Why do people hate Liberals?

[Pogo]

Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.

It is the philosophy and political movement of the American democratic party and their fellow travelers in the Green, American Communist, Socialist, and Peace & Freedom parties.

Not knowing much about P&F, you seem to be lumping all the leftists you can find together and sticking them onto this "modern liberalism" label like some refrigerator magnet.

A damn good reason to reject that psychobabble term as well. Just leave terms alone. And btw it's the "Democratic" party; your failure to capitalize a simple proper noun (even when you've capitalized all the others) demonstrates your hopeless bias. A perfect illustration of this desperate attempt to redefine a perfectly valid school of thought into some kind of monster so you can then eliminate it. Voilà: dishonesty.

 

[Pogo]

Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.

It is the philosophy and political movement of the American democratic party and their fellow travelers in the Green, American Communist, Socialist, and Peace & Freedom parties.

But can we be more specific? I have teased, cajoled, requested, goaded and begged ANY proponent of modern day American liberalism to give me an example. They give me vague fuzzy concepts but nothing as specific as in the definitions I posted.

In a nutshell I see modern day liberals holding basic Marxist beliefs that it is necessary for just and righteous purposes that a strong central government take control and redistribute the national wealth which liberals think belongs to and should be shared by the collective. Modern day liberals do not trust the people to govern themselves and must be governed by a strong central authority to ensure that righteousness shall preval. Modern day liberals preach a doctrine that it is right and good that the government force the haves to share with the have nots, and that the government require all to accept a society that the liberals see as good, noble, righteous, and just.

It was these kinds of concepts that our classical liberal Founders saw as antithesis to unalienable rights and liberty and sought to free us from.

What you've just described in bold above is Leftism, not Liberalism -- and yet you want to hang the name "liberal" on it.

That is what I mean by "dishonest". And as long as you keep that up and refuse to consider any other view than your own, we'll get nowhere with this definition. And all of your protests of "I have begged, pleaded, cajoled" etc ring hollow when you choose to ignore the answers. It just keeps us in rhetorical gridlock.

Oh well. I tried. You can only lead the horse to water.

 

[Foxfyre]

Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.

It is the philosophy and political movement of the American democratic party and their fellow travelers in the Green, American Communist, Socialist, and Peace & Freedom parties.

Not knowing much about P&F, you seem to be lumping all the leftists you can find together and sticking them onto this "modern liberalism" label like some refrigerator magnet.

A damn good reason to reject that psychobabble term as well. Just leave terms alone.

I won't leave the terms alone because I am sick of the leftists in this country whittling away at our liberties, our freedoms, our choices, and our opportunities. In my opinion, refusing to define the terms is just one more way to avoid dealing with the creep of authoritarian government and the dissolution of the concepts the Founders gave us that produced the greatest nation the world has ever known.

When you refuse to define the terms, you refuse to deal with the problems that exist due to leftism/liberalism/statism/political class.

If you honestly think there are differences between these terms -- leftist, liberal, statist, political class - then why won't you define them or specify what the differences are rather than refuse to consider that your definition of 'liberalism' is quite different from 'classical liberalism' as it has been defined? You won't even accept that there is a difference between modern American liberal and classical liberal but insist there is a difference between leftist and modern American liberal? Please enlighten us what those differences are between a leftist and modern American liberal.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is the philosophy and political movement of the American democratic party and their fellow travelers in the Green, American Communist, Socialist, and Peace & Freedom parties.

But can we be more specific? I have teased, cajoled, requested, goaded and begged ANY proponent of modern day American liberalism to give me an example. They give me vague fuzzy concepts but nothing as specific as in the definitions I posted.

In a nutshell I see modern day liberals holding basic Marxist beliefs that it is necessary for just and righteous purposes that a strong central government take control and redistribute the national wealth which liberals think belongs to and should be shared by the collective. Modern day liberals do not trust the people to govern themselves and must be governed by a strong central authority to ensure that righteousness shall preval. Modern day liberals preach a doctrine that it is right and good that the government force the haves to share with the have nots, and that the government require all to accept a society that the liberals see as good, noble, righteous, and just.

It was these kinds of concepts that our classical liberal Founders saw as antithesis to unalienable rights and liberty and sought to free us from.

What you've just described in bold above is Leftism, not Liberalism -- and yet you want to hang the name "liberal" on it.

That is what I mean by "dishonest". And as long as you keep that up and refuse to consider any other view than your own, we'll get nowhere with this definition. And all of your protests of "I have begged, pleaded, cajoled" etc ring hollow when you choose to ignore the answers. It just keeps us in rhetorical gridlock.

