In search of the Liberal mindset

[NeoV]

wow

let me first offer a congrats to most of the respondants in this thread - this may be one of the best threads we've had on here in a while in terms of composition, thought (not the lack of Rip postings to take this stat down), and civility I've see in some time...

Similar to an earlier poster, I'm a bit concerned that I agree with some of the things Cad has said in this post, and to a much smaller extent, some of what CWJ has said..

I'm not sure you can compare liberalism in the 30's-50's to today though. Back then liberals had sweeping changes in mind, which were accomplished with a good amount of effort - I think the liberal 'idealogy' today lacks a central impetus to get the momentum going - I agree that this recent election was about being Anti-Administration - which in and of itself is a good thing IMO, but it really doesn't have it's own legs to stand on.

I think that in addition to needing much stronger leadership, and I agree that Obama is one of the few bright stars in this party right now, until some new issues capture the attention of this country, the liberals will have a difficult time winning barring extreme external events, like another 9/11 incident, in which case most of the other issues get tossed aside, like this past election.



Last thing - CWJ, thank you for sparing us from the "liberal elite" bombs you usually toss around!

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Centinel
1EZduzzit:

What really pissed me off about this last election was how the Libertarian and Green candidates were left out of the debates even after petitioning to be included.

Hey, they may have been looney, but they have should have the opportunity to be looney on national TV just like Bush and Kerry.

big :thumbsup:
I would have really liked to have seen Liebermann and Nader tear bushie and herman munster new a-holes... what would they have to lose?
We really could use fresh honest voices in a sea of career politicians.
Give it a few terms and who knows we may have a valid 3rd or 4th party.....

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: cwjerome



In search of the Liberal mindset

You will find it in this Thread

This is the great liberal victory.

:disgust:

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: cwjerome



In search of the neoconservative mindset

You will find it in this

This is the great neocon failure.

:disgust:

Fixed

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Centinel
Sorry for the rant, I just figured I would try to explain myself better....I tend to be on the "other" side from most posters here because I quite frankly find a veeeeery large bias here towards the left. What I mean by bias is a inherent ability to see every single flaw in the right, ignore any of the good from the right, and ignore any problems of the left.

The trouble with the right, though, is the momentum of the GOP is to move further and further to the right. That *should* mean greater fiscal responsibility as well as socially conservative. However, what we're seeing is the fiscal aspect being tossed aside in a dangerous manner and the social conservatism deepening. This is relatively new ground in modern times and it threatens this nation on a number of fronts.

At the same time, there are some in the DNC that want to moderate from the more socially-minded.

Is this the beginning to a true 3-party system with far-right, a middle, and far-left parties? Could be. That may be a good thing but it may be a bad thing. IMO, extremism on any side is bad. Moderation is the key which is why many up here find the Republican party reprehensible these days.

Ok this is scary...twice in one day I completely agree with conjur

Shouldn't be scary.

Many up here take my grand distaste of Bush as meaning I'm total a liberal, a communist, a Saddam-lover, etc. That's just bunk. I've been a Republican my entire adult life. But, it seems the GOP and its current stance is pushing me more and more toward the Democratic party (even though there are stances there with which I don't agree). I just feel the GOP has lost its way. Just as Newt said on Meet The Press several months ago when he commented that the Republican Party has become power-hungry and that's what they hated about the Democrats when the GOP took control in the early 90s. They've become that which they despised.

Have my ideals changed? No. The parties are changing.

Agreed. The question remains as to how this will play out however....it's unfortunate most of the voting public will not consider third party options. The clearest message we could send to the democrats and republicans is to totally ignore them. But I doubt that will happen as long as people get their political knowledge from 30 second soundbytes from Crossfire or O'Reilly Factor.

To CNN's credit, they've sh*tcanned Crossfire. Think FOX would do the same to Hannity and Colmes? No way...too much revenue in the ratings.

