What do liberals want the US to be?

[francoHFW]

OP- Now we have ACA, paid parental leave, tax the rich their fair share and invest in Americans, cut taxes and fees on the nonrich, and make sure there's strong and fair regulation on giant corps, campaign financing, without hurting honest business. Foreign policy- strong support for democracy and human rights, emerging countries, against corruption dammit.

 

[rightwinger]

- Who has less anti-Semitism, US, Saudi Arabia, Greece, or Europe?
- Which Country has the best Environmental Regulations, US, Russia, India, Or China?
- Which Country is most tolerant of homosexuals? US, Saudi Arabia, Syria, India, or China?
- Which Country has the strongest Middle Class? US, Cuba, Venezuela, or Mexico?
- Which Country has the least slavery? US, China, India, or Kenya?


US is quite an Exceptional Country. Clearly, US is the most progressive Country in the World. Stop hating America, goddamnit!

Used to be the US was compared to England, France, Japan, Germany and Canada
You dont set the bar very high do you?

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Now we have ACA- paid parental leave, tax the rich their fair share and invest in Americans, cut taxes and fees on the nonrich, and make sure there's strong and fair regulation on giant corps, campaign financing, without hurting honest business. Foreign policy- strong support for democracy and human rights, emerging countries, against corruption dammit.

 

[rightwinger]

Good question

Let's look at the society that existed in the 60s
White males possessed all the leadership positions and skilled positions. They claimed it was because they were best qualified. Blacks were best suited for menial labor and women could be secretaries and nurses.
In deciding who was best qualified for a managerial position, white male executives universally decided that white males were best suited for managerial positions. After all, they had never seen a woman or a black in that position
Affirmative action gave women and minorities a chance to fill skilled positions and they proved they were able to handle it
Thank affirmative action if your wife or daughter is able to get a position that is not teacher, secretary, nurse or cashier

how did affirmative action help the following: Herman Cain, Thomas Sowell, Beyonce, Bill Cosby, Sammy Davis Jr, Whitney Houston, MLK jr, obama, Oprah.

you are wrong jake, those people succeeded because of their talents, skills, and hard work.

Good list

All have been helped by affirmative action. There was a time when black entertainers were relegated to the roles of servants and shuffling fools.

Cosby, Sammy Davis and later Whitney and Oprah benefitted from changing morals that allowed them to be looked at as real people and not stereotypes

bullshit, they were successful because they had talents, not because of the AA laws. Yes, societal change had something to do with it, but not one of the people I listed were helped by AA laws.

You think there were not talented blacks before Bill Cosby and Oprah? Twenty years earlier they would have been relegated to roles saying Yassa, Yassa I shore is hungry.

Right, like Satchmo, Ella Fitzgerald, Aretha Franklin, Dianna Ross, Otis Redding, Ray Charles, James Brown, Nat King Cole, Sammy David Jr., Jimmy Hendrix, Little Richard, Johny Mathis, and Smokey Robinson?

You still struggle with dates don't you?

 

[LeftofLeft]

this is a serious question, please only reply with serious comments.

what specifically do liberals want the US to become?
Tell us exactly what you want changed, and why.

I'm a liberal and this is what I want...

I want the US to be true to its American heritage.
I want the US to live by the principles of the Founding Fathers.
I want us to honor the rule of law.
I want us to give everyone, citizen or not, due process of law.
I want everyone to be considered innocent, until proven guilty.
I want cops and government officials for the crimes they've committed.
I want the US to stop starting wars of aggression.
I want corporations to have no voice in government whatsoever.​

This is what I don't want...

I don't want us torturing people.
I don't want us going for world domination.
I don't want us supporting Israel un-conditionally.
I don't want us going to war with Iran or the Russians.
I don't want Americans letting the right tell them who (and who is not) is a patriot.
I don't want the derivatives market to be legal.
​

That's the short list.

- Who has less anti-Semitism, US, Saudi Arabia, Greece, or Europe?
- Which Country has the best Environmental Regulations, US, Russia, India, Or China?
- Which Country is most tolerant of homosexuals? US, Saudi Arabia, Syria, India, or China?
- Which Country has the strongest Middle Class? US, Cuba, Venezuela, or Mexico?
- Which Country has the least slavery? US, China, India, or Kenya?


US is quite an Exceptional Country. Clearly, US is the most progressive Country in the World. Stop hating America, goddamnit!

Used to be the US was compared to England, France, Japan, Germany and Canada
You dont set the bar very high do you?