Oh well. I tried. You can only lead the horse to water.

What I have descxribed is both leftism AND modern Ameican liberalism which is the polar opposite of 17th and 18th century and 19th century liberalism. You won't read the definitions that I provided from four separate reliable sources though, speaking of leading a horse to water. . . .

But please provide your own definition of liberalism and how it differs from leftism. And we'll see if your definition reflects the modern day liberals in America or is closer to the classical liberalism embraced by our Founders..

Again, liberal in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, in its simplest concept was this:

◾an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

◾the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

◾the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

◾the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

Do you agree with that definition?

 

[Spoonman]

I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.

Well I don't appreciate it it because I don't think classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have ANYTHING in common. Modern American liberalism is as antithesis to classical liberalism as it gets.

FALSE. Conservatism is the antithesis of any form of liberalism. You are a Marketist, the siamese twin of a Marxist.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Here is one of the patron saints of libertarians...

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

so if liberals assume people are all equal, why things like affirmative action, entitlements, special assistance given to a limited class of people? If we're all equal why not equal treatment and expectations of everyone? When will you guys start walking the talk?

 

[Spoonman]

What you call "modern liberalism" is simply leftism. it is authoritarian and collectivist - the polar opposite of "liberal."

Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.

i can sum it up in one word. Insanity

Liberal philosophies do not work. Since the 1960's, this country has been becoming more and more liberal. Are we in a better place then we were 50 years ago?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well I don't appreciate it it because I don't think classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have ANYTHING in common. Modern American liberalism is as antithesis to classical liberalism as it gets.

FALSE. Conservatism is the antithesis of any form of liberalism. You are a Marketist, the siamese twin of a Marxist.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Here is one of the patron saints of libertarians...

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

so if liberals assume people are all equal, why things like affirmative action, entitlements, special assistance given to a limited class of people? If we're all equal why not equal treatment and expectations of everyone? When will you guys start walking the talk?

They can't/won't even define the terms. They just sit there typing out objections to any concept put before them that doesn't fit the model of modern American liberalism that they 'feel' but cannot define.

And you want them to walk and talk at the same time? Just teasing a bit. It is frustrating though to try to have a conversation or discussion with people who reject every definition put before them but refuse to offer one they consider to be more correct.

And even more frustrating to try to have a conversation with people who are incapable of grasping or understanding concepts and only know how to insult, accuse, blame, criticize, and point fingers at real or presumed sins of others, past and present.

 

[Pogo]

But can we be more specific? I have teased, cajoled, requested, goaded and begged ANY proponent of modern day American liberalism to give me an example. They give me vague fuzzy concepts but nothing as specific as in the definitions I posted.

In a nutshell I see modern day liberals holding basic Marxist beliefs that it is necessary for just and righteous purposes that a strong central government take control and redistribute the national wealth which liberals think belongs to and should be shared by the collective. Modern day liberals do not trust the people to govern themselves and must be governed by a strong central authority to ensure that righteousness shall preval. Modern day liberals preach a doctrine that it is right and good that the government force the haves to share with the have nots, and that the government require all to accept a society that the liberals see as good, noble, righteous, and just.

It was these kinds of concepts that our classical liberal Founders saw as antithesis to unalienable rights and liberty and sought to free us from.

What you've just described in bold above is Leftism, not Liberalism -- and yet you want to hang the name "liberal" on it.

That is what I mean by "dishonest". And as long as you keep that up and refuse to consider any other view than your own, we'll get nowhere with this definition. And all of your protests of "I have begged, pleaded, cajoled" etc ring hollow when you choose to ignore the answers. It just keeps us in rhetorical gridlock.

Oh well. I tried. You can only lead the horse to water.

What I have descxribed is both leftism AND modern Ameican liberalism which is the polar opposite of 17th and 18th century and 19th century liberalism. You won't read the definitions that I provided from four separate reliable sources though, speaking of leading a horse to water. . . .

NO, what you've described is apples which you insist on calling "oranges".

It's the equivalent of calling your cat a "dog" and then demanding to know why your dog is purring. Because it's a cat, that's why. So stop calling it a "dog".

But please provide your own definition of liberalism and how it differs from leftism. And we'll see if your definition reflects the modern day liberals in America or is closer to the classical liberalism embraced by our Founders..

I've done that since I got to this thread. You've chosen to ignore it because it's not what you want to hear. I even outlined why those that push this fake term do so, also to deaf ears. Every time you get the answer you claim to seek, you come back with "they won't define it". It's like trying to debate Pee Wee Fricking Herman.

