Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[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.

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

In rebuttal to this and I am becoming really tired of having to say it again and again and again:

. . .Over time, the meaning of the word "liberalism" began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."[17] Consequently in the U.S., the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian thought. . .

Liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Classical liberalism is synonymous with modern day libertarianism or how most people define conservatism.​

 

[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.

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.

Fine. Use left wing. But the thread title is tied to a concept in an article that uses liberalism which most of us use in the same way. I don't care what word anybody uses just so we focus on the thread topic.

So you say to-may-to and I'll say to-mah-to and we can all understand that in this thread we mean the same thing and there is no need to correct each other.

 

[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).

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

False. Do your research.

Frequently Asked Questions Common Core State Standards Initiative

 

[Agit8r]

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.

Fine. Use left wing. But the thread title is tied to a concept in an article that uses liberalism which most of us use in the same way. I don't care what word anybody uses just so we focus on the thread topic.

So you say to-may-to and I'll say to-mah-to and we can all understand that in this thread we mean the same thing and there is no need to correct each other.

When we are talking about how you define it, I'll use "liberalism" with the quotes, since it is a concept particular to the author, and that portion of the country that is like minded.

 

[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.

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

President Bush was a mixed bag with some strongly conservative points of view for which he was strongly insulted or maligned by many on the left and some strongly liberal views for which those of us on the right were very upset. On issues such as illegal immigration, energy, environment, social programs, and spending, he was a liberal's dream though of course they wouldn't give him any credit for that.

But was this a good thing? Not if you look at some of the negative consequences of the policies he endorsed. A bad thing? Not if you look at some of the positive results of what he got right.

All of that of course can be debated on another thread.

But I am seeing a lot of folks who voted for Bush who are very sure they don't want another president like him. And it is Bush's liberal side that they want to avoid next time.

And that does tie in with the thread topic.

 

[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).

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

False. Do your research.

View attachment 40889

Frequently Asked Questions Common Core State Standards Initiative

Okay guys. Common Core would make an excellent discussion topic, but in this thread, fit it into the thread topic or take the discussion elsewhere please.

 

[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.

good points and there are liberals in both parties.

Yup. Which is one (of several) reasons I put in the rule that we would not discuss the political parties in this thread. It is irrelevent to the topic and would just derail the thread since few are able to discuss political parties without a good deal of. . . .what's the word. . . passion?

But look at the current crop of candidates out there on all sides. What is the one evaluation most people are making about them? Whether they are liberal or conservative. And the more liberal they are considered to be, the more disfavor there seems to be regarding them. (That isn't to suggest that those who embrace liberalism aren't looking for the most liberal candidate.)

 

[Agit8r]

I

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.

President Bush was a mixed bag with some strongly conservative points of view for which he was strongly insulted or maligned by many on the left and some strongly liberal views for which those of us on the right were very upset. On issues such as illegal immigration, energy, environment, social programs, and spending, he was a liberal's dream though of course they wouldn't give him any credit for that.

But was this a good thing? Not if you look at some of the negative consequences of the policies he endorsed. A bad thing? Not if you look at some of the positive results of what he got right.

All of that of course can be debated on another thread.

But I am seeing a lot of folks who voted for Bush who are very sure they don't want another president like him. And it is Bush's liberal side that they want to avoid next time.

And that does tie in with the thread topic.

I don't think that one could say that Bush was "liberal" on the environment. Nationalizing airport security? Yes. Subsidizing airline insurance? Yes. PATRIOT Act? Yes. Handing out fat tax refunds to the poor? Sure. Military intervention? Yes.
Abortion restrictions? Yes. Nation-building? Yes. Vastly expanding Executive power? Yes. Imprisoning citizens without trial? Crony-Capitalism? Yes. Ownership Society? Yes. TARP? Yes.

In fact, I would be hard-pressed to identify anything "conservative" about Bush, other than his hands-off approach to environmental regulation, and political messaging.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So the Patriot Act was not a conservative concept

Assumes facts not in evidence.

It was an extremist conservative concept since it stomped upon liberal concepts like habeas corpus. It took the liberal ACLU to overturn that unconstitutional provision in spite of staunch conservative opposition every step of the way and it was liberal SCOTUS justices who overturned it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I

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.

President Bush was a mixed bag with some strongly conservative points of view for which he was strongly insulted or maligned by many on the left and some strongly liberal views for which those of us on the right were very upset. On issues such as illegal immigration, energy, environment, social programs, and spending, he was a liberal's dream though of course they wouldn't give him any credit for that.

But was this a good thing? Not if you look at some of the negative consequences of the policies he endorsed. A bad thing? Not if you look at some of the positive results of what he got right.

All of that of course can be debated on another thread.

