Log In | Register
GENE IN MASS
"Politics is the art of serving up cow pies and convincing people they're cream pies."
Articles Posted: 24; Links Seeded: 111
Member Since: 6/2008Last Seen: 11/05/2009
Member Since: 6/2008Last Seen: 11/05/2009
102 Comments
PrintWhy did "liberal" become a curse word?
News Type: Opinion — Sat Jul 5, 2008 6:31 AM EDT
advertisement
Like many Americans, I spent Independence Day enjoying good food, time with my friends (my family is too far away to spend the day with), and fireworks. From my home in Worcester, Massachusetts, I can observe the Fourth of July display at the College of the Holy Cross without even leaving the comfort of my back porch so it's become something of an annual tradition. While observing the stunning pyrotechnics, I began to ponder the political history of our nation, particularly in the context of the current presidential election.
One can hardly read a political discussion forum without encountering comments of vitriol and blind anger towards those who dare to wear the badge of "liberal". So dirty has the word become that even liberals have stopped using it, favoring the more positive spin associated with the moniker "progressive." Naturally, changing the name we call ourselves has done nothing to stop the attacks hurled at us, and we could hardly expect otherwise. A rose by any other name, after all, still smells as sweet. But the question ought not to be "Why didn't changing our name help us," but rather, "Why are we afraid to embrace our beliefs and to wear them proudly?"
Detractors will often cry that liberalism will ruin the country; that we are pacifists bent on seeing our nation destroyed; that we would rather throw our lot in with terrorists and thugs than see America succeed. Yet, we all should comfort ourselves in the knowledge that this sort of diatribe is purely the concoction of the far right and has no basis in historical fact. Everyone who graduated high school could, if they so desired, list some of the greatest achievements liberalism has offered us, but out of habit, they choose not to do so. We liberals must not allow them to forget that our country would not be the beacon of hope for the world that it is today without the liberals of our past
Pro-war conservatives like to tell us that spreading democracy to the Middle East is our solemn duty, and that the citizens there will thank us for it one day. But could we expect our democracy to spread beyond our borders if slavery had not been abolished? Would the world take our "one voice, one vote" concept seriously if women and African Americans had not been granted the right to vote? Could we truly claim to have the answer to the racial strife that still plagues Iraq if we had not integrated our schools, ended racial discrimination in our laws, and abolished the bizarre "separate, but equal" doctrine? These advances in our social laws were all vehemently opposed by conservatives, yet they are the very advances that have made this country great, not just for those granted "greatness" by accident of birth, but for all those others who, left up to conservatives, would never have a chance to touch upon it.
Religious conservatives, oddly the most venom-filled of the group, often make the claim that liberals want to limit their freedom to worship how they choose, yet this argument displays woeful ignorance of our nation's history. In fact, if the more religious among the citizens of the American colonies had their way, there's every possibility we would not have fought the Revolution that guaranteed the very freedom they now take for granted. Some 15-20% of American colonists remained loyal to the British crown, and the largest percentage of that group were members of the Anglican Church, who were so beset by fear of Catholicism, they hailed King George and feared that a religiously free state would allow Catholic dominance to spread.(source) Further, many Quakers refused to join the revolutionary cause, choosing to remain neutral (Gottlieb, 2005.) While it's true that there were also many religious leaders and followers who felt Revolution was a path ordained by God, it is from the religious that some of the greatest dissent could be found. (Ferling, John, "A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic (2003)). Indeed, without the progressive mindset, without the belief that the status quo is not something to be maintained purely for tradition's sake, the liberties we have come to enjoy in our great society might never have come to fruition.
Social conservatives, themselves commonly identified as religious conservatives, are simultaneously the simplest and most difficult people to understand. They are fiercely patriotic, and their religion is the backbone of their lives. They are men and women of strong faith and often possess an unyielding work ethic. And certainly, their positions against issues such as abortion and gay marriage come from deeply-held beliefs that define the core of their being. But the justification for these beliefs cannot be found in law. In fact, it is these very conservatives who have, at various points throughout American history, turned their backs on the document that first outlined the liberties we, as citizens of the United States, must demand from our government: "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all mean are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable human rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Yes, for all their complaining that liberals are unpatriotic, it is the conservative movement that has consistently stood in opposition to the idea that all citizens should enjoy the same liberties, the same opportunity to find happiness. From segregation to interracial marriage, from women's rights to gay rights, from voting rights to property rights, conservatives have always stood as roadblocks, demanding that we deny freedom to all those with whom they disagree. These are the people who believe freedom of religion only applies to those who share their religious views, as demonstrated by their unrelenting efforts to codify their beliefs into our national law. It is the liberals, in blocking efforts to allow one religion's doctrine to be imposed upon all our citizens, that have truly guarded our freedoms.
