Liberalism

<a href="http://m-w.com" target="_blank">In a bizarre twist</a>, the definition of liberalism goes thusly:

We really should name this the liberal bashing forum, cause that is all I am seeing nowadays in here.

I wish that those who are liberals would actually practice this in their political rhetoric. Funny how conservatives defend something that is by definition part of liberalism and that liberals seem to want the opposite.

It's not so much liberalism that is the problem...it's the liberal agenda that we find troubling. And much of the liberal agenda is in direct conflict with the economic theory definition of liberalism.

Fascinating.

<a href="http://www.m-w.com" target="_blank">And for contrast...</a>
We as conservatives do not want change from an economic system of free enterprise that is the foundation upon which this Nation was built. So the modern conservative upholds an originally liberal idea.

And it seems the opposite to be true. More Government control over business, production, high taxation, regulation, etc. These things are all in direct conflict with the traditional definition of the practice of liberalism.

How bizarre.

Yet the conservative view still holds fast and steady as a rock...even to the point of defending a traditionally liberal idea.

Isn't that amazing?

But since liberals seem to feel that change is the most important thing, the language has also changed. Gone are traditions and traditional definitions. Another problem with modern liberalism.

When you move away from tradition -such as family values- you find that societal stability is the first to fall. Look at today's society. This Nation doesn't really stand a chance to last another fifty years if it keeps going on this train ride to hell it seems to be on.

And I suppose the opposite is find and dandy?

Plus, I don't see any bashing going on. Another problem with the liberal mindset...always playing the victim card. Stand up on your own feet and discuss rather than hit-n-run with a ridiculous "oh you're bashing liberals again"-type statement.

No the opposite is not fine.

And yes, it is pretty much bashing.

How could anything I said be considered bashing when all I conveyed was the traditional definition of liberalism...

Oh! Yeah...now I know! It's that whole "traditional" thing, isn't it? I see, I see. You can't accept the truth about the traditional fundamentals of liberalism are in direct conflict with your modern hyperbolized definition of liberalism.

And that conservatism defends a traditional tenet of liberalism.

For that we are tagged with the epithet bashers?

A-ma-zing.

Oh, and since this is the level to which this thread is going to be brought down I am done here and now.

Just coming through, opening a door, hearing the word liberalism, then yelling out BASHERS is not discussion.

What bashing? I see no bashing. Tony threw the first bash.

As for Stoppard's article, it looks like a lot of exaggeration designed to get one's blood to boil. Secret policemen and nannies. Whatever.

Moi? Oh, I never said I was a Liberal. I think what I think, and let it fall where it may on the political spectrum.

What is the Liberal Agenda, exactly.

After reading the posts again, I did overreact.

I'm Liberal so you can forgive me, we do that a lot right. wink

I see, sorry.

I think tolerance is certainly the most important virtue of being liberal; it's certainly the strongest resonating ideal in my life, and remains the precise reason I rejected my Presbyterian upbringing in favor of subscribing to a more inclusive ethical code, which evolves even today (I'm twenty-eight).

"The essence of liberty is not that my interests should be tolerated, but that I should tolerate yours." This is a very flowery definition, to be sure -- anodyne, as Stoppard put it -- but it's a good entry to further discussion on the liberal (or Romantic) outlook, though I think you'll find we've all got various quirks that tinctures our personal ideologies (e.g. Devin and I would both be considered "liberal" by common standards, but we seem to disagree pretty strongly on the Middle East).

I hardly see conservatives defending freedom from restraint; as a matter of fact, they tend to be the ones opposing such common-sense (IMO) moves such as gay marriage, gays adopting, abortion rights, etc.

And a fine example on this board of the person who fits right into the conservative stereotype of "just give me mine" is jabbadonut, who I've seen twice recently essentially say "as long as my stuff is OK, fuck everyone else." (Not that I'd judge all conservatives by that, but it's always nice for us namby-pamby leftists to get our negative impressions strongly reinforced).