I'm retiring from that silly cat-and-mouse game. Foxy I love ya but one thing you are not is a good listener.

 

[Foxfyre]

What you've just described in bold above is Leftism, not Liberalism -- and yet you want to hang the name "liberal" on it.

That is what I mean by "dishonest". And as long as you keep that up and refuse to consider any other view than your own, we'll get nowhere with this definition. And all of your protests of "I have begged, pleaded, cajoled" etc ring hollow when you choose to ignore the answers. It just keeps us in rhetorical gridlock.

Oh well. I tried. You can only lead the horse to water.

What I have descxribed is both leftism AND modern Ameican liberalism which is the polar opposite of 17th and 18th century and 19th century liberalism. You won't read the definitions that I provided from four separate reliable sources though, speaking of leading a horse to water. . . .

NO, what you've described is apples which you insist on calling "oranges".

It's the equivalent of calling your cat a "dog" and then demanding to know why your dog is purring. Because it's a cat, that's why. So stop calling it a "dog".

But please provide your own definition of liberalism and how it differs from leftism. And we'll see if your definition reflects the modern day liberals in America or is closer to the classical liberalism embraced by our Founders..

I've done that since I got to this thread. You've chosen to ignore it because it's not what you want to hear. I even outlined why those that push this fake term do so, also to deaf ears.

I'm retiring from that silly cat-and-mouse game. Foxy I love ya but one thing you are not is a good listener.

Sorry. All you have provided are vague generalities and objections to the definitions I have provided. I am a sinner and fall short in many things, but one thing I am is a good listener, trained professionally to be by the way. If you have provided a definition of what you think liberalism is, you should have no problem linking to it. It is possible I missed a post somewhere, but I would bet a steak dinner that you can't do that though.

 

[Pogo]

What you call "modern liberalism" is simply leftism. it is authoritarian and collectivist - the polar opposite of "liberal."

Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.

i can sum it up in one word. Insanity

Liberal philosophies do not work. Since the 1960's, this country has been becoming more and more liberal. Are we in a better place then we were 50 years ago?

Thank you. This ^^ kind of ignorance is the price of wading around in the terminological Bullshit River.

Be proud.

 

[Foxfyre]

At least two of the previously posted definitions illustrate the distinct differences between classical liberalism and the modern American social liberalism in the present day.

Do any of our members who describe themselves as 'liberal' support any of these classical liberal concepts?

◾an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

◾the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

◾the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

◾the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

Asking the above question yet again. Somebody? Anybody?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I wouldn't say "nothing at all", but yes it is unproductive to conflate the terms.

Again, when (e.g.) Democrats oppose laws restricting who can get married and such, they are being Liberals who believe in equality. That's clear. When they start engineering equality with affirmative action programs, they're being Lefists. So there's definitely overlap. Sometimes they're Liberals; sometimes they're Leftists. It's inaccurate to describe Leftists as equivalent to Liberals, but it's equally inaccurate to say they're not related.

My main objection is to people redefining and deliberately obfuscating such terms for the sole purpose of pretending they, or their perceived "opponents" are something they're not. Because that's dishonest.

I disagree, I see them pandering to special interest groups, rather than supporting any sort of equality.

 

[Pogo]

What I have descxribed is both leftism AND modern Ameican liberalism which is the polar opposite of 17th and 18th century and 19th century liberalism. You won't read the definitions that I provided from four separate reliable sources though, speaking of leading a horse to water. . . .

NO, what you've described is apples which you insist on calling "oranges".

It's the equivalent of calling your cat a "dog" and then demanding to know why your dog is purring. Because it's a cat, that's why. So stop calling it a "dog".

But please provide your own definition of liberalism and how it differs from leftism. And we'll see if your definition reflects the modern day liberals in America or is closer to the classical liberalism embraced by our Founders..

I've done that since I got to this thread. You've chosen to ignore it because it's not what you want to hear. I even outlined why those that push this fake term do so, also to deaf ears.

I'm retiring from that silly cat-and-mouse game. Foxy I love ya but one thing you are not is a good listener.

Sorry. All you have provided are vague generalities and objections to the definitions I have provided. I am a sinner and fall short in many things, but one thing I am is a good listener, trained professionally to be by the way. If you have provided a definition of what you think liberalism is, you should have no problem linking to it. I would bet a steak dinner that you can't though.

Easy for you to say since you know I don't eat cow. And your "training" seems not to have stuck. But again, all those posts I put in this thread don't go away just because you put duct tape over them and pretend not to see them and then go "where is it".

