What Leftism Does to People

[Foxfyre]

The left is the yin to the right's yang, and anything left unchecked will screw up given enough time...and given that humans are in control of it. Unchecked Rightism would destroy this country too.

I would agree that those who corrupt the system and use it to enhance their own personal power, prestige, influence, and fortune can be from the left or right. Neither those left or right are intentionally dishonest or immoral by default nor are they automatically commendable and virtuous. And when those on the right presume to be as coercive and authoritarian as those on the left, yes, you can get bad policy, bad government, and bad people.

But I honestly believe that modern American conservatism, i.e. classical liberalism as the Founders believed and taught it, is the ONLY vehicle and protector of the very best of human liberty, spirit, creativity, innovation, initiative, and genius.

The only virtue I can find in leftism is that it sometimes reminds us of short term consequences that it is important to keep in mind when making policy.

 

[bobcollum]

The left is the yin to the right's yang, and anything left unchecked will screw up given enough time...and given that humans are in control of it. Unchecked Rightism would destroy this country too.

How, by letting people keep too much of their paychecks?

Is that what Republicans do? I hadn't noticed.

 

[bripat9643]

How, by letting people keep too much of their paychecks?

Is that what Republicans do? I hadn't noticed.

You mean it's the Democrats who are always getting blamed for the deficit by cutting taxes?

You nicely avoided explaining how "too much rightism" would destroy this country.

 

[grunt11b]

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[The T]

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

*Yep*. (As long as that dismisses classical liberals such as yourself and me)

 

[grunt11b]

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

*Yep*. (As long as that dismisses classical liberals such as yourself and me)

Fo'shizzle my nizzle.

 

[bobcollum]

How, by letting people keep too much of their paychecks?

Is that what Republicans do? I hadn't noticed.

You mean it's the Democrats who are always getting blamed for the deficit by cutting taxes?

There will always be taxes. It's just going to happen, and voting Republican isn't a one-way ticket to 'no taxation land'.

You nicely avoided explaining how "too much rightism" would destroy this country.

Explain how it would work out. Provide me with examples of anything that was perfectly ideal and lasted forever.

 

[Ropey]

The left is the yin to the right's yang, and anything left unchecked will screw up given enough time...and given that humans are in control of it. Unchecked Rightism would destroy this country too.

I would agree that those who corrupt the system and use it to enhance their own personal power, prestige, influence, and fortune can be from the left or right. Neither those left or right are intentionally dishonest or immoral by default nor are they automatically commendable and virtuous. And when those on the right presume to be as coercive and authoritarian as those on the left, yes, you can get bad policy, bad government, and bad people.

But I honestly believe that modern American conservatism, i.e. classical liberalism as the Founders believed and taught it, is the ONLY vehicle and protector of the very best of human liberty, spirit, creativity, innovation, initiative, and genius.

The only virtue I can find in leftism is that it sometimes reminds us of short term consequences that it is important to keep in mind when making policy.

There needs to be some separation.

• Too much center from the right....
• Too much FAR left from the left center....

imho

 

[The T]

Is that what Republicans do? I hadn't noticed.

You mean it's the Democrats who are always getting blamed for the deficit by cutting taxes?

There will always be taxes. It's just going to happen, and voting Republican isn't a one-way ticket to 'no taxation land'.

You nicely avoided explaining how "too much rightism" would destroy this country.

Explain how it would work out. Provide me with examples of anything that was perfectly ideal and lasted forever.

Can't and won't happen...EVER.

Human history precludes anything WE are doing now, albiet the founders gave it thier best try as the most perfect human endeavour to date...BEST example is the Roman Empire...followed by the Brits(a remnant of the same)...that have gone the socialist route and failed.

So why the all-fired RUSH to expedite the same here when the ideals of the founders have been over-ridden with Statist/Progressive ideals that have sunk previous attempts?

My contention here is that those in power didn't like being responsible and beholden to the people...so in the early 1900's the Progressives got hold of the reigns of power and gave up the formula to follow the path to failure. (Albiet incremental...devistaing in it's affect on what the Founders gave us).

The Progressives gave us a new script in 1913.

 

[Foxfyre]

IMHO I see modern American conervatism, i.e. classical liberalism, as perfect a concept as humankind is likely to develop. A system in which the government will secure, protect, and defend the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

Will there still be all the weaknesses and ugliness that humankind can devise in such a system? Of course there will. But history has shown that more often than not, when left in complete liberty to choose, we humans generally get around to doing the right thing.