My liberalism pretty well falls into the traditional definition, with the caveat that, given the track record of big business looking out for the public interest (ie, every man for himself), the government SHOULD exercise some control over their practices, especially in environmental concerns, and that there should be some sort of safety net (heavily reformed from the current one).

When truely inteligent people gather and speak of liberalisim, as long as they speak only the truth, what else is there to say? By its very nature when one speaks truthfully about it, one is "bashing it" by definition, as it is a supremely silly endevor. Notice I did not say school of thought. There is not much thought in liberalisim, only the intolerance of those motivated by the knowledge that there is no substance to what they advocate.

Truly, the least tolerant, the least caring and the least helpful towards other people, I have ever talked to are "liberals."

"Liberals" normally bash anything they personally don't like or understand but know that their own personal views carry no weight, so they insist their views are the same as "many other people." What nonsence!

OF course, since I am somewhat more conservative, I know how deeply this truth offends those who can't fathom the idea of their actually having to work to earn what they receive, so blast away ye of little talent and who lack the work ethic to actually earn your own way in life. Please let us know who you are.

Nice post. Your views are not mine, but then you have only seen life through your eyes, not mine. You also didn't bash. A less conservitive view than mine to be sure, but a method of communicating that lets it be know, "Here is an inteligent person with whom one could exchange ideas. Good on ya Seabass.

You seem to be getting wiser as time goes by. COme on, admit it, are you secretly converting? Are you becoming slightly more conservative? OK, just kidding, but not about your post. It was a good one.

Jabba: That was just fucking excelent! Thought I better post that before you are ripped to shreds for being so freaking logical.

Hey, jabba - could you explain why the the "abortion rights espousers" are tantamount to fascists? How are they destroying freedom again?

Just wondering.

Jabba,

I told you!

Hi, Will.

Did you read the whole thread? See, I saw I was wrong in that conclusion.

But you just had to come at me with your wild attack on my personal life, didn't you?

Roe v Wade appears to be the modern Genesis of the liberal agenda...which is patently anti-Christian, anti-life/pro-death/anti-family. Kennedy -I feel- would have voiced strong opposition to the abortion issue -which as we all have seen is the crux of modern liberalism.

Simply an observation. I'll go now because since this will be a dust-up over abortion I will not be seen near it.

But the modern basis for liberal ideology stems from Roe v Wade.

Not being sarcastic, not trying to grate nerves. But Jabba, I don't understand how you can suggest that liberals are killing "freedom" when you are suggesting that the government should be in control of women's bodies. If you are seriously suggesting that abortion rights activists are destroying freedom, what are you selling? By the way, we need not divide the issue into conservative vs. liberal, because it ain't that simple.

Kronos, that was an unfortunate and nonsensical tirade.

I don't hate you guys for thinking differently than me. Just thought I'd make that clear.

Kronos, layoff the the hypocrisy. I remember when I found a definition of conservative in the American Heritage Dictionary and you went off on me. This is almost the exact opposite of that thread...

By definition being "absolute" liberal or "absolute" conservative would get you nowhere. The mix is what is important. When it comes down to it I think conservative fiscal policy is not so bad a thing, however I am a strong believer in liberal social policy. It is a bit of a conflict but I just cant see things any other way.

Hi Kevin. I still love you, man.
But its a macho, manly kind of love.

You know what Tony? You are right and I was wrong. Sorry, Dude. This time you did not deserve it and I appologise.

[Ack! See below]

Whew!

Very good points and agree with what you are asking.

I think Liberal originally meant caring. I also think it has been perverted into an excuse to "get what I want, with no exchange now, be it votes or money."

Liberals pretend to care but offer nothing except siding with the very people who contribute the least to our society.

If you consider that if liberalism, carried out to its ultimate extreme would mean the able are really just the slaves of the unable and terminally lazy, it just makes no sense.