I set the bar very high....I compare the rest of the world to US

 

[francoHFW]

And bring back the Fairness Doctrine and end the reign of loudmouth, paid off RW pundits and bs Fox Noise, the whole New BS GOP. A disgrace.

 

[francoHFW]

this is a serious question, please only reply with serious comments.

what specifically do liberals want the US to become?
Tell us exactly what you want changed, and why.

I'm a liberal and this is what I want...

I want the US to be true to its American heritage.
I want the US to live by the principles of the Founding Fathers.
I want us to honor the rule of law.
I want us to give everyone, citizen or not, due process of law.
I want everyone to be considered innocent, until proven guilty.
I want cops and government officials for the crimes they've committed.
I want the US to stop starting wars of aggression.
I want corporations to have no voice in government whatsoever.​

This is what I don't want...

I don't want us torturing people.
I don't want us going for world domination.
I don't want us supporting Israel un-conditionally.
I don't want us going to war with Iran or the Russians.
I don't want Americans letting the right tell them who (and who is not) is a patriot.
I don't want the derivatives market to be legal.
​

That's the short list.

- Who has less anti-Semitism, US, Saudi Arabia, Greece, or Europe?
- Which Country has the best Environmental Regulations, US, Russia, India, Or China?
- Which Country is most tolerant of homosexuals? US, Saudi Arabia, Syria, India, or China?
- Which Country has the strongest Middle Class? US, Cuba, Venezuela, or Mexico?
- Which Country has the least slavery? US, China, India, or Kenya?


US is quite an Exceptional Country. Clearly, US is the most progressive Country in the World. Stop hating America, goddamnit!

Used to be the US was compared to England, France, Japan, Germany and Canada
You dont set the bar very high do you?

I set the bar very high....I compare the rest of the world to US

You compare us to still primitive countries, not the original EU, Canada, OZ, NZ. Other modern democracies.

 

[rightwinger]

this is a serious question, please only reply with serious comments.

what specifically do liberals want the US to become?
Tell us exactly what you want changed, and why.

I'm a liberal and this is what I want...

I want the US to be true to its American heritage.
I want the US to live by the principles of the Founding Fathers.
I want us to honor the rule of law.
I want us to give everyone, citizen or not, due process of law.
I want everyone to be considered innocent, until proven guilty.
I want cops and government officials for the crimes they've committed.
I want the US to stop starting wars of aggression.
I want corporations to have no voice in government whatsoever.​

This is what I don't want...

I don't want us torturing people.
I don't want us going for world domination.
I don't want us supporting Israel un-conditionally.
I don't want us going to war with Iran or the Russians.
I don't want Americans letting the right tell them who (and who is not) is a patriot.
I don't want the derivatives market to be legal.
​

That's the short list.

- Who has less anti-Semitism, US, Saudi Arabia, Greece, or Europe?
- Which Country has the best Environmental Regulations, US, Russia, India, Or China?
- Which Country is most tolerant of homosexuals? US, Saudi Arabia, Syria, India, or China?
- Which Country has the strongest Middle Class? US, Cuba, Venezuela, or Mexico?
- Which Country has the least slavery? US, China, India, or Kenya?


US is quite an Exceptional Country. Clearly, US is the most progressive Country in the World. Stop hating America, goddamnit!

Used to be the US was compared to England, France, Japan, Germany and Canada
You dont set the bar very high do you?

I set the bar very high....I compare the rest of the world to US

Really?

Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, India, China?
those are our contemporaries now?

 

[Londoner]

OK, now you need to define "social justice". Who decides what is "socially just" ?

Kudos to OP for trying to start a discussion (as opposed to giving a speech or starting the thread with a strawman).

Who decides what is socially just?
The Right doesn't want government deciding this because they believe - perhaps rightly - that government bureaucrats lack the necessary information as well as ethical dexterity and tactical competence to effectively execute such a grand scheme. The famous charge of social engineering is relevant here. Do we want a small group of government officials constructing an ideal society? This is as insane as trying to turn Iraq into a modern, freedom loving, western-style Democracy. It is simply beyond the scope of what government can do.

On the other hand, what happens if we let the market decide? Here, the Left is skeptical because they believe that a free market, though desirable, is as utopian as Marx's "withering away of the state" (where the proletariat rises and private property is not used as monopoly tool against the weak). The problem with achieving a genuinely free and competitive market is that there will always be market winners who use their financial leverage to lobby government and create market distortions (typically in the form of anti-consumer monopolies, the profits of which are recycled into the political machinery in order to sustain the legal and regulatory structure that gives them an advantage).