Modern American liberalism and leftism around the world in general seems to develop mostly dependence on the government and a sense of entitlement. The government is looked to for repair of all social ills, to order the society the leftist wants to have, and to provide what the leftist cannot or does not wish to provide for himself/herself. And after awhile, the leftist no longer knows how to provide for himself/herself and feels helpless without the umbrella of the nanny state.

So then, when the government, who must take from the people in order to provide all that, is no longer able to do so, and attempts to pull back, the people, used to their entitlements and having the expectations met, will generally revolt, riot, commit civil disobedience expecting the government to perform the magic that it has previously done. No effort to understand or be realistic or honest is evident. Only that the government is taking away some of their security blanket and binky comfort and they won't allow it.

And it is THAT to which Klavan refers when he says that "leftism makes people awful."

 

[bobcollum]

You mean it's the Democrats who are always getting blamed for the deficit by cutting taxes?



You nicely avoided explaining how "too much rightism" would destroy this country.

Explain how it would work out. Provide me with examples of anything that was perfectly ideal and lasted forever.

Can't and won't happen...EVER.

Human history precludes anything WE are doing now, albiet the founders gave it thier best try as the most perfect human endeavour to date...BEST example is the Roman Empire...followed by the Brits(a remnant of the same)...that have gone the socialist route and failed.

So why the all-fired RUSH to expedite the same here when the ideals of the founders have been over-ridden with Statist/Progressive ideals that have sunk previous attempts?

My contention here is that those in power didn't like being responsible and beholden to the people...so in the early 1900's the Progressives got hold of the reigns of power and gave up the formula to follow the path to failure. (Albiet incremental...devistaing in it's affect on what the Founders gave us).

The Progressives gave us a new script in 1913.

By "Progressives" I'm assuming you mean the wealthy elite, the same people that the right so staunchly defend.

Politicians come and go, but the corporations are the only ones still around from those days...but most have different names.

 

[Ropey]

IMHO I see modern American conervatism, i.e. classical liberalism, as perfect a concept as humankind is likely to develop. A system in which the government will secure, protect, and defend the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

I would tend to agree if one could follow anything classical to perfection. It's the best system in the political cycle (so far) and again imho. This is the reasoning for the creation of the two party system based in the right to climb up the tree AND not have the climber pelted down by those who can not climb and do not wish to eat the apples that fall.

They fail to see that those who climb up the tree (in this system) toss apples down and this too creates a balancing act when seen correctly. The concept of "Trickle Down" is the concept of America and "Trickle Up" is shaking the tree down and will hurt the US imo.

I'm not as interested in why's and wherefores nearly as much as how. How to get the train back on the track?

Will there still be all the weaknesses and ugliness that humankind can devise in such a system? Of course there will. But history has shown that more often than not, when left in complete liberty to choose, we humans generally get around to doing the right thing.

I'm not so sure of that. When countries are threatened and powerful, they generally get around to doing what their culture has shown they will likely do again.

Modern American liberalism and leftism around the world in general seems to develop mostly dependence on the government and a sense of entitlement. The government is looked to for repair of all social ills, to order the society the leftist wants to have, and to provide what the leftist cannot or does not wish to provide for himself/herself. And after awhile, the leftist no longer knows how to provide for himself/herself and feels helpless without the umbrella of the nanny state.

I agree.

So then, when the government, who must take from the people in order to provide all that, is no longer able to do so, and attempts to pull back, the people, used to their entitlements and having the expectations met, will generally revolt, riot, commit civil disobedience expecting the government to perform the magic that it has previously done. No effort to understand or be realistic or honest is evident. Only that the government is taking away some of their security blanket and binky comfort and they won't allow it.

And it is THAT to which Klavan refers when he says that "leftism makes people awful."

If the Democrats were to win three or more terms I would be far more worried. But then I'm not American.

 

[Foxfyre]

IMHO I see modern American conervatism, i.e. classical liberalism, as perfect a concept as humankind is likely to develop. A system in which the government will secure, protect, and defend the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

I would tend to agree if one could follow anything classical to perfection. It's the best system in the political cycle (so far) and again imho. This is the reasoning for the creation of the two party system based in the right to climb up the tree AND not have the climber pelted down by those who can not climb and do not wish to eat the apples that fall.

They fail to see that those who climb up the tree (in this system) toss apples down and this too creates a balancing act when seen correctly. The concept of "Trickle Down" is the concept of America and "Trickle Up" is shaking the tree down and will hurt the US imo.

I'm not as interested in why's and wherefores nearly as much as how. How to get the train back on the track?