But I am seeing a lot of folks who voted for Bush who are very sure they don't want another president like him. And it is Bush's liberal side that they want to avoid next time.

And that does tie in with the thread topic.

I don't think that one could say that Bush was "liberal" on the environment. Nationalizing airport security? Yes. Subsidizing airline insurance? Yes. PATRIOT Act? Yes. Handing out fat tax refunds to the poor? Sure. Military intervention? Yes.
Abortion restrictions? Yes. Nation-building? Yes. Vastly expanding Executive power? Yes. Imprisoning citizens without trial? Crony-Capitalism? Yes. Ownership Society? Yes. TARP? Yes.

In fact, I would be hard-pressed to identify anything "conservative" about Bush, other than his hands-off approach to environmental regulation, and political messaging.

He had some pretty good solid conservative concepts re the economy and what got implemented produced some good things. As for the environment, he was a 'warmer', and strong advocate for green energy and embraced a number of liberal concepts promoting that. He also did resist some policies that a more liberal person would have probably go along with so mixed report card there. Much of his energy policy only a radical liberal could love. Mixed bag but basically, more liberal than conservative.

On the other hand, every now and then Obama comes up with a conservative concept but for the most part I can't find a lot that isn't liberal in his rhetoric or policies or actions.

So both have approval ratings below the median--Bush more than Obama I think because he wasn't supposed to be liberal where Obama was elected as a liberal, though he was to be very moderate based on his campaign rhetoric.

But the fact that both have weak approval ratings could definitely suggest that the American people aren't all that happy with liberalism.

 

[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".

In rebuttal to this and I am becoming really tired of having to say it again and again and again:

. . .Over time, the meaning of the word "liberalism" began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."[17] Consequently in the U.S., the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian thought. . .

Liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Classical liberalism is synonymous with modern day libertarianism or how most people define conservatism.​

"Consequently in the U.S., the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian thought. . ."

Your link just proved that you are misusing the term "modern term" of liberalism. Instead you should be using the term LIBERTARIANISM since that is what you really mean when you are trying to denigrate liberalism.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I don't have a problem with how people identify themselves though. The fact is that fewer people are willing to identify themselves with a specific political party suggests that maybe we are possibly becoming less polarized? We can hope.

But for purposes of this thread, the point is not how people identify themselves but rather how they evaluate the various issues and what they think we as a society should be doing about it. Goldberg says that the fact that 'liberal' (as he defines it) media is unable to gain traction or gain audience suggests there isn't much passion for the liberal doctrines espoused or the conservative trashing that goes on in most of that form of media.

And this paragraph from his essay I thought interesting:

. . .Meanwhile, the cultural left has disengaged from mainstream political arguments, preferring instead the comforts of identity-politics argy-bargy. You judge political movements not by their manifestos but by where they put their passion. And on the left these days, the only things that arouse passion are arguments about race and gender. . .​

I would add sexual orientation as well.

So I wonder if those folks who identify themselves as 'liberal', took a short quiz offering a comprehensive variety of option for their preferences on taxes, abortion, illegal immigration, work ethic, family, value of fathers in the home, government power, liberty, spending, social programs, etc., how many would find they are actually more right of center than left of center on most?

Oh, just to be sure, I looked up the definition of argy-bargy which the Oxford dictionary defined as noisy quarreling or wrangling.

Goldberg says that the fact that 'liberal' (as he defines it) media is unable to gain traction or gain audience

What was Goldberg using to measure this "lack of traction" in the "liberal media"?

Polls?

Statistics?

Because if he wasn't then what was he basing his claim on?

His personal anecdotes?

Obviously not because if he did that he would lose credibility amongst his peers. Goldberg quoted various statistics to bolster his opinion in his article. What is fascinating is that Goldberg retracted his own claim in the final paragraph. Probably because in his statistical research he had come across the same Gallup poll and knew that he would be challenged unless he added that disclaimer.

In essence all that Goldberg did was offer a one sided opinion that even he knew was a specious claim but he has to maintain both his audience (AKA paycheck) and his credibility so he backpedaled and then covered it with a sarcastic dig.

The OP is based upon the opinion of someone who wasn't honest enough to quote all of the available data at the time because that would have ruined his partisan rant. Instead he weaseled his way around it hoping that those who read the article wouldn't do their own fact checking. And to a large extent he was spot on because he knew that his intended audience would take what he wrote on faith alone and never fact check it because it played directly into their chosen beliefs.

Goldberg was just preaching to his choir again.

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

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

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

This is what defines you.

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

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

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

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.

That would make George Bush a liberal.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Right.

The GOP will allow pro-choice women to speak at their conventions.

The democrats haven't had a pro-life speaker for some time.

Give me a break.

