly used and understood in modern day America"?

I don't either, but I do know how many times you've substantiated that number:
Zero.

 

[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.

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).

Common Core standards are set by the National Governors Association. At present 31 governors belong to the Republican Party.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Modern American conservatism is strongly opposed to any form of dictator, king, pope, feudal lord, totalitarian government or any other form of government given power to do anything it wants to anybody. Thus modern American conservatism is opposed to communism or facism or any other -ism that assigns to itself whatever power it wants.

Modern American liberalism approves of government power that creates or promises to create the sort of society the liberal thinks he/she wants to have.

Communism as it has been manifested as a government is about as far from modern American conservatism that you can get.

Voluntary communism, however, leaving government out of it, would be a conservative concept for some.

Rasmussen put out a little booklet some years ago based on his studies of American attitudes about government and concluded that most Americans are still rooted in a lot of the values of Founders, most especially the concept of self government. Americans don't want to be governed. They want enough protection from 'bad guys' to be able to pursue their own destinies, but they culturally and instinctively want to govern themselves. That in a nutshell is what conservatism is.

And the ever more invasive, overreaching, over powerful, all encompassing government that the U.S. government has become may indeed be losing favor with the people who see it as taking away their ability to self govern. And that would be a reduction in favor with modern American liberalism.

 

[Pogo]

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.

The level of ... let's call it poverty of knowledge on these matters is shocking. There was one guy on USMB who actually tried to tell us the difference between "left" and "right" was the size of government. Literally-- like anything over a size 7 was "left" and under was "right".

This I fear is the price of sound-bite media demagoguery.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

OK well you said two contradictory things there but I'll agree with the first one.

Freudian slip? .

Btw (again) do you have any idea how many times you've trotted out the phrase "as it is most commonly used and understood in modern day America"?

I don't either, but I do know how many times you've substantiated that number:
Zero.

I don't know, but if you and a couple of others would stop demanding that I can't define a word as I define it, I wouldn't have to do that. So if you will stop doing that, I will stop using the phrase. Deal?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

OK well you said two contradictory things there but I'll agree with the first one.

Freudian slip? .

Btw (again) do you have any idea how many times you've trotted out the phrase "as it is most commonly used and understood in modern day America"?

I don't either, but I do know how many times you've substantiated that number:
Zero.

And because I have some pretty strong convictions on this topic, I am pretty sure I haven't contradicted myself.

 

[Pogo]

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?

The point there is that if two factions continue to use the same term to mean different and contradictory things, then communication breaks down. Why would you want that?

 

[Spare_change]

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).

Common Core standards are set by the National Governors Association. At present 31 governors belong to the Republican Party.

False. Do your research.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

In other words they become ultra conservatives in practice as soon as they had unlimited power.

Only as the term is defined in some dictionaries and as the term is defined in most of Europe. But not at all as the term is most commonly understood and used in modern day America.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Modern American conservatism is strongly opposed to any form of dictator, king, pope, feudal lord, totalitarian government or any other form of government given power to do anything it wants to anybody.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Modern conservatism has enacted a great many totalitarian pieces of legislation at both the Federal and the State levels. For example the misnamed "Patriot Act" was probably one of the most totalitarian laws in the history of this nation in that it violated at least Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Spare_change]

Modern American conservatism is strongly opposed to any form of dictator, king, pope, feudal lord, totalitarian government or any other form of government given power to do anything it wants to anybody.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Modern conservatism has enacted a great many totalitarian pieces of legislation at both the Federal and the State levels. For example the misnamed "Patriot Act" was probably one of the most totalitarian laws in the history of this nation in that it violated at least Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

That would assume that George Bush was a conservative - which, clearly, isn't supported by the facts.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

The point there is that if two factions continue to use the same term to mean different and contradictory things, then communication breaks down. Why would you want that?

I don't want that. Which is why I keep using that phrase that you pointed out. But you see, only one or two are having a problem with the definition. I have suggested those that are in such angst about it find something else to do. Most don't seem to be having a problem with it at all.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

In other words they become ultra conservatives in practice as soon as they had unlimited power.

Only as the term is defined in some dictionaries and as the term is defined in most of Europe. But not at all as the term is most commonly understood and used in modern day America.

Appeal to authority that fails because that is not how it is "most commonly understood and used in modern day America".

 

[Foxfyre]

Modern American conservatism is strongly opposed to any form of dictator, king, pope, feudal lord, totalitarian government or any other form of government given power to do anything it wants to anybody.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Modern conservatism has enacted a great many totalitarian pieces of legislation at both the Federal and the State levels. For example the misnamed "Patriot Act" was probably one of the most totalitarian laws in the history of this nation in that it violated at least Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

So the Patriot Act was not a conservative concept - EXCEPT - within the scope of the Constitutional requirement for the federal government to provide the common defense. So there is room to debate which of the competing concepts was necessary and whether that particular act was in fact liberal intrusion upon our individual rights or the conservative emphasis on the right to defend ourselves.

And since both liberals and conservatives in Congress and both Bush and Obama have embraced it and have agreed to changes but not its repeal, it's really difficult to put a definitive label on it.

 

[Pogo]

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.

OK well you said two contradictory things there but I'll agree with the first one.

Freudian slip? .

Btw (again) do you have any idea how many times you've trotted out the phrase "as it is most commonly used and understood in modern day America"?

I don't either, but I do know how many times you've substantiated that number:
Zero.

I don't know, but if you and a couple of others would stop demanding that I can't define a word as I define it, I wouldn't have to do that. So if you will stop doing that, I will stop using the phrase. Deal?

DEAL!

 

[Agit8r]

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.

Maybe we can just use the term left-wing. There have been some half a dozen presidents more economically left-wing than Obama has been:

FDR, LBJ, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton... even Taft, Carter, Lincoln, Eisenhower and Kennedy are in the same ballpark.

 

[Pogo]

whether that particular act was in fact liberal intrusion upon our individual rights

Move to amend to read "was in fact statist intrusion"....