Fiscal conservatives have long held the belief that sound economic policy derives entirely from a supply-side system in which the wealthiest corporations and individuals are granted the greatest tax relief, in the hope that this relief will translate into higher productivity and greater profits, which will then "trickle down" to the masses. The masses, in turn, will spend this money, thereby enhancing the financial position of all players of the game. They fail to realize that supply-side economics has largely failed to deliver on its promise (Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principals of Economics (2007)). Not only did Reagan promise us that the tax cuts he pushed through would actually pay for themselves (which turned out to be untrue), but the most recent incarnation of supply-side economics, offered by President Bush, has yielded higher unemployment and reduced productivity, the very opposite of the intended affect. On the other hand, the liberal economic policies at the heart of Roosevelt's New Deal hauled our nation out of a depression caused by the great concentration of wealth that occurred in the 1920's. More recently, Bill Clinton's economic policies gave us a GNP fully one-fourth of the entire world's output, 4% unemployment (lowest in 40 years) and 15 million new jobs. (source)
Despite all this, I would never argue that conservatives have done nothing to enhance our country. After all, Ross Perot is conservative, and he brought us Bill Clinton.
60 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Gene in Mass's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: ObamaExpress
- Regions: none
- Public Discussion (102)
- ObamaExpress
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
6.8
3.7
2.2
{"commentId":2170821,"authorDomain":"Socrates1"}
The question is always what is the proper balance of liberty vs. equality. In my opinion liberals have gone too far in the direction of equality and are too willing to give up on liberty.
{"commentId":2170821,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"Socrates1"}
#26 - Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:01 PM EDT{"commentId":2171193,"authorDomain":"Zoilus"}
That's the stupidest thing I ever read.
liberty |ˈlibərtē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
1 the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views : compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty.
equality |iˈkwälitē|
noun
the state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities : an organization aiming to promote racial equality.
Source; Merriam Oxford American Dictionary.
{"commentId":2171193,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"Zoilus"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2172026,"authorDomain":"belarius"}
The question is always what is the proper balance of liberty vs. equality.
"All animals are equal..."
In my opinion liberals have gone too far in the direction of equality and are too willing to give up on liberty.
"...but some animals are more equal than others."
-George Orwell, Animal Farm
{"commentId":2172026,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"belarius"}
{"commentId":2172069,"authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
George Orwell is referring to Stalin's rule of terror. Hardly relevant to the good ol' American style liberalism. The danger of dictatorship lurks in all directions of the political compass if a movement is taken over by usurpers. Orwell does a great job in describing the various stages or distortion.
{"commentId":2172069,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2173561,"authorDomain":"Zoilus"}
As Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, VI,c.2:
In republican governments, men are all equal; equal they are also in despotic governments: in the former because they are everything; in the latter because they are nothing.
{"commentId":2173561,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"Zoilus"}
{"commentId":2173667,"authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
Montesquieu has got this wrong since he equates a republic with democracy. A republic is merely a nation that is led by a president. thus Great Britain and the three Scandinavian countries are not republics while Germany (including the former East Germany) and France are. Iraq under Saddam was also a republic.
{"commentId":2173667,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
{"commentId":2173766,"authorDomain":"Zoilus"}
Montesquieu has got this wrong since he equates a republic with democracy.
Really? It is you who have it wrong. Very wrong. or do you also want to use the "People's Republic of China", or the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", DPRK, to use as your source for the definition of words?
republic |riˈpəblik|
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. • archaic figurative a community or group with a certain equality between its members.
democracy |diˈmäkrəsē|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives : capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world. • a state governed in such a way : a multiparty democracy. • control of an organization or group by the majority of its members : the intended extension of industrial democracy. • the practice or principles of social equality : demands for greater democracy.