Our media is chasing the almighty dollar instead of the ultimate truth.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: cwjerome



In search of the Liberal mindset

You will find it in this Thread

This is the great liberal victory.

:disgust:

WTF? That is the great NeoCon lie. If the truth hurts, blame it on the supposed "liberals". That seems to be the only strategy the right can come up with on that one and that's really sad if you think about all our troops getting killed and maimed. For what? Are we really any safer.

I know Bush likes to say "The world is a safer place" but is it really? Either they never had the WMD's or they have them tucked away. Both scenarios are bad for Bush and somehow you attempt to blame it on the liberals??



War is supposed to be a last resort, but our ChickenHawk leaders used every little shred of evidence (credible or not) to invade Iraq. They just couldn't wait to start dropping the bombs. I think it's an uderstatment to say that this admisistration suffered from a "lack of reliabe intelligence"

 

[Vic]

Okay, here's my take on liberalism and conservatism, from an economic perspective.

At one time in America, liberalism was an absolutely needed progressive agenda. "Economy", in the national financial sense, could be defined as the mass exchange of valuable goods and services between individuals. One hundred years ago in America, there were a few that were extremely wealthy, some middle class, and then a tremendous number in poverty. Because of this, economic interchange was limited because, if an individual brought a product to market, the larger portion of consumers simply could not afford to purchase that product.
Though a great deal of the liberal reforms of the early 20th century were IMO short-sighted and/or misconceived, they did acheive the goal of bringing more economic power to the lower classes, and the resulting increased exchanging of valuable goods and services helped make America the economic powerhouse it is today. If a manufacturer desired to invested large sums into a new product, they could do so with the confidence that the product would be affordable to a larger market. Liberalism doesn't deserve all the credit for this (certainly not), but it played an important progressive role from the Republican-dominated economic policies of the late 19th century.

So what is wrong with liberalism today? It has gone too far. Simple as that. Able-bodied individuals who refuse to work do not deserve to be given financial power and priviledges that the rest of the working public spends their whole lifetime laboring to acheive. And that working public is resentful of just how much of the value of their labor is taken from them to pay, not just for those who don't work and acheive but could, but for the bloated bureacracy of government that no longer serves them, but rules them. And that there seems no escape from this expense and morass has led to the backlash we see today.
And how does this backlash represent itself? In what is basically an anti-tax movement. Bush has basically ridden to power in 2 elections now simply on the basis of tax cuts, even though he is in reality raising the public's tax burden through mounting deficits.

And it is there that the Democratic party has faltered. They actually believe that the public votes on the basis of religion, morality, or family values. No, they vote with their pocketbook -- "How much will government give me, and what will it cost me?" Just like when they purchase a product, they seek to get the most for the least. So when Kerry announced during his campaign that he will raise taxes (simply to placate individuals who probably would die before voting Republican), he gave himself the kiss of the death. When the Democratic party advocates unpopular social programs and agendas pretending that it's the Civil Rights movement all over again, people roll their eyes and pull the Republican lever.

Just my $0.02... because while I may be an economic conservative as a Libertarian, that's also means that I'm socially liberal. And those 2 aspects combined mean that while I disagree with the Dems 50% (or more) of the time, I disagree with the Bush "neoconservative" Republicans almost 100% of the time.

Now real traditional libertarian-style conservatism sounds like a great idea, but we all know how Goldwater fared....


editted for a couple of minor typos...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic
Okay, here's my take on liberalism and conservatism, from an economic perspective.

At one time in America, liberalism was an absolutely needed progressive agenda. "Economy", in the national financial sense, could be defined as the mass exchange of valuable goods and services between individuals. One hundred years ago in America, there were a few that were extremely wealthy, some middle class, and then a tremendous number in poverty. Because of this, economic interchange was limited because, if an individual brought a product to market, the larger portion of consumers simply could not afford to purchase that product.
Though a great deal of the liberal reforms of the early 20th century were IMO short-sighted and/or misconceived, they did acheive the goal of bringing more economic power to the lower classes, and the resulting increased exchanging of valuable goods and services helped make America the economic powerhouse it is today. If a manufacturer desired to invested large sums into a new product, they could do so with the confidence that the product would be affordable to a larger market. Liberalism doesn't deserve all the credit for this (certainly not), but it played an important progressive role from the Republican-dominated economic policies of the late 19th century.