Posts like... 1486...
1513...
Various little supplements like 1524...

- I'm not posting these all over again just so you can go "where is it".
I'm sorry, there's just no point in putting up eye charts for the blind. You're wasting my time doing that. It's damned childish.

Want an outside link?
Redefining the Political Spectrum

I've posted that before and never got feedback at all. Prolly because it's thirty pages long, but I don't believe these things have short, facile, sound bite answers and I don't believe in swallowing "new and improved" definitions just because some talk radio demagogue tells me to. So if you're up for a 30-page read, voilà. I wouldn't say I agree completely with that thing but it does at least give a good historical background. And I always prefer the historical to the hysterical.

Maybe that's just me.

 

[Foxfyre]

In fairness to Pogo, and I did mean to mention it earlier, amongst all his denial screed, he did include this one line which is the closest anybody yet has come to the definition of liberalism:

From his post #1513:
""Liberalism" means, meant, and will continue to mean, a 'laissez-faire' attitude, that government is like a referee, just there to ensure the playing field is level for the populace to act out its own interests unencumbered by government."

That is what the dictionary definition suggests and what classical liberalism is. It is NOT, however, what modern American liberalism has become.

Modern American liberalism, as manifested by those who descxribe themselves as liberals and in the 20th and 21st centuries, includes nothing laizzez-faire, in fact condemns laizzez-faire concepts. The modern day American liberal does not see government as just a referee to prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other while we live our lives as we choose, but as the agent to create the society the liberal wants the society to be.

So we have the federal government involved in school lunches and other aspects of mandatory education, who has taken control of our healthcare system, who takes from one citizen and gives it to another, who would put the entire force of the federal government to attack or persecute a citizen who doesn't toe the poltically correct line or when it can be used for political gain.

Are there any liberals in America who oppose federal involvement in education, who oppose federal redistribution of wealth, who oppose Obamacare, who oppose federal prosecution of George Zimmerman? These are just a few examples of things that a classical liberal condemns. Most modern day American liberals do not.

 

[Pogo]

Well I don't appreciate it it because I don't think classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have ANYTHING in common. Modern American liberalism is as antithesis to classical liberalism as it gets.

FALSE. Conservatism is the antithesis of any form of liberalism. You are a Marketist, the siamese twin of a Marxist.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Here is one of the patron saints of libertarians...

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

so if liberals assume people are all equal, why things like affirmative action, entitlements, special assistance given to a limited class of people? If we're all equal why not equal treatment and expectations of everyone? When will you guys start walking the talk?

Because those are Leftist concepts, not Liberal ones.

That's why I keep saying, stop calling your Ford a Chevy and then wondering why the Chevy dealer doesn't have the parts.

 

[Pogo]

In fairness to Pogo, and I did mean to mention it earlier, amongst all his denial screed, he did include this one line which is the closest anybody yet has come to the definition of liberalism:

From his post #1513:
""Liberalism" means, meant, and will continue to mean, a 'laissez-faire' attitude, that government is like a referee, just there to ensure the playing field is level for the populace to act out its own interests unencumbered by government."

That is what the dictionary definition suggests and what classical liberalism is. It is NOT, however, what modern American liberalism has become.

Modern American liberalism, as manifested by those who descxribe themselves as liberals and in the 20th and 21st centuries, includes nothing laizzez-faire, in fact condemns laizzez-faire concepts. The modern day American liberal does not see government as just a referee to prevent us from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other while we live our lives as we choose, but as the agent to create the society the liberal wants the society to be.

So we have the federal government involved in school lunches and other aspects of mandatory education, who has taken control of our healthcare system, who takes from one citizen and gives it to another, who would put the entire force of the federal government to attack or persecute a citizen who doesn't toe the poltically correct line or when it can be used for political gain.

Are there any liberals in America who oppose federal involvement in education, who oppose federal redistribution of wealth, who oppose Obamacare, who oppose federal prosecution of George Zimmerman? These are just a few examples of things that a classical liberal condemns. Most modern day American liberals do not.

Once AGAIN, and somebody else already made this point, just because somebody calls him/herself a "liberal" (or a conservative or an Irishman or a kumquat) doesn't make it so.

Is the Democratic Republic of Korea "democratic"?
Was the Democratic Republic of Congo? How 'bout the German Democratic Republic?
Are the Pennsylvania Dutch "Dutch"?
Are there really ten thousand members of the band 10,000 Maniacs?
Were the Nashville Teens from Nashville? Or Tennessee? Or even North America?
Are there any grapes in Grape Nuts? Any nuts?
Finally -- have you never heard a politician euphemize something to reach a desired effect, even if it wasn't true? Really??