Welcome to America where we use these things called dictionaries so everyone can understand what everyone else means. And not change the measning of words because we don't like what they say. What a concept. The USA is a Democratic-Republic
Democratic in the form of Local and State elections and government, from Dog Catcher to Federal elections of Congressmen and Senators in Washington, (Federal Elections are not Democratic.} Then a Republic of Free and Sovereign States, with their own State Constitutions. Every State is equally to all the others, regardless of it's size, wealth or populations, (this is why we have the Electoral College and different numbers of representatives, as an equalizer) and must honor the laws of the other States, as long as those laws adhere to the United States Constitution, "Federal Law". Any immigrant who applies for American citizenship, and has learned and passed the Citizens test knows this. Any student who did not sleep through his Civics class in the 5th grade should know this. The Democratic Party was started as the Democratic -Republican Party.
{"commentId":2173766,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"Zoilus"}
{"commentId":2173910,"authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
Yes sir, I blithely disagree with those definitions. Anyone with a president in stead of monarch can call themselves republics and not be arrested for it. But those that are not democratic republics but simple dictators like to give the impressions that they are democratic. We could probably find a long list of African and South American countries with presidents. Franco of Spain, Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Idi Amin of Uganda, presidents of republics all. By following the definitions you have supplied, you are giving credence to those dictators. Has Zimbabwe ceased to be a republic? I don't see any democracy there, but I do see a president and a republic.
Please understand, I sympathize with your definitions, I should dearly like them to be true, but we are just fooling ourselves if we think we have democracy just because a leader is calling himself president and his country a republic.
We have the word republic from Rome, a time in which democracy didn't exist as a state form. The republic fell but the Senate existed. There was no democracy in sight. Not before the fall nor after.
{"commentId":2173910,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
{"commentId":2174196,"authorDomain":"Zoilus"}
Yes sir, I blithely disagree with those definitions. Anyone with a president in stead of monarch can call themselves republics and not be arrested for it.
And your opinion on the definition of words holds more validity then the Dictionary, or Montesquieu who; along with John Locke, were the Ideological Co-Founder's of the American Constitution. You don't even know what the word "" means and you just used it. You are little more then an arrogant recusant Sir.
In The USA we don't have leaders. The word is not in our Constitution.
I don't see any democracy there, but I do see a president and a republic.
president |ˈprez(ə)dənt; ˈprezəˌdent|
noun
1 the elected head of a republican state
I read you entire post, and it is so full of sophistic obfuscatory nonsense it is upsetting to me that people can remain so unlearned in these modern times times. Don't waste any more of my time.
{"commentId":2174196,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"Zoilus"}
{"commentId":2174411,"authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
Don't waste any more of my time.
Aw chucks, I'm not getting any of those Jefferson quotes? Thinking I may have wasted your time makes me feel just...
In the US we don't have leaders.
The most powerful man in the world, the Decider, the commander guy, he's not a leader because "it's not in our Constitution". The word "leader" isn't in our constitution either. One thing is what you read, another thing is reality. Happy reading, I'll see you when you're ready to look at the world as it really is.
{"commentId":2174411,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
{"commentId":2177558,"authorDomain":"belarius"}
George Orwell is referring to Stalin's rule of terror. Hardly relevant to the good ol' American style liberalism.
You misunderstand my point. I'm suggesting that saying equality and liberty are mutually opposing, zero-sum quantities is a false dichotomy, and a dangerous one. Kind of like how the idea of a unitary executive is.
{"commentId":2177558,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"belarius"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2177574,"authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
I'm suggesting that saying equality and liberty are mutually opposing, zero-sum quantities is a false dichotomy, and a dangerous one.
Yet this belief seems to have become an integral part of US sloganeering. Castro, the brother, just said "Communism is not egalitarianism". The Chinese said: "We don't all need to get rich at the same time." Yet, when the GINI-index rises above .37, one could start wishing for a bit of the old dogma. No one is truly worth 400 times as much as someone else.
{"commentId":2177574,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2175071,"authorDomain":"Socrates1"}
As per your definition of democracy as "control by the majority of its members", Germany WWII-was the majority in favor of the Holacaust, Iraq-present day-is the majority in favor of power for the majority and no rights for the minority? "Majority rule" is not necessarily what the minority wants to hear. Regarding your comment regarding parliamentary democracies--fragmentation is much more likely to occur. Regarding the balance between liberty and equality, that has always been the question in society and government. ie. do you have the liberty to improve your position and as a result not be equal.
