Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[Foxfyre]

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

Are they the same? Or, is the difference one of degree?

Liberals believe in more state involvement then conservatives but that does not necessarily mean "substantial centralized control". Even conservatives believe in a certain amount of government control - they just choose different areas to use it - inserting the state into private decisions on abortion and marriage.

When is the last time you saw a liberal say the federal government should butt out of this or that social program? That the people should work that out and government should stay out of it?

Government is often the only entity that can do things like supply aid to families, ensure school loans for kids who have no collateral, etc... While churches and other organizations can do it from time to time; if you are counting on the program being there in September, with the government, you're guaranteed it will be there. If the church is running it or if you're relying on charities, the first sign of an economic downturn, church offerings and charities dry up (as they should--you take care of your family first).

That it is okay for states to have the ability to pass their own laws about social matters rather than make it a federal affair? Who don't cheer if this or that court strikes down the people's ability to implement their own beliefs and value that go contrary to the liberal beliefs and values?

We saw in the 1960's what happens when you simply allow the states to decide who can go to school and who cannot. Segregation today, tomorrow and forever or something like that.

It is the statist view that morality and equality and justice for all and programs that help people must be uniform everywhere and the only way that can be done is via federal mandates and it is wrong to allow a state or a group of people to reject that. The federal government must have the power and authority to intervene in most social concerns.

It doesn't have to be extreme. It is just the difference between how conservatives and liberals believe that the best common good is accomplished.

I think more people are going with the conservative ideas on that these days even if they don't know that such ideas fit under the conservative label.

Virtually, in its entirety, this post is categorically false.

The federal government is NOT the only entity that can provide these 'services'. State and local governments, run by the local populace, can - and do - provide these 'services'. It is equally nonsensical to say that churches and non-profit organizations can't be depended on to provide these 'services'. They've only been doing it for 200 years. Contrary to your suggestion - the amount of charity done during 'downturns' actually rises (and, let us not forget - those are primarily funded by conservatives).

What you say in the 1960s was a federal government that responded to court cases referred up the ladder from local courts to ensure the proper interpretation of the Constitution. THAT is the way it's supposed to work.

As for conservatives believing in personal values - that is EXACTLY the difference between liberals and conservatives. We conservatives do not rely on the big, bad federal government to dictate our conscience, our religion, and our actions. Liberals, on the other hand, refuse to take personal responsibility, but instead, defer to a nanny government model where they are coddled and cared for. Liberals don't have personal values - they expect the government to dictate them.

I don't want to get sidetracked in debating various issues, but I do not agree that if government doesn't make it happen, then the people won't either. The town and school system I grew up in desegregated on its own of its own choice long before the freedom riders and civil rights movements began. I believe good people presented with good arguments usually get around to making good choices. And the few who hold out on things like segregation I think will usually be embarrassed or shamed into doing the right thing or will become social outcasts and shunned.

But that is a conservative concept, letting the people order their own society.

Conservatism doesn't accept that those in government are more noble or honest or righteous than are the people who elected them to those offices. Which is why conservatism would rather the federal government be limited to its specific constitutional mandates and leave the states and local communities alone to order the societies they wish to have and live their lives as they choose. Anything else isn't really liberty.

I am hoping more people really are beginning to see the wisdom in that.

 

[Spare_change]

Review the Tenth Amendment ....

Where in the 10A does it give the states the power to subvert the federal Constitution?

By definition - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

That which is not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved for the States or the people. The problem today is the usurpation of authority by the federal government, not the other way around. By dinks and dunks, the federal government - through the power or promised largesse - have subverted state authority.

The question was where in the 10A does it give the states the power to subvert the federal Constitution?

To which I responded that it is NOT the states that have subverted the Constitution, it is the federal government.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

No more so than your farcical assumption that states have somehow subverted the federal Constitution. You made an unsubstantiated statement, and I returned the favor.

If you like, I will be more than happy to trade examples (my list is EVER so much longer).

 

[Derideo_Te]

No more so than your farcical assumption that states have somehow subverted the federal Constitution. You made an unsubstantiated statement, and I returned the favor.