Will there still be all the weaknesses and ugliness that humankind can devise in such a system? Of course there will. But history has shown that more often than not, when left in complete liberty to choose, we humans generally get around to doing the right thing.

I'm not so sure of that. When countries are threatened and powerful, they generally get around to doing what their culture has shown they will likely do again.

Modern American liberalism and leftism around the world in general seems to develop mostly dependence on the government and a sense of entitlement. The government is looked to for repair of all social ills, to order the society the leftist wants to have, and to provide what the leftist cannot or does not wish to provide for himself/herself. And after awhile, the leftist no longer knows how to provide for himself/herself and feels helpless without the umbrella of the nanny state.

I agree.

So then, when the government, who must take from the people in order to provide all that, is no longer able to do so, and attempts to pull back, the people, used to their entitlements and having the expectations met, will generally revolt, riot, commit civil disobedience expecting the government to perform the magic that it has previously done. No effort to understand or be realistic or honest is evident. Only that the government is taking away some of their security blanket and binky comfort and they won't allow it.

And it is THAT to which Klavan refers when he says that "leftism makes people awful."

If the Democrats were to win three or more terms I would be far more worried. But then I'm not American.

But I'm not talking Democrat or Republican here as you have leftists and conservatives in both parties. In the society the Founders wanted for us, there is no caste system and no winners or losers. There are only those who choose well and who take advantage of the opportunities they find or make for themselves, and those who do not. And they saw it as the choice of those who chose well to decide whether or how much they will assist those who chose badly. It is not for the government to decide that for them.

In the classical liberal/MAC world the Founders gave us you find the narrow minded, bigoted, and harshly unyielding types like the Puritans with their enforced fundamentalist religion, scarlet letters, stocks, witch hunts, and humorlous/joyless society. They were free to have that which they wanted. Nobody could tell them they were not allowed to set whatever rules they wished.

But they were not free to impose that on anybody else. Nor were they free to forbid anybody from removing themselves from that austere society. And then we watched the phenomenon of people living for the first time under freedom and self governance shake off the prior social shackles. By the end of the 18th Century, none of those little theocracies or the ugliness associated with them still existed. The people themselves saw fit to dissolve them. And the federal government, even if it had been allowed to which it wasn't, didn't have to lift a finger to make that happen.

For the last hundred years or so, we have had more and more authoritarian government that no longer respected a freedom that allowed people to govern themselves. Leftism has become more and more entrenched in government, media, education, and social policy to the point that if we don't turn that around soon, we will lose the intent and protections of the Constitution altogether.

And like the leftist people of Europe we will all probably become AWFUL when the government is no longer able to order the society we think we want and is unable to give us what we come to believe is our right to have.

 

[L.K.Eder]

this useless troll thread is still alive?

has a cure for leftism found yet?

lobotomy?

 

[Ropey]

IMHO I see modern American conervatism, i.e. classical liberalism, as perfect a concept as humankind is likely to develop. A system in which the government will secure, protect, and defend the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

I would tend to agree if one could follow anything classical to perfection. It's the best system in the political cycle (so far) and again imho. This is the reasoning for the creation of the two party system based in the right to climb up the tree AND not have the climber pelted down by those who can not climb and do not wish to eat the apples that fall.

They fail to see that those who climb up the tree (in this system) toss apples down and this too creates a balancing act when seen correctly. The concept of "Trickle Down" is the concept of America and "Trickle Up" is shaking the tree down and will hurt the US imo.

I'm not as interested in why's and wherefores nearly as much as how. How to get the train back on the track?

I'm not so sure of that. When countries are threatened and powerful, they generally get around to doing what their culture has shown they will likely do again.

I agree.

So then, when the government, who must take from the people in order to provide all that, is no longer able to do so, and attempts to pull back, the people, used to their entitlements and having the expectations met, will generally revolt, riot, commit civil disobedience expecting the government to perform the magic that it has previously done. No effort to understand or be realistic or honest is evident. Only that the government is taking away some of their security blanket and binky comfort and they won't allow it.

And it is THAT to which Klavan refers when he says that "leftism makes people awful."

If the Democrats were to win three or more terms I would be far more worried. But then I'm not American.

But I'm not talking Democrat or Republican here as you have leftists and conservatives in both parties. In the society the Founders wanted for us, there is no caste system and no winners or losers. There are only those who choose well and who take advantage of the opportunities they find or make for themselves, and those who do not. And they saw it as the choice of those who chose well to decide whether or how much they will assist those who chose badly. It is not for the government to decide that for them.