Somehow missed your post regarding liberalism and now can't find it, but, and I await your condescending response, but the definitions in the dictionary, which, as you stated can be manipulated as in the "People's Republic" do not necessarily meet the question which was originally asked of when did liberalism become a bad word. You may not understand it, but it is the patronizing and "I know what you need and want better than you do" attitude of liberals and there willingness to use government to impose their will on others which has resulted in liberals (use the dictionary if you wish),and liberalism as in what most people consider the term to mean, to be seen as a dirty word.
{"commentId":2175071,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"Socrates1"}
#27 - Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:16 PM EDT{"commentId":2175449,"authorDomain":"Zoilus"}
Another anarchist....When the government fears the people, that is LIBERTY. When people fear the government, that is TYRANNY. Majority rule" does not need the minority to agree. Just calling a Country a Democracy does not make it so. Hitler declared himself Chancellor for life, after discrediting or intimidating all his opposition, so was not a Democracy any more. That's when the 'Final solution" began, the Majority didn't know what was going on, I'm German, my Grandfather is a German war orphan.
Do you have the liberty to improve your position and as a result not be equal.
Can you make a more ambiguous convoluted statement? It's very simple....Freedom without obligation is anarchy. Freedom with obligation is democracy.
Earl Riney
To answer your question as closely as I think you tried to convey it, Yes, I can earn a million dollars, get a Lobotomy and we will be equally as stupid.
That's not what equality means, We are born equal, nothing more. What you do with it is up to you and your abilities.
So maybe I can run faster, or maybe I'm smarter. Don't expect me to wait for you to catch up.
...and liberalism as in what most people consider the term to mean, to be seen as a dirty word.
By "Most people"? you mean The far-Right! And Only because we let the Right redefine the word over the last 200 years of propaganda. Once you allow your opposition to redefine what you are and what you stand for, they will have beaten you. You have not beaten us yet. And never will. Because you fight human nature, what is innate.
Liberal/Progressive whatever we call ourselves, it is not an ideology. It is what the "center" is the silent majority of the common people.
"I must study politics and war, that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, natural history and naval architecture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, tapestry, and porcelain." John Adams
All I want is to live in peace with my neighbors, and raise my Children to be as happy and grow into the best that they are capable of becoming, r'aison d'etre, and live in society that allows this.
Not force.. every normal sane responsible person wants this, for themselves and for everyone else. This is and has always been, Liberalism, working for the day when everyone has an equal opportunity. No, everyone is not and never will be equal. There are lots of people smarter then me, you just don't happen to be one of them, I did not have anything to do with your shortcomings, no force was involved. But if you deny this right to pursue this goal to becoming the best they are capable of being to anyone else, to stand in their way, or take away what they have achieved, this is a right you don't have. You don't have this "Liberty", and this is Anarchy". The use force always comes from a very few egomaniacs, or their spoiled brat aristocratic children, and the corporate Dynasties they run, who because of their delusional self righteousness paranoia fear and avarice, will never feel safe even after they dominate and control everyone and everything, and those who think that it is their 'Divine Right" to rule asre the most insane of them all. The greatest fallacy of democracy is that everyone's opinion is worth the same.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. — The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world........
{"commentId":2175449,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"Zoilus"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2176263,"authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
Please mark your quotes as such, Dan. That may be a Newsvine rule, but it also custom and requirement elsewhere. A special button above the upper edge of the "write comment"-field is provided for this purpose. the button marked "quote". Activate the text you are quoting, then click on the appropriate button. By not marking your quotes you are committing plagiarism and can get this website into trouble with those that hold the copyright. In addition you may also name your source and even provide a link to it, if the text you are quoting is available on the web. Happy quoting!
{"commentId":2176263,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
{"commentId":2176460,"authorDomain":"Zoilus"}
Please mark your quotes as such, Dan
If you can't tell the Declaration of Independence when you see it, then what are you doing here? Don't waste my time.
{"commentId":2176460,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"Zoilus"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2176759,"authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
You are the one wasting our time by not marking your quotes. I was referring to your use of The Declaration of Independence. That is why I knew you were quoting. Once you fail to mark a quote, we can not be sure what other unmarked quotes you are using. I am noting that you failed to mark your quote(-s?) and also refuse to do so when this is brought to your attention.
You have twice asked me not to "waste your time". If your time is so precious (are you dying?) then your time is better spent doing other things than discussing topics on Newsvine. Do you have some schedule, some set goal that you need to achieve within a certain time limit?