Overbearing dogmas often have "stormtroopers" who are chartered with making sure people see things their way.

This thread and board has it's fair share from both sides.

 

[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.

Right.

The GOP will allow pro-choice women to speak at their conventions.

The democrats haven't had a pro-life speaker for some time.

Give me a break.

Overbearing dogmas often have "stormtroopers" who are chartered with making sure people see things their way.

This thread and board has it's fair share from both sides.

Sun Devil, the thread rules specifically prohibit discussion of political parties. Find a way to make your argument without naming them please. If you use liberal and conservative instead of political parties, you're good to go.

 

[Foxfyre]

What was Goldberg using to measure this "lack of traction" in the "liberal media"?

Polls?

Statistics?

Because if he wasn't then what was he basing his claim on?

His personal anecdotes?

Obviously not because if he did that he would lose credibility amongst his peers. Goldberg quoted various statistics to bolster his opinion in his article. What is fascinating is that Goldberg retracted his own claim in the final paragraph. Probably because in his statistical research he had come across the same Gallup poll and knew that he would be challenged unless he added that disclaimer.

In essence all that Goldberg did was offer a one sided opinion that even he knew was a specious claim but he has to maintain both his audience (AKA paycheck) and his credibility so he backpedaled and then covered it with a sarcastic dig.

The OP is based upon the opinion of someone who wasn't honest enough to quote all of the available data at the time because that would have ruined his partisan rant. Instead he weaseled his way around it hoping that those who read the article wouldn't do their own fact checking. And to a large extent he was spot on because he knew that his intended audience would take what he wrote on faith alone and never fact check it because it played directly into their chosen beliefs.

Goldberg was just preaching to his choir again.

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

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

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

This is what defines you.

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

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

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

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.

That would make George Bush a liberal.

More liberal than conservative, yes. Which is what I have been arguing for the last hour.

 

[Agit8r]

I guess it might be asked, was it a conservative or a liberal who said the following:

"Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power."

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

When the term liberal (a philosophy) is conflated with the democrats.....the answer to the question is obvious.

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.

Right.

The GOP will allow pro-choice women to speak at their conventions.

The democrats haven't had a pro-life speaker for some time.

Give me a break.

Overbearing dogmas often have "stormtroopers" who are chartered with making sure people see things their way.

This thread and board has it's fair share from both sides.

Sun Devil, the thread rules specifically prohibit discussion of political parties. Find a way to make your argument without naming them please. If you use liberal and conservative instead of political parties, you're good to go.

Understood, which is why I am leaving this thread.

Your insistence upon conflating liberalism with "a party" is what has cluttered this thread with confusion.

Have a nice day.

 

[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.

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

In rebuttal to this and I am becoming really tired of having to say it again and again and again:

. . .Over time, the meaning of the word "liberalism" began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."[17] Consequently in the U.S., the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian thought. . .

Liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Classical liberalism is synonymous with modern day libertarianism or how most people define conservatism.​

"Consequently in the U.S., the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian thought. . ."

Your link just proved that you are misusing the term "modern term" of liberalism. Instead you should be using the term LIBERTARIANISM since that is what you really mean when you are trying to denigrate liberalism.

Some posts are just too off the mark to respond to. But do have a nice day.

 

[Foxfyre]

I guess it might be asked, was it a conservative or a liberal who said the following:

"Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power."

That is a liberal statement IMO and it doesn't matter who said it.

The Founders trusted a free people, unfettered by coercive power, to make mistakes but correct them, and figure out ways to do it better, be better, get it right. And while there are some who will choose evil over good on purpose, and there must be some measure to deal with those to prevent them from violating the rights of others, for the most part the Founders turned out to be right. In some of their writings Jay, Hamilton, and Madison all questioned whether mankind would choose to be sufficiently self disciplined for self rule. But all eventually came around to believe however it turned out, liberty was better than bondage to a king or other dictator and humankind would not possibly get it more wrong than do those given unlimited power to control other people's lives.

 

[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.

When the term liberal (a philosophy) is conflated with the democrats.....the answer to the question is obvious.

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.

Right.

The GOP will allow pro-choice women to speak at their conventions.

The democrats haven't had a pro-life speaker for some time.

Give me a break.

Overbearing dogmas often have "stormtroopers" who are chartered with making sure people see things their way.

This thread and board has it's fair share from both sides.

Sun Devil, the thread rules specifically prohibit discussion of political parties. Find a way to make your argument without naming them please. If you use liberal and conservative instead of political parties, you're good to go.

Understood, which is why I am leaving this thread.

Your insistence upon conflating liberalism with "a party" is what has cluttered this thread with confusion.

Have a nice day.

You too. (Though I have never in any place conflated liberalism with a party in this thread.)