In the classical liberal/MAC world the Founders gave us you find the narrow minded, bigoted, and harshly unyielding types like the Puritans with their enforced fundamentalist religion, scarlet letters, stocks, witch hunts, and humorlous/joyless society. They were free to have that which they wanted. Nobody could tell them they were not allowed to set whatever rules they wished.

But they were not free to impose that on anybody else. Nor were they free to forbid anybody from removing themselves from that austere society. And then we watched the phenomenon of people living for the first time under freedom and self governance shake off the prior social shackles. By the end of the 18th Century, none of those little theocracies or the ugliness associated with them still existed. The people themselves saw fit to dissolve them. And the federal government, even if it had been allowed to which it wasn't, didn't have to lift a finger to make that happen.

For the last hundred years or so, we have had more and more authoritarian government that no longer respected a freedom that allowed people to govern themselves. Leftism has become more and more entrenched in government, media, education, and social policy to the point that if we don't turn that around soon, we will lose the intent and protections of the Constitution altogether.

And like the leftist people of Europe we will all probably become AWFUL when the government is no longer able to order the society we think we want and is unable to give us what we come to believe is our right to have.

I don't see that sense of urgency that you do. I've discussed the view that a dictatorship will follow this US Democracy, however I disagree since historically they follow from too much freedom and not restrictions since restrictive societies deal with their liberals from behind their protective structures.

Historically it is shown that freedom allowed by a very liberal agenda brings about dictatorship. There is no calculus for the American political cycle. Would that there was, but it has yet to be taken to a successful or unsuccessful conclusion and there's no model to follow.

This is that balancing act I spoke of and is called the two party system and both sides need to find their roots. I see that the Republican party is being reined back into the grassroots by their grassroots. I see the opposite happening to the Democrats.

So one side is being pulled back to their roots and the other side is moving away from their roots and this is a cross-generational cultural political movement.

These are interesting times ahead and not fearful times.

 

[The T]

Explain how it would work out. Provide me with examples of anything that was perfectly ideal and lasted forever.

Can't and won't happen...EVER.

Human history precludes anything WE are doing now, albiet the founders gave it thier best try as the most perfect human endeavour to date...BEST example is the Roman Empire...followed by the Brits(a remnant of the same)...that have gone the socialist route and failed.

So why the all-fired RUSH to expedite the same here when the ideals of the founders have been over-ridden with Statist/Progressive ideals that have sunk previous attempts?

My contention here is that those in power didn't like being responsible and beholden to the people...so in the early 1900's the Progressives got hold of the reigns of power and gave up the formula to follow the path to failure. (Albiet incremental...devistaing in it's affect on what the Founders gave us).

The Progressives gave us a new script in 1913.

By "Progressives" I'm assuming you mean the wealthy elite, the same people that the right so staunchly defend.

Politicians come and go, but the corporations are the only ones still around from those days...but most have different names.

By progressive? I mean Marxist...Communist...Socialist.

Any other questions?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Can't and won't happen...EVER.

Human history precludes anything WE are doing now, albiet the founders gave it thier best try as the most perfect human endeavour to date...BEST example is the Roman Empire...followed by the Brits(a remnant of the same)...that have gone the socialist route and failed.

So why the all-fired RUSH to expedite the same here when the ideals of the founders have been over-ridden with Statist/Progressive ideals that have sunk previous attempts?

My contention here is that those in power didn't like being responsible and beholden to the people...so in the early 1900's the Progressives got hold of the reigns of power and gave up the formula to follow the path to failure. (Albiet incremental...devistaing in it's affect on what the Founders gave us).

The Progressives gave us a new script in 1913.

By "Progressives" I'm assuming you mean the wealthy elite, the same people that the right so staunchly defend.

Politicians come and go, but the corporations are the only ones still around from those days...but most have different names.

By progressive? I mean Marxist...Communist...Socialist.

Any other questions?

damn, i thought you meant "statist".

you also disappointed me by not presenting "Whom, whom whom".

will you at least run for president?

 

[francoHFW]

Anywhere else in the world, Dems would be seen as centrist and moderate at most. Pubs are seen as off the wall.

 

[logical4u]

Anywhere else in the world, Dems would be seen as centrist and moderate at most. Pubs are seen as off the wall.

Maybe that is why the USA is like no where else in the world! Thank you very much

 

[Ropey]

Anywhere else in the world, Dems would be seen as centrist and moderate at most. Pubs are seen as off the wall.

Maybe that is why the USA is like no where else in the world! Thank you very much

Edit