Capitalists don't want to compete so much as they want profit - and competition forces them to lower prices, which hurts profit. They don't want to be forced to lower prices under the risk of losing their business; they'd much rather have the freedom to set the market. A free and competitive market is code for: get off my back so I can buy politicians and gain a competitive advantage that insulates me from competition.

Meaning: market players want to lock-up the highest possible market share and construct a scenario like the cable/internet corporations have - which is in the form of government protected regional monopolies that allow them to increase prices and decrease services without losing customers. As a share holder I want more as opposed to less money - and owning government & fixing markets is one way to get what I want.

Look at lobbying. Market winners manipulate the political system to gain a competitive advantage (and distort the market). If you look at both the lobbying system and the funding of elections, it becomes clear that concentrated capital is the new concentrated political power. Politicians who don't vote for the interests of the large corporations (the ones who fund elections) are removed in the primaries. Meaning: the market is ruthlessly and surgically distorted by the influence of money on the political machinery. Study the 2003 Drug Bull. Eli Lilly basically purchased congressmen who then created legislation that crushed competition from foreign and generic suppliers - thus allowing Eli Lilly to write uncontested bids for Bush's Medicare Part D, and thus allowing Eli Lilly to secure above market rates for its drugs at the taxpayer's expense. This kind of stuff happens in every sector.

Meaning: the economic winners and losers are not decided by free competition; rather, these things are decided by the financial leverage our wealthiest capitalists have over our political machinery. So it's government's job to offset the influence of money over politics, and protect taxpayers from being fleeced. (Yes, there are sectors where natural limitations mean that monopolies can deliver the cheapest prices and are best suited to innovate and serve the consumer).

But the overall point is this. It's naive to believe that the choice is between a strict command economy and a free market economy when we've never had either. Regarding the possibility of a free market as it is currently conceived: I'm skeptical because some corporations will always rise to the top and they will use their financial leverage to co-opt government and build monopoly power over markets and government policy. And they will channel a portion of their profits into a media bullhorn which hides the fact that they are the newest form of concentrated power (as opposed to the embodiment of freedom).

So as a Liberal, I'd like to see a brighter light thrown on lobbying. We need a much more detailed picture of the support (from financial to legal, military and legislative) received by the most powerful market players. I'd like to see greater enforcement of anti-trust legislation. I'd like people to know how much public taxpayer money has gone to subsidizing technological advances in everything from aerospace to the internet. I'd like people to see how much government subsidized technology flowed from the NASA and Defense budgets into profitable commercial technology. I'd like the consumer to be aware of the deep partnership between capitalists and the government (which is so relentlessly obscured by pop media). I'd like people to know how much the taxpayer has paid to militarily stabilize Exxon's oil fields in the Middle East. I'd like voters to know how much free money our "free" market players have been given. Only then can we discuss the ideal society and how much we're really paying for it.

 

[Chris]

Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact, since 1790 the United States has had 16 banking system failures, Canada has had 0.

Now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions. This basically means legalized secret bribes.

Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It would help if people could learn at least enough of the basics of political science to realize liberalism is an ideology with certain tenets rather than just describing a person. This Manichaean insistence that people are divided into just two political groups is part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

People can call themselves "liberal" all they want, but unless they are operating from the standpoint of advancing liberal values, they are just left wing fundamentalists.

The shortest answer I can give here , though, is that liberalism places greater value on social justice than social order. The "conserve" in conservatism refers to the preservation of social order over social justice.

LOL!! That is ADORABLE!

Next, when they're asked to define "Social Justice" will come the obscurant rant which inevitably results in our learning that 'social justice' can't really be defined... that such means different things to different people, and how big a mistake it is to try and pigeon hole people and their respective tenets into narrow definitions... blah blah blah.

First, "Liberalism' is not an Ideology. Collectivism is an Ideology, within which Liberalism is mired... Left-think is an unprincipled, wholly unsustainable series of rationalizations, which serve no purpose beyond isolating the individual from all responsibility for their actions. The purpose of this is to separate those individuals from the rights which those responsibilities sustain. As the purpose of collectivism is to use the collective as a means to set people who are otherwise incapable of achieving material wealth, with material wealth.

Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.

It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity which is essential to truth.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

The Fundamental "Tenets" of Left-think are: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... and that is why the Left seeks to serve 'social justice', because social justice SOUNDS like 'Justice'.

But it not only does not SERVE JUSTICE, "Social Justice" serves INJUSTICE. It is the anti-thesis of justice... thus it is a LIE.