People being punished because they are able or simply very hard working is insanity to the nth degree.

I don't think Kennedy or any long ago liberal would go along with what many "liberals" from today advocate. It is really just Communism repackaged, (From each according to ability, to each according to need, is the very heart and soul of today's liberals and it is the very basis for Communism) but they deny this is true. Kennedy was an opponent of Communism, not a supporter.

Excellent point, and I didn't mean to come at you personally by any means, but you (who stronly identifies yourself as 'conservative', I believe) came out with 2 things that really, to me, illustrated the "every man for himself" stereotype that I generally lump the conservatives into:

Again, no problem with self-interest, but r&d and conversion to non-fossil fuel, renewable resources would result in billions, if not trillions, of dollars staying in the US, keeping US foreign policy out of the eternally fucked Middle East for oil, and have the side benefit of keeping pristine nature for your children and children's children to enjoy. Environmental concern and growth/prosperity are not mutually exclusive, IMO - though given the way they are debated, one would think they are.

And, while I was chided for it previously, I believe it needs restating: a conservative who celebrates his state federally subsidizing wealthy homeowners is more of some sort of reverse-socialist, not a conservative. So much for the elimination of deficits, tax cuts, balanced budgets, etc, so long as my state is getting more than it's share of money from the federal teat.


And thus, 'liberals' are badmouthed by the conservatives continually claiming to be in FAVOR of lower budgets and 'small' government, yet continuously running budget deficits WITHOUT doing the necessary streamlining of gov't programs and elimination of pork-barrel politics.

PC crowd, while they may have had a point in the beginning, have turned as much into 'badthink' police as any right-wing religious fundamentalist; a fine example of the left and right circling around to become the same.

But, as espoused above, the pro-lifers are the ones who shoot doctors, burn down clinics, have an "all or nothing" slash-and-burn approach to their mindset - I'd say THAT is more indicative of the fascist mindset than Planned Parenthood presenting abortion as a LEGAL option in the event of unplanned pregnancy.

And the 'liberals' you speak of, really, are ANTI-fascist - they are decidedly anti-nationalistic, anti-business; I don't know what the fuck to call them, but the traditional def of fascist doesn't quite cut it.

I think abortion is an important enough issue to merit it's own thread.

I won't deny that Roe v Wade is important in the Democratic platform, but I'd also argue that it's actually MORE important to the GOP platform, as the pro-lifers are far more hard line, and will vote for Genghis Khan should he run and declare himself "anti-abortion."

And, as to anti-family: well, if you're idea of "family" is Ward, June, Wally, and the Beav, maybe. Of course, where there's love, there's family, IMO. My immediate and extended family (on my Mom's side, cause Dad didn't stick around) is me and my mother (not a family in the conservative sense, I suppose, sense she's an unwed mother and I was born out of wedlock), my grandparents, my twice-divorced uncle with 3 adopted children and one biological (do they count as a family with the divorce?), my aunt & uncle with 2 kids (one of whom has a child born out of wedlock), and my once-divorced aunt with 2 kids (both born before she married the guy) - AND I'll include my female cousin and her partner who have a beautiful baby boy.

Now, is that any sort of family in the conservative definition? Probably not: 7 births out of marriage, 3 divorces, lesbians, race-mixing (of my cousins, one is black, 2 are of Korean descent, I'm a greasy spic), etc. But we hang together.

Not sure how you managed it, but you hit on so many false and silly cliches of conservative thinking in one small post it made my head spin.

And this is unlike conservatives how?

Extremists on both sides cling to their dogmas as though they were rock-solid; to quote Tim Rice, "we both have truths - are mine the same as yours?"

Bull-headed fundamentalism results in nothing; painting someone as 'liberal=bad' really does not move any sort of dialectic forward.

...

...