So what is wrong with liberalism today? It has gone too far. Simple as that. Able-bodied individuals who refuse to work do not deserve to be given financial power and priviledges that the rest of the working public spends their whole lifetime laboring to acheive. And that working public is resentful of just how much of the value of their labor is taken from them to pay, not just for those who don't work and acheive but could, but for the bloated bureacracy of government that no longer serves them, but rules them. And that there seems no escape from this expense and morass has led to the backlash we see today.
And how does this backlash represent itself? In what is basically an anti-tax movement. Bush has basically ridden to power in 2 elections now simply on the basis of tax cuts, even though he is in reality raising the public's tax burden through mounting deficits.

And it is there that the Democratic party has faltered. They actually believe that the public votes on the basis of religion, morality, or family values. No, they vote with their pocketbook -- "How much will government give me, and what will it cost me?" Just like when they purchase a product, they seek to get the most for the least. So when Kerry announced during his campaign that he will raise taxes (simply to placate individuals who probably would die before voting Republican), he gave himself the kiss of the death. When the Democratic party advocates unpopular social programs and agendas pretending that it's the Civil Rights movement all over again, people roll their eyes and pull the Republican lever.

Just my $0.02... because while I may be an economic conservative as a Libertarian, that's also means that I'm socially liberal. And those 2 aspects combined mean that while I disagree with the Dems 50% (or more) of the time, I disagree with the Bush "neoconservative" Republicans almost 100% of the time.

Now real traditional libertarian-style conservatism sounds like a great idea, but we all know how Goldwater fared....

editted for a couple of minor typos...

Good post but an awful lot of writing that could've simply been typed "Rich Vs Poor".

Or Rich working to eliminate Middle Class thereby making the Poor class a lot bigger.

This will eventually bite the Rich in their perverbal butt however it won't affect them that bad because they can simply move to another Country leaving the U.S. in ruin.

 

[cwjerome]

Negative. Check stats on how much wealth some people had 125 years ago, or 50 years ago, and you'll see much much larger differences between rich and poor (and rich vs. gdp). Then again you may want to start 25 years ago when leftist policies -especially taxwise- levelled the rich down (and did NOTHING for the poor)... you know, that glorious time of inflation, unemployement, high interest and stagnation :roll:

Going back to an original point, the Left saw their policies fail miserably, and since the Reagan Revolution we've seen the creation of the first mass affluent class in the history of the world- a remarkable achievement. So what's the bright idea for the Left? More of the same.

Still scared to pronounce their statist ideology, they really have no other choice than more of the same... micro-issue by micro-issue, piece by piece, institute a subtle yet motley conglomeration of range-of-the-moment policies slowly, over time, using the same worn-out cliches like "rich vs poor", and bring this society back to the gloomy bad old days of the late 1970s... death by a thousand paper cuts.

The Left's situation is just like my golf game, with one major difference. They are losing ground- their policies and ideas failing... just like my golfing skills, they are both broken. Yet the thing is, I KNOW this is the case, but I choose not to put in the time and effort to turn it around. The Left remains in denial.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Negative. Check stats on how much wealth some people had 125 years ago, or 50 years ago, and you'll see much much larger differences between rich and poor (and rich vs. gdp). Then again you may want to start 25 years ago when leftist policies -especially taxwise- levelled the rich down (and did NOTHING for the poor)... you know, that glorious time of inflation, unemployement, high interest and stagnation :roll:

Going back to an original point, the Left saw their policies fail miserably, and since the Reagan Revolution we've seen the creation of the first mass affluent class in the history of the world- a remarkable achievement. So what's the bright idea for the Left? More of the same.