{"commentId":2176759,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
{"commentId":2178139,"authorDomain":"Zoilus"}
Straw man.
{"commentId":2178139,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"Zoilus"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2183761,"authorDomain":"gbixler"}
{"commentId":2184159,"authorDomain":"Zoilus"}
Gene, Thanks, this is a very good discussion, mostly... and that is exactly why you don't quote the DoI. Also you never misquote it as well. It is a document Of the People, for the People and by the People, Not some King. How liberal is that? :). and like I said, it's just a strawman from an recusant troll... •·¿•·
{"commentId":2184159,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"Zoilus"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2182999,"authorDomain":"Socrates1"}
Quotations are from Roy C. Macridis' book Contemporary Political Ideologies. 1983 edition which indicates these ideas and definitions are not particularly recent. I use these quotes to show that my previous statements as well as my views are not only my own, but are widely accepted in academic and political discussion circles.
1. I have already answered the question, just because you don't like the answer and/or wish to change definitions does not change the facts. Unfortunately, as I will show, there are those who wish to use the nineteenth century definition of "liberal" as a way to bring credit to today's "liberal".
2. pg22. Originally liberalism was associated with "laissez-faire" ideology and was "...a pure and simple individualistic ethic."
3. pg36. regarding my comments on democracy, republic, etc. "The government is both limited and responsible. But the idea of limitations is far more important than that of popular sovereignty. The United States Constitution established a republic, not a democracy."
4. pg38. Discusses John Stuart Mill's, On Liberty. "#1. That every restraint imposed by the State is bad." This is even close to today's liberal thinking??? Suggestion-read On Liberty.
5. pg73. Regarding my question regarding equality vs. liberty. "1. "Liberty" is more important to conservatives than "equality"." No matter which side you come down on, clearly it is a valid discussion.
6. The split in definitions became more pronounced with FDR. pg 85. "...(FDR) that accounted for the change in terms.." a little out of order.
7. pg83. The US is a "...government of laws not men..."
8. pg83. "...It is a republic and not a democracy..."
9. pg84. Basically the system in place is meant to check not only government, but also the tyranny of the majority.
10. pg84. "...The framers were afraid of "the people", the majority......"
11. pg85. "...They..(Conservatives)..are, in fact, liberals who subscribe by and large to the tenets of nineteenth-century liberalism..." TA DA.
12. pg85. "...Until 1935 they (Conservatives) were the liberals..." In other words those who continued to espouse the ideals of the liberals became known as the Conservatives.
13. In essense, much of what made the liberal philosophy so appealing to the majority of Americans was increasingly rejected by the "liberals" as they continued to move further and further to the left. The people who had supported not the "liberals", but rather the ideas that the "liberals" stood for stayed with the ideas which were now being increasingly supported by the Conservatives. Polls began to show that more and more of the citizenry labeled themselves as Conservative. The liberals now want the credit for something which they no longer espouse. It is not a semantic problem as this essay and many "liberals" seem to think (because they know better than us), but rather a real rejection of their new far left positions.
{"commentId":2182999,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"Socrates1"}
#28 - Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:18 AM EDT{"commentId":2183906,"authorDomain":"gbixler"}
{"commentId":2192868,"authorDomain":"Socrates1"}
Actually no, as I believe most, if not all, of my comments started with the fact that the original question was why did "liberal" become a curse word. The answer was that the labels have changed and present day liberals are not the liberals of yesteryear.
I than went on to address, as you suggest, the sidetrack issues. Reread your Mill philosophy and you will find that, yes, he began to move towards the left, but I doubt he would be today's liberal.
Regarding liberty vs equality. I didn't say they couldn't co-exist. I said that there is a constant tension between the two--which is in fact the dominating question of liberals through the years if you think about it.
Regarding 11 and 12, those quotes referred back, in the book, to Conservatives and or neo-Conservatives, not Republicans---Take it up with the author.
Lincoln-His legacy is actually mixed. Of course one cannot argue that he was in favor of state's rights vs Federal. As we know, his primary goal was also not the freedom of the slaves. His was much more pragmatic than I see with either the present day Rep's or Dem's and I believe much less self serving in his outlook.
Back to J.S.Mill, his original philosophy was much more "liberal" prior to becoming utilitarian which began the process of liberals moving farther and farther to the left.