The Left are, in every sense of the word: The Enemy of America. They are the advocates of Foreign Ideas which are Hostile to American Principle... and they are determined to separate Americans from any sense of recognition of those principles.

They are not reasonable people. They cannot be reasoned with... and there is no compromise that can be achieved which will ever render them anything less than a virus within our culture which must be destroyed, to the last adherent of such, if we're to survive as a culture.

And in terms of understand 'social justice' and its advocacy, that is all there is to it.

 

[Chris]

First George W. Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a $516 trillion dollar derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy in 2008.

Then Republicans on the Supreme Court voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions in the Citizens United decision.

Then Republicans in the House shut down the government and threatened the country with default.

Why would anyone vote for a party that hates government and continually tries to damage our country?

 

[Listening]

First George W. Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a $516 trillion dollar derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy in 2008.

Then Republicans on the Supreme Court voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions in the Citizens United decision.

Then Republicans in the House shut down the government and threatened the country with default.

Why would anyone vote for a party that hates government and continually tries to damage our country?

Ask them..they just threw your ass out of the senate.

 

[Care4all]

First George W. Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a $516 trillion dollar derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy in 2008.

Then Republicans on the Supreme Court voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions in the Citizens United decision.

Then Republicans in the House shut down the government and threatened the country with default.

Why would anyone vote for a party that hates government and continually tries to damage our country?

Ask them..they just threw your ass out of the senate.

just a mere handful did....it was the lowest participation in an election in 40 years.... all liberals have to do in 2016 is show up to vote, then your ass is grass again.... but you all know that, this is why the republicans always focus on reducing the numbers that vote, like gvt picture voter id laws and reducing the number of days early voting is available and reducing the hours of early voting, and reducing the number of voting machines in crowded democratic districts, and telling students they should stay home election day, and promoting that women shouldn't vote etc etc etc etc....

IT'S ALL ABOUT trying to STOP citizens from voting for Republicans....they know it is the only way they can win...

 

[peach174]

That was the propaganda sold to the people in order the get the programs and for the Government to run them.
And now has become riddled with fraud, corruption and abuse.
The State are able to control that better.
American Poverty Pre-Welfare State Intellectual Takeout ITO

America’s first settlers and Founders were certainly not oblivious to the problems of poverty, nor were they callous in their treatment of it. Yet they explicitly urged its alleviation by means other than the federal government. This ideology was concisely expressed by James Madison, who declared that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." And Ben Franklin once stated, "the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

Giving the poor a hand up rather than a hand out continued beyond the Founding era through a variety of private organizations and charities known as mutual aid societies. After visiting America in the early 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville made note of this phenomenon when he wrote, "Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. ... Wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association."

America’s first settlers and Founders were certainly not oblivious to the problems of poverty, nor were they callous in their treatment of it. Yet they explicitly urged its alleviation by means other than the federal government. This ideology was concisely expressed by James Madison, who declared that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." And Ben Franklin once stated, "the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society officially ushered in the modern welfare state with his declared war on poverty. Although this move did not eliminate private charity, it gradually created a national mentality that government should be counted on to provide for the poor, elderly, and disabled. As a result, dependence and spending on government relief has skyrocketed in recent decades.

Today, with America's national debt increasing at a rapid rate, many wonder how the government can continue to maintain the many welfare programs it has established. Others outright question whether or not the government's approach to welfare is effective and efficient at alleviating poverty at all.

No one since the beginning of this country has died in large numbers of poverty and starvation like many other big government controlled countries have had.

It has historically been the states that violate the rights of minorities. It has been the states that have historically been neglectful of their responsibilities towards its citizens.

It has been the states who historically have been the most corrupted by powerful interests that would turn a state into a semi-private fiefdom

You meant the Southern States that was controlled by Democrats.

You can believe that drivel or actually read up on history books.
I would suggest the latter.

Yes, the Southern States that were controlled by White Christian Conservative Democrats

Same old dirty tricks, they changed their names to liberal not their tricks.
The 19th century, Southern Democrats comprised whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they held that slavery was a good thing and promoted its expansion into the West.

After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s they controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised the blacks (who were Republicans). The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some mountain districts

The Negroes were Republicans in name only. They couldn't vote -- remember?

Your history link is so terrible it is humiliating to respond.

for one thing: "the elderly, and disabled." thing? FDR and Social Security. Whom did it cover?

Quotes by Madison and Franklin taken out of context. geeze.