Your failure to comprehend what I actually posted does not equate to my making an "unsubstantiated statement".

I am challenging you to post the actual statement where I am alleged to have said "states have somehow subverted the federal Constitution".

Since I never did anything of the sort I will await your apology for your errors.

 

[syonidv]

I think if any two people could agree on the definition of "liberalism", the debate might go somewhere.

Are we talking about classical liberalism, which bears virtually no resemblance to progressivism or most present-day self-identifying liberals? Are we talking about the Rush Limbaugh concept of liberalism, which a kind of Bertrandt-Russel-esque elitist statism? Are we including fringe groups that self-identify as liberal, such as feminists who consider all PIV intercourse to be rape, or members of NAMBLA?

"Liberalism" comprises such a vast, inconstant, eclectic group of ideas and philosophies. Asking whether it's passing away is like asking whether the world is "losing its groove". You're not going to get a reasonable answer until you narrow down "liberalism", and aside from "MSNBC talking heads", the article in the OP doesn't do that.

 

[Pogo]

I think if any two people could agree on the definition of "liberalism", the debate might go somewhere.

Are we talking about classical liberalism, which bears virtually no resemblance to progressivism or most present-day self-identifying liberals? Are we talking about the Rush Limbaugh concept of liberalism, which a kind of Bertrandt-Russel-esque elitist statism? Are we including fringe groups that self-identify as liberal, such as feminists who consider all PIV intercourse to be rape, or members of NAMBLA?

"Liberalism" comprises such a vast, inconstant, eclectic group of ideas and philosophies. Asking whether it's passing away is like asking whether the world is "losing its groove". You're not going to get a reasonable answer until you narrow down "liberalism", and aside from "MSNBC talking heads", the article in the OP doesn't do that.

Thank you. I've been trying to make that point. And welcome to USMB!

Here's a page I linked earlier that nobody ever reads but I think sums it up perfectly.
Cheers.

 

[syonidv]

Pogo I've had lengthy debates about the changing definition. On message boards, my position tends towards accepting the definition of the OP. For left-leaning posters, there's a bit of guesswork involved. I've found that most conservative posters accept the ad hoc definition used by Mr. Limbaugh and many of the talk radio personalities, which is really more of a progressivist doctrine. The major proponents would be outlets like HuffPo, Daily KOS, thinkprogress.org, and MSNBC. For better or for worse, that's how many (most?) conservatives define "liberal".

There's an element of social liberty, but it also incorporates elements of big government, antipathy towards traditional views/values, and a very marked revulsion to ideological fundamentalism.

I'm a fundamentalist myself, hence I typically find myself on the opposite side of the table from self-identifying liberals.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think if any two people could agree on the definition of "liberalism", the debate might go somewhere.

Are we talking about classical liberalism, which bears virtually no resemblance to progressivism or most present-day self-identifying liberals? Are we talking about the Rush Limbaugh concept of liberalism, which a kind of Bertrandt-Russel-esque elitist statism? Are we including fringe groups that self-identify as liberal, such as feminists who consider all PIV intercourse to be rape, or members of NAMBLA?

"Liberalism" comprises such a vast, inconstant, eclectic group of ideas and philosophies. Asking whether it's passing away is like asking whether the world is "losing its groove". You're not going to get a reasonable answer until you narrow down "liberalism", and aside from "MSNBC talking heads", the article in the OP doesn't do that.

No, modern liberalism as it is most commonly used these days by both those describing liberals and the folks who self-describe themselves as liberal is the polar opposite of classical liberalism. Which is why the liberalism of the Founders is now referred to as 'classical liberalism' to distinguish their beliefs from the changing definition of 'liberal' as it is defined and used by most people today.

And it doesn't really matter which 'liberal' group we are talking about. In this thread the liberalism that Goldberg described in the OP is the liberalism that looks to big government to achieve its wants and goals. He maintains that is losing favor with the American people. He maintains it has run out of steam, it doesn't excite and inspire people anymore. It is an empty vessel that no longer is embraced by the people who are seeing that it is empty and are now no longer disciples.