{"commentId":2192868,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"Socrates1"}
#29 - Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:52 PM EDT{"commentId":2193233,"authorDomain":"Socrates1"}
Just a note, I am not against "rights to the minorities", the problems come from, are we all guaranteed equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, or some other equality? An example would be in education--all kids same everything--equality of input--or some kids extra tutoring--equality of output. Just a short example. If you will note though, here I do digress, my responses were directed towards the original question or statements others made during the discussion which I believe to be false.
{"commentId":2193233,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"Socrates1"}
#30 - Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:37 PM EDT{"commentId":4261447,"authorDomain":"billhoner9"}
Liberalism as Evil: “The 30 year old Republican Con Game Failed in 2008”
by Bill Honer
The Republican confidence game began in earnest with Ronald Reagan, whose administration redistributed the wealth in America in favor of the rich through the passage of three tax cuts that increased the wealth of the top one percent of Americans from 25% to 37% of the total wealth of te nation.
The rich had ample reason to vote for him, but their numbers have never been sizable enough to elect a president. Reagan needed the votes of lower and middle income citizens. Given the fact that he was not prepared to offer them substantial benefits, how did he attract their vote?
He did so by selling them on the deeply flawed idea that “Government isn’t the solution, government is the problem.”, while ignoring the numerous benefits, such as Social Security, unemployment benefits, educational support, and housing assistance that had helped millions of Americans during the 20th century.
Indeed, post-World War II housing and education programs created wealth and educational opportunities for the middle class that were previously unavailable. In the face of this myriad of services and benefits, how could he sell the American people on the notion that government per se was a problem? Of course, improving government services and responsiveness is a perennial problem, but not the presence of government itself, which the Constitution states exists “to promote the general welfare”.
Prior to his administration, the percentage of wealth controlled by the top one percent had remained relatively constant since World War II. However, by the time Reagan left office, the top 10% of Americans controlled more than 65% of the wealth, a higher level of inequality of wealth than in any advanced nation in the world.
President Reagan followed a policy of “borrow and spend” in order to pay for the costs of government rather than have his wealthy masters pay more of the current societal costs.
When he left office, the federal deficit had ballooned to more than $200 billion. Similar large deficits occurred with George H. Bush and George W. Bush. In each case, the deficit at the time of their departure exceeded $200 billion.
When the Democrat Bill Clinton left office, the treasury contained a surplus of $200 billion. That surplus was promptly squandered by President Bush through the 2001 tax cut of $1 trillion, of which $500 billion, or 50%, went to those with incomes in excess of $330,000 per year.
The success of the con game lies, in part, in the American experience during the 19th century that resulted in traditions of anti-intellectualism and rugged individualism that have continued to resonate with some conservatives to the present-day. It is often expressed through calls for patriotism, love of country, and personal responsibility, while barely giving lip service to programs that elevate the quality of life of ordinary Americans. The popularity of Sarah Palin, in the face of her public humiliation over her lack of knowledge is strong evidence that anti-intellectualism remains alive and well in America.
Phrases that resonate with many lower and middle income American conservatives include “why should I send my money to Washington? or “why should I have to pay for someone else’s health care?” In these questions, there is an implicit rejection by conservatives of a shared society within America and a sense of community among its people. It is also, by the standards of the advanced nations of the world, a crude and barbaric view.
American conservatives are overwhelmingly white. Indeed the Republican Convention floor was filled with so many white faces that one commentator noted it was an ideal place to play “Where’s Waldo?”, with Waldo being a person of color. However, the days of white domination of the electorate are clearly numbered.
According to the U.S. Census projections, 62% of Americans will be persons of color by 2042. Given the continued anti-intellectual and individualistic sensibilities of many white American conservatives, the Republican Party will continue to lose power without increased inclusiveness in its policies that extend beyond the colors of red, white and blue.
Bill Honer is co-author of “Adult Education for the Homeless” (Miller-Freman Inc. 1999 San Francisco)will be a day’s, and is the former producer and host of the Sacramento cable television program “Social Issues.” He can be contacted at billhoner9@gmail.com or at his website “Liberal Ideas in American Society”
{"commentId":4261447,"threadId":"306519","contentId":"1640343","authorDomain":"billhoner9"}
#31 - Tue Dec 2, 2008 2:41 PM EST{"canLink":false,"threadId":"306519","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