Talk about not knowing history?
African Americans could vote 1865. The first one to be elected was Edward Brooke in 1966.
The 15th amendment to the US Constitution was ratified in 1870 and gave former male slaves the legal right to vote. However, many southern states added requirements such as literacy tests and poll taxes that were designed to keep blacks from voting. In 1957, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act that made it difficult to deny voting rights based on race.
African Americans were granted the right to vote in the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Taken out of Context?
The quote from Ben Franklin comes from his writtings where he is is talking about - On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1766

You say, poor labourers cannot afford to buy bread at a high price, unless they had higher wages. Possibly. But how shall we Farmers be able to afford our labourers higher wages, if you will not allow us to get, when we might have it, a higher price for our corn?
By all I can learn, we should at least have had a guinea a quarter more if the exportation had been allowed. And this money England would have got from foreigners.
But, it seems, we Farmers must take so much less, that the poor may have it so much cheaper.
This operates then as a tax for the maintenance of the poor. A very good thing, you will say. But I ask, Why a partial tax? Why laid on us Farmers only? If it be a good thing, pray, Messrs. the Public, take your share of it, by indemnifying us a little out of your public treasury. In doing a good thing there is both honour and pleasure; you are welcome to your part of both.
For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

 

[Redfish]

this is a serious question, please only reply with serious comments.

what specifically do liberals want the US to become?
Tell us exactly what you want changed, and why.

I'm a liberal and this is what I want...

I want the US to be true to its American heritage.
I want the US to live by the principles of the Founding Fathers.
I want us to honor the rule of law.
I want us to give everyone, citizen or not, due process of law.
I want everyone to be considered innocent, until proven guilty.
I want cops and government officials to pay for the crimes they've committed.
I want the US to stop starting wars of aggression.
I want corporations to have no voice in government whatsoever.​

This is what I don't want...

I don't want us torturing people.
I don't want us going for world domination.
I don't want us supporting Israel un-conditionally.
I don't want us going to war with Iran or the Russians.
I don't want Americans letting the right tell them who (and who is not) is a patriot.
I don't want the derivatives market to be legal.
​

That's the short list.

I agree with your "want" list. But most liberals will not. How about adding a "want" for an unbiased and truthful media?

As to your "don't want" list.

The US does not torture
The US has no desire to dominate the world, Success is not domination
Israel is an ally just like the UK is an ally.
No one wants war with Russia, Iran, or anyone else. But if and when they threaten the US or our allies what would you do?
Neither side should define patriotism. But anti-patriotism, like not allowing the pledge in school is easy to spot and it usually comes from the left
as to derivatives, tell your senators and congressmen.

 

[Redfish]

First George W. Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a $516 trillion dollar derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy in 2008.

Then Republicans on the Supreme Court voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions in the Citizens United decision.

Then Republicans in the House shut down the government and threatened the country with default.

Why would anyone vote for a party that hates government and continually tries to damage our country?

Ask them..they just threw your ass out of the senate.

just a mere handful did....it was the lowest participation in an election in 40 years.... all liberals have to do in 2016 is show up to vote, then your ass is grass again.... but you all know that, this is why the republicans always focus on reducing the numbers that vote, like gvt picture voter id laws and reducing the number of days early voting is available and reducing the hours of early voting, and reducing the number of voting machines in crowded democratic districts, and telling students they should stay home election day, and promoting that women shouldn't vote etc etc etc etc....

IT'S ALL ABOUT trying to STOP citizens from voting for Republicans....they know it is the only way they can win...

totally wrong. Are you so stupid that you think all the people who did not bother to vote would have voted dem?

 

[Redfish]

Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact, since 1790 the United States has had 16 banking system failures, Canada has had 0.

Now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions. This basically means legalized secret bribes.

Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.

when are you moving north?

 

[Redfish]

First George W. Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a $516 trillion dollar derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy in 2008.

Then Republicans on the Supreme Court voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions in the Citizens United decision.

Then Republicans in the House shut down the government and threatened the country with default.

Why would anyone vote for a party that hates government and continually tries to damage our country?

"destroyed the world economy" What planet do you live on? That has to get the dumb post of the day award and its still very early.

 

[Redfish]

Thanks to everyone who has posted so far on this thread. I was very serious with the question in the OP. But so far not one liberal has been able to provide a specific cogent response. Billo came the closest.

It seems to me that liberals want everyone to have the same material things, for the government to care for everyone, and for everyone to love everyone else. The want a crime free nation that takes care of the poor and destitute of the entire world.

Simply stated, liberals live in a fantasy world where everyone puts flowers in their hair and dances around the may pole singing "I'd like to buy the world a coke" and "imagine".