In Post #439 I provided the following descriptions:

1. Liberals
   believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.
   
   Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.
   
   NOTE: The terms “left” and “right” define opposite ends of the political spectrum. In the United States, liberals are referred to as the left or left-wing and conservatives are referred to as the right or right-wing. . . .
   Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs
   
   Free dictionary definition of Statism:
   The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
   
   Oxford dictionary definition of Statism:
   political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs:
   
   So obviously, in modern American vernacular, liberals are statists and/or statists are liberals. And that makes them synonymous.

I don't care whether anybody uses liberal, progressive, leftists, statist, or political class to define the phenomenon. The topic is not the language used, but rather the focus of liberalism vs some other ideology.

And I agree with the others, welcome to USMB.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo I've had lengthy debates about the changing definition. On message boards, my position tends towards accepting the definition of the OP. For left-leaning posters, there's a bit of guesswork involved. I've found that most conservative posters accept the ad hoc definition used by Mr. Limbaugh and many of the talk radio personalities, which is really more of a progressivist doctrine. The major proponents would be outlets like HuffPo, Daily KOS, thinkprogress.org, and MSNBC. For better or for worse, that's how many (most?) conservatives define "liberal".

There's an element of social liberty, but it also incorporates elements of big government, antipathy towards traditional views/values, and a very marked revulsion to ideological fundamentalism.

I'm a fundamentalist myself, hence I typically find myself on the opposite side of the table from self-identifying liberals.

Then we're probably on the same side of the table while demurring on the definition. I'm alarmed at the hijacking of the term by those who would demonize it, for their own purposes, not to mention multiple definitions muddles the discourse, as you noted at the outset. Of course I'm also a linguistic hyperconservative as well. So I defend the original, and most honest, definition.


We should explore further down the road, but if we do it here the OP will spank us.

(and as you see the OP is one of those hijackers)....

 

[Pogo]

aaand here we go again...

NOTE: The terms “left” and “right” define opposite ends of the political spectrum. In the United States, liberals are referred to as the left or left-wing and conservatives are referred to as the right or right-wing. . . .
Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs

from my ealier link:

One of the major problems in American political consciousness today comes from a misrepresentation of the political spectrum. This is partly the result of a deliberate effort to put all of America's enemies (fascists and communists) into the same basket after World War II, and a deliberate effort by the American "Right" to classify everything that they oppose as "Leftist". After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics.
...
The current popular concept of "Liberal" is often "Leftist" and is associated with "big government," economic regulation, progressive taxation, and progressive social policy, such as support for gay rights, unlimited free speech and Affirmative Action.​

With the exception of gay rights and free speech, none of these other issues are actually "Liberal" policies in the classical sense. Furthermore, liberalism, in either the classical sense or the current common usage, is not "Leftist" in a full political spectrum.

Liberalism views government like a referee, whose job is to maintain a level and equal playing field for individuals, ideas, businesses and institutions. Government is not to take sides or support any given view or organization. Conservatives, socialists, and others, i.e. the "Left" and the "Right", seek to use government to promote certain agendas, viewpoints, institutions, and interests.

This is critical to understand if one is to understand the political landscape of the 20th century.​

 

[Foxfyre]

aaand here we go again...

NOTE: The terms “left” and “right” define opposite ends of the political spectrum. In the United States, liberals are referred to as the left or left-wing and conservatives are referred to as the right or right-wing. . . .
Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs

from my ealier link:

The current popular concept of "Liberal" is often "Leftist" and is associated with "big government," economic regulation, progressive taxation, and progressive social policy, such as support for gay rights, unlimited free speech and Affirmative Action.

With the exception of gay rights and free speech, none of these other issues are actually "Liberal" policies in the classical sense. Furthermore, liberalism, in either the classical sense or the current common usage, is not "Leftist" in a full political spectrum.

Liberalism views government like a referee, whose job is to maintain a level and equal playing field for individuals, ideas, businesses and institutions. Government is not to take sides or support any given view or organization. Conservatives, socialists, and others, i.e. the "Left" and the "Right", seek to use government to promote certain agendas, viewpoints, institutions, and interests.