​

 

[Foxfyre]

FALSE. Conservatism is the antithesis of any form of liberalism. You are a Marketist, the siamese twin of a Marxist.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Here is one of the patron saints of libertarians...

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

so if liberals assume people are all equal, why things like affirmative action, entitlements, special assistance given to a limited class of people? If we're all equal why not equal treatment and expectations of everyone? When will you guys start walking the talk?

Because those are Leftist concepts, not Liberal ones.

That's why I keep saying, stop calling your Ford a Chevy and then wondering why the Chevy dealer doesn't have the parts.

Pogo, the very site you linked makes my argument for me that language changes; the values and definitions people put on words changes. That understanding of the term 'liberal' in the mid to late 20th Century bears little resemblance to the understanding of the tem in the 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th century. Did you bother to read what is there? There is a lot of academic nonsense for sure, but the core concept is how we view our world and the words we use to define it.

But one more time: Do you agree with the following concepts all right out of the 17th century 'liberal' playbook? And do you honestly think that Americans who defne themselves as liberals today embrace these concepts?

◾an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

◾the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

◾the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

◾the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

 

[Pogo]

Actually, what it says right at the top is, and I quote:

>> 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.

... One of the first things that has to be done in order to properly understand the full spectrum of political ideas is to correct the popular misconception of the term "liberal" in America.

Page ONE, Foxy. Page ONE. At the TOP.

I can't go on with this denialism. I'll leave it there. Exit, stage left...

 

[Uncensored2008]

But can we be more specific? I have teased, cajoled, requested, goaded and begged ANY proponent of modern day American liberalism to give me an example. They give me vague fuzzy concepts but nothing as specific as in the definitions I posted.

In a nutshell I see modern day liberals holding basic Marxist beliefs that it is necessary for just and righteous purposes that a strong central government take control and redistribute the national wealth which liberals think belongs to and should be shared by the collective. Modern day liberals do not trust the people to govern themselves and must be governed by a strong central authority to ensure that righteousness shall preval. Modern day liberals preach a doctrine that it is right and good that the government force the haves to share with the have nots, and that the government require all to accept a society that the liberals see as good, noble, righteous, and just.

It was these kinds of concepts that our classical liberal Founders saw as antithesis to unalienable rights and liberty and sought to free us from.

I generally agree, but the modern left has more in common with Mussolini than with Marx. I've written on this extensively in other threads. Most of the American left has abandoned the quest for a "proletariat controlled" system of distribution, and have instead adopted support of allocation of resources by an elite conglomerate of corporate and government leaders. The modern left doesn't seek to openly nationalize business, look at GM, rather they seek a merger of the power structure of corporations with the government, as an economical way to facilitate central planning.

The goal of pooling resources and the state determining the needs of people is still there. as is the use of coercion to force the population to comply with central planning goals. Obamacare is an example, instead of doctors becoming agents of the state directly, as they are in Cuba or China, they instead are herded over to Blue Cross or Kaiser, which are virtual adjuncts of the federal government.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, what it says right at the top is, and I quote:

>> 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.

... One of the first things that has to be done in order to properly understand the full spectrum of political ideas is to correct the popular misconception of the term "liberal" in America.

Page ONE, Foxy. Page ONE. At the TOP.

I can't go on with this denialism. I'll leave it there. Exit, stage left...

But neither the article nor you have corrected it when you refuse to see what is the reality in the modern American culture. The fact IS that the modern American liberal--you know you and those guys who describe themselves as liberals--or sometimes the more socially acceptable term of 'progressives'--do NOT embrace the definition of 'liberal' that you or the article has provided.

And that is the truth whether you wish to accept it or not.

And that is why you or any other liberals posting in this thread won't even acknowledge, much less answer my simple question of whether you do or do not agree with the following concepts as the definition of 'liberalism':

◾an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

◾the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

◾the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

◾the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

If you DO agree with them, then you agree that there is no justification or constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education, healthcare, welfare, automobile bailouts, income redistribution, contraceptives, abortion, progressive tax code, marriage laws, or any other concepts of that sort. The federal government WOULD have authority to ensure that nobody was denied the ability to choose to participate in society as everybody else does as that would be a matter of recognizing and protecting unalienable rights.

If you don't agree with that then you are a modern American liberal, very different from the defintion you provided.