Originally posted by Burke(with help from Tom Stoppard):

To take away freedom is to take away humanness. A society in which the individual is beset by ranks of nannies, secret policemen and a hundred kinds of authority joined together to make you behave in the way you would, according to authority, voluntarily behave if only you weren't so misguided and ignorant, is, the Romantics insisted, a deeply immoral society. "The essence of liberty is not that my interests should be tolerated, but that I should tolerate yours." When we look again at this seemingly anodyne sentiment in the light of what the Romantics preached, it does take on a tremendous force, something not too far distant from Auden's "We must love one another or die". It makes tolerance not simply a desirable virtue, but a necessity.

Agree/Disagree? Is this what liberalism stands for today, in this country?

Tolerance, and love are both virtues and necessities. Without them, the web of human society would untangle beneath us. This is a rectitude to which most people, irrelevant of self-description, aspire. And sensibly so. However, values are always held to differing degrees, and it is here a line of distinction may by etched; will adherence to certain values weave a too-constrictive web and society become entangled in its own neurotic sentiment. At what point does the quixotic pursuit of tolerance become misguided romanticism.

To the extent that the polarities of modern American politics have been described(and I forget by whom) as a battle between the romantic left and hard-line religious right, I agree with this assessment(through the above premise). While boffins in the Whitehouse maintain that the verdict on evolution is still out—while giving a thumbs up to biotech?—dreamers in Berkley route undue patriotism from the campus fire department. Intolerance for intolerance may be a means to assess the liberal in society, but remains useless in respect to the individual; adequate to the general, irrelevant to the specific.

How dangerous one perceives the adonizing of 'adonyne' ideas to the American psyche to be is a fair litmus test, I suppose. A liberal would always be more liberal in embracing such sentiments.

I totally understand, my friend. Major fuck-up.

Yep, undesirables, who, in many cases, would be supported by the safety net that the conservatives seek to cut. The pro-life mindset is that all life is sacrosanct and valuable up to the point it is out of the womb.

And the other response is "how often do you hear of pro-abortion activists firebombing churches?"; the answer being: never.

I aim to please; but let's edit all the refs to conservative-think out and answer the question: Is my family's situation desirable? Is it what a family should be?

I honestly mean this, and say it without malice....I do not care.

Fine; but then let your conservative reps know you do not care about family situations.

Because that crap is what really turns me off from the GOP - 'family values' and kowtowing to the religious right. The rest is all policy that affects the country as a whole, whereas family makeup, as long as everyone in the family is OK with it, affects jack shit.

High horse? Let it be stated that I wallow in the offal with the rest of the swine and I like it, by gum.

Yep, libel/smear campaigns are a weapon solely in the quiver of the left. Take off the blinders.

And how about NAMING a denomination that supports abortion? I'll take your word at face value on it; but I am doubtful as to the veracity of that claim.

You're comparing smear campaigns with FIREBOMBINGS?

Fine; but then let your conservative reps know you do not care about family situations.

Because that crap is what really turns me off from the GOP - 'family values' and kowtowing to the religious right. The rest is all policy that affects the country as a whole, whereas family makeup, as long as everyone in the family is OK with it, affects jack shit.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Please....ONE post that does not contain a blatant falsehood or tired cliche of conservatives?
And you have to learn the distinction between a conservative and a Republican. They are not mutually exclusive.

And devil...why are you trying to pass yourself off as Will?

( he calls himself Nasty Ol' Will now. Not Old

Well, with our fantastic two-party system, the only "real" option for conservatives is the Republican party (just as the only "real" option for liberals are the Dems); forgive if I confuse the party that caters to the majority of conservatives with the conservatives, as their the leading mouthpiece for them anyway (feel free to insert "liberal" for "conservative" in the previous sentence, as the converse is definitely true).

And, IMO, cliches come from SOMEPLACE. Apparently I have the GOP (and by extension, conservative) agenda confused with the Socialists or Greens or something. Let me know where I went astray.

Heh! Busted! Big time!