This is critical to understand if one is to understand the political landscape of the 20th century.​

You are entitled to disagree. Your posts have been consistent in that regard. But I will continue to go with the credible definitions I have provided, with the credible explanations I have provided as to why the formal dictionary definition of 'liberal' is pretty much the opposite of how 'liberal' is most commonly used now, and stick with the thesis of the OP.

Be happy that we finally veered off into definitions, which I had resisted. But unless you can provide a credible source that would discredit the definitions I have provided, I will continue to use the word I want to use. You are free to use whatever word you wish to use. And we can have a win win situation here.

 

[Pogo]

aaand here we go again...

NOTE: The terms “left” and “right” define opposite ends of the political spectrum. In the United States, liberals are referred to as the left or left-wing and conservatives are referred to as the right or right-wing. . . .
Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs

from my ealier link:

The current popular concept of "Liberal" is often "Leftist" and is associated with "big government," economic regulation, progressive taxation, and progressive social policy, such as support for gay rights, unlimited free speech and Affirmative Action.

With the exception of gay rights and free speech, none of these other issues are actually "Liberal" policies in the classical sense. Furthermore, liberalism, in either the classical sense or the current common usage, is not "Leftist" in a full political spectrum.

Liberalism views government like a referee, whose job is to maintain a level and equal playing field for individuals, ideas, businesses and institutions. Government is not to take sides or support any given view or organization. Conservatives, socialists, and others, i.e. the "Left" and the "Right", seek to use government to promote certain agendas, viewpoints, institutions, and interests.

This is critical to understand if one is to understand the political landscape of the 20th century.​

You are entitled to disagree. Your posts have been consistent in that regard. But I will continue to go with the credible definitions I have provided, with the credible explanations I have provided as to why the formal dictionary definition of 'liberal' is pretty much the opposite of how 'liberal' is most commonly used now, and stick with the thesis of the OP.

Be happy that we finally veered off into definitions, which I had resisted. But unless you can provide a credible source that would discredit the definitions I have provided, I will continue to use the word I want to use. You are free to use whatever word you wish to use. And we can have a win win situation here.

Actually -- I just did.

 

[Spare_change]

No more so than your farcical assumption that states have somehow subverted the federal Constitution. You made an unsubstantiated statement, and I returned the favor.

Your failure to comprehend what I actually posted does not equate to my making an "unsubstantiated statement".

I am challenging you to post the actual statement where I am alleged to have said "states have somehow subverted the federal Constitution".

Since I never did anything of the sort I will await your apology for your errors.

463

467

etc.

etc.

etc.

 

[Foxfyre]

When is the last time you saw a liberal say the federal government should but out of this or that social program?

When they objected to DOMA?

Liberals didn't like DOMA that is true. But they didn't want the states to have ability to pass their own DOMA laws and have vigorously opposed those and have cheered every time a liberal judge has overturned them. The liberals wanted a much different federal law that the states would have no control over.

So it wasn't federal control of DOMA they protested. It was everything about the law that they wanted not just repealed, but replaced with what they wanted.

A conservative would most often say that the federal government should not be making any laws about marriage but that the states have full authority to do so.

So Foxy -- you've made this distinction several times, here as well as in prior posts, between heavyhanded government at the federal level versus the same thing at the state level. Can you articulate why one's OK and the other isn't?

In other words if I live in Massachusetts what difference does it make if the state or the federal government is forcing me to buy health insurance? I'm under the same legal requirement either way, am I not? It's only a difference of whether the Enforcer is based in Washington or in Boston. But the end effect is the same.

?

Because it is hopefully the people of Massachusetts who agree to a system that is right for them. But they are not forcing what is right for them on the other 49 states. And if somebody finds Massachusetts to be not to their liking they can move to a different state without giving up their country.

 

[Agit8r]

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

We are NOT debating the views or emphasis of any political party or group here. We are discussing the attitudes of people as to the role of government on any given issue. Those who want the government to butt out of anything they aren't constitutionally mandated to do are usually conservatives. Those who want and encourage and approve government ordering the sort of society the liberals want are usually liberal. It is as simple as that.