Still scared to pronounce their statist ideology, they really have no other choice than more of the same... micro-issue by micro-issue, piece by piece, institute a subtle yet motley conglomeration of range-of-the-moment policies slowly, over time, using the same worn-out cliches like "rich vs poor", and bring this society back to the gloomy bad old days of the late 1970s... death by a thousand paper cuts.

The Left's situation is just like my golf game, with one major difference. They are losing ground- their policies and ideas failing... just like my golfing skills, they are both broken. Yet the thing is, I KNOW this is the case, but I choose not to put in the time and effort to turn it around. The Left remains in denial.

Here's your well deserved

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Somewhere along the line, things changed. I'm fascinated by the endless string of editorials and links from the left-wing google-mongers here, because the attitude of today's liberal seems vastly different than the attitude of yesterday's liberal wingnuts from the 30s, 40s, and 50s. I guess the only way for them to become a power in the marketplace of ideas was to sell out. That worked for a while... but it's becoming painfully obvious that the gig is up because they have no ideological base to stand on. (Hence the political decline of liberalism in the past 10-20 years).

Whereas the crusading spirit that advocated a planned society, and talking in terms of abstract principles, theories, and noble ends was the norm, today modern leftists concern themselves with single, concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment projects and demands without regard to the larger context, costs, or consequences. Notice the same hardened Libs continuously posting links that supposedly "prove a point"... but that's the problem. They're all pragmatic, extremely narrow evaluations of a singular situation. "Bagdad Police Chief Killed" and So-and-So lectures Bush" etc....

Such a strategy may win a few brownie points here-and-there with some people. But what is never developed is the old-fashioned ideological framework. This is the Catch-22 the Left is in today. They can abandon the broad social reforms of their predessesors (because most people will reject the philosophical foundation outright), but eventually their asymmetrical strategy to "smuggle" this society into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting the whole of these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or their underlying base to be exposed crumbles and fails... just as their political influence has deteriorated recently.

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't, and it's almost sad to see them spinning their wheels so furiously in a dead-end road to nowhere. They went from getting their idealistic machinations skewered 50 years ago, to a guerilla campaign of pragmaticism that saw their polices fall short and be rejected today. So much failure, no wonder they tend to be neurotic types

Basically, they are doomed to repeat their past frustrations and will continue to collapse. During the cold war, they proclaimed their love for mankind while being bored by the rivers of blood pouring from the Soviet Union and China. Ranging from intellectual evasion to glowing tribute towards Communists, they pointed their little barbs at the US for reasons of "injustice," "exploitation," "repression," and "persecution." Today, they are no different. They pour out range-of-the-moment, pragmatitic arguments (as evidenced here on P&N) against the USA, while generally remaining silent -and in most ways oblivious to- the nature of our enemy. The more things change, the more things stay the same... once again doomed to be on the wrong side of history.

Personally I wish we would stop with the label calling and just accept that each of us cannot and should not be stereotyped.:disgust:

 

[cwjerome]

Here's your well deserved

That's not fair at all, it was a legitimate reply...

grumpy?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Negative. Check stats on how much wealth some people had 125 years ago, or 50 years ago, and you'll see much much larger differences between rich and poor (and rich vs. gdp). Then again you may want to start 25 years ago when leftist policies -especially taxwise- levelled the rich down (and did NOTHING for the poor)... you know, that glorious time of inflation, unemployement, high interest and stagnation :roll:

Going back to an original point, the Left saw their policies fail miserably, and since the Reagan Revolution we've seen the creation of the first mass affluent class in the history of the world- a remarkable achievement. So what's the bright idea for the Left? More of the same.

Still scared to pronounce their statist ideology, they really have no other choice than more of the same... micro-issue by micro-issue, piece by piece, institute a subtle yet motley conglomeration of range-of-the-moment policies slowly, over time, using the same worn-out cliches like "rich vs poor", and bring this society