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

And both the liberal and the conservative may hold the exact same standard for whether abortion is or is not a moral choice.

And I believe, as does Goldberg, that more people are rejecting the liberal point of view.

No conservative wants the federal government to engage in or control any of those. Those who do might call themselves conservative, but they are calling for liberal rules to apply.

Conservatives have been campaigning for a constitutional amendment banning abortion for decades and no, that is not "calling for liberal rules to apply"!

To want the federal government to dictate what abortion laws will be is a liberal concept. To want such laws left to the states and local communities is a conservative concept.

The Constitution upholds the liberal concept of a right to privacy that conservatives want to subvert with fallacious "state's rights" that don't actually exist to override the federal constitution.

Review the Tenth Amendment ....

Where in the 10A does it give the states the power to subvert the federal Constitution?

By definition - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

That which is not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved for the States or the people. The problem today is the usurpation of authority by the federal government, not the other way around. By dinks and dunks, the federal government - through the power or promised largesse - have subverted state authority.

Yes. It of course excessive federal control happened under various opportunists who have evolved into a permanent political class of professional politicians and bureaucrats that now form the foundation of the federal government. But without the statists and their approval of ever more and bigger and more all encompassing federal goverment, that permanent political class would have found increasing their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth much more difficult to accomplish.

I'm hoping more Americans are beginning to see that, and Goldberg is right that they are seeing the downside and negatives in that and are therefore rejecting it.

I guess I can mostly agree with that. I think that liberals have become more suspicious of federal power since the turn of the century. That is classically liberal though.

 

[Pogo]

When is the last time you saw a liberal say the federal government should but out of this or that social program?

When they objected to DOMA?

Liberals didn't like DOMA that is true. But they didn't want the states to have ability to pass their own DOMA laws and have vigorously opposed those and have cheered every time a liberal judge has overturned them. The liberals wanted a much different federal law that the states would have no control over.

So it wasn't federal control of DOMA they protested. It was everything about the law that they wanted not just repealed, but replaced with what they wanted.

A conservative would most often say that the federal government should not be making any laws about marriage but that the states have full authority to do so.

So Foxy -- you've made this distinction several times, here as well as in prior posts, between heavyhanded government at the federal level versus the same thing at the state level. Can you articulate why one's OK and the other isn't?

In other words if I live in Massachusetts what difference does it make if the state or the federal government is forcing me to buy health insurance? I'm under the same legal requirement either way, am I not? It's only a difference of whether the Enforcer is based in Washington or in Boston. But the end effect is the same.

?

Because it is hopefully the people of Massachusetts who agree to a system that is right for them. But they are not forcing what is right for them on the other 49 states. And if somebody finds Massachusetts to be not to their liking they can move to a different state without giving up their country.

And in the federal case, they can move to another country. Still the same thing.

Or to look at it the other way (and perhaps the proper way), why should a resident of the Commonwealth be forced to pick up and move by an oppressive state law? Is it not gummint overreach, regardless what the originating source is?

If if only applies to the federal level -- then why the arguments of angst over, say, New York City prohibiting super big sugar drinks or requiring extra firearm paperwork? That's not the fed, but we get the same arguments....

Just looks like a double standard to me.

 

[Agit8r]

No more so than your farcical assumption that states have somehow subverted the federal Constitution. You made an unsubstantiated statement, and I returned the favor.

Your failure to comprehend what I actually posted does not equate to my making an "unsubstantiated statement".

I am challenging you to post the actual statement where I am alleged to have said "states have somehow subverted the federal Constitution".

Since I never did anything of the sort I will await your apology for your errors.

Actually states have, and do subvert the constitution.

These days, states practice protectionism against one another, which was one of the two main reasons that a constitution was called for.

The most egregious though, was the number of states which ignored the Fourteenth Amendment for a century. And of course now they are trying to dismantle "appropriate legislation" called for in it.

 

[oldernwiser]

A better question to answer first is to define what "liberalism" means. As I think we've all seen, having a liberal viewpoint means very different things to most people. To some, it's an economic viewpoint - as in higher taxes and a profusion of government regulation. To others it's the social viewpoint of helping others. Liberalism is used to define how an entire collective group of humans relate to the world without regard to what those people actually think. It's a way to end discussions that might lead a rational person to change his viewpoints or admit to himself that he might actually be wrong. And don't get me wrong here, I've seen both conservatives and liberals use these epithets the same way. It's a wall which says "I don't care about what you think or how you came by that knowledge".

Maybe, and I'm just going on what sounds sane and rational to me, instead of wondering if liberalism is exhausted (and it could never really be), we can actually discuss issues that affect every one of us in an honest and fact-based manner. It just seems insane to me to argue that unions are dead because liberalism. Or that our economy isn't suffering from a lack of spending but from liberalism. Being called a "liberal" or a "conservative" has become synonymous with being called stupid. How do you have a real conversation about your viewpoints if you have to begin it with "I'm not stupid..."?

I am willing to stand up for my own beliefs. To me, being liberal is being willing to take a risk for a greater reward. It's recognizing that we live in a society in which we all, to some extent, rely upon the success of all the others in order to succeed ourselves. I'm not stupid, but I most definitely am a liberal.

 

[Foxfyre]

A better question to answer first is to define what "liberalism" means. As I think we've all seen, having a liberal viewpoint means very different things to most people. To some, it's an economic viewpoint - as in higher taxes and a profusion of government regulation. To others it's the social viewpoint of helping others. Liberalism is used to define how an entire collective group of humans relate to the world without regard to what those people actually think. It's a way to end discussions that might lead a rational person to change his viewpoints or admit to himself that he might actually be wrong. And don't get me wrong here, I've seen both conservatives and liberals use these epithets the same way. It's a wall which says "I don't care about what you think or how you came by that knowledge".

Maybe, and I'm just going on what sounds sane and rational to me, instead of wondering if liberalism is exhausted (and it could never really be), we can actually discuss issues that affect every one of us in an honest and fact-based manner. It just seems insane to me to argue that unions are dead because liberalism. Or that our economy isn't suffering from a lack of spending but from liberalism. Being called a "liberal" or a "conservative" has become synonymous with being called stupid. How do you have a real conversation about your viewpoints if you have to begin it with "I'm not stupid..."?

I am willing to stand up for my own beliefs. To me, being liberal is being willing to take a risk for a greater reward. It's recognizing that we live in a society in which we all, to some extent, rely upon the success of all the others in order to succeed ourselves. I'm not stupid, but I most definitely am a liberal.

Welcome to the discussion oldernwiser. I think by now the terms have been adequately defined. There are two or three who will not accept modern vernacular for the definitions, but they are encouraged to use whatever word suits them better.

For myself, I am confident that the simplest definitions as most people understand and use them are that modern day American liberalism looks to government for solutions for societal and economic ills and wants the central government to have the power and authority to deal with them.

And modern day conservatives are much more aligned with the classical liberalism or libertarianism (little "L") of the Founders who look to individuals for solutions to societal and economic ills and want the central government to have very little power or authority to interfere with that.

And tying that to the OP, whether or not people are embracing the conservative ideology, people are losing enthusiasm for the liberal one as they see the unintended consequences of it and its inability or failure to deliver as promised.

I believe that the vast majority of Americans, given opportunity to score all the social and economic factors objectively and honestly, will issue by issue come down on the conservative side on more than they will the liberal side. The real issues of cause and effect and the principles involved become lost or obscured, however, when the discussion so often breaks down into accusations and demonization and blame and finger pointing and mischaracterizations of the other guy's point of view. And too many are so conditioned to that that they are incapable of arguing a concept any other way.

 

[candycorn]

Has anyone ever figured out by what objective critera the OP thinks people are embracing conservatism?

 

[Derideo_Te]

But I will continue to go with the credible definitions I have provided,

"Credible definitions" that don't actually exist in dictionaries.

Liberals are not statists. That is why they are two entirely different terms each with their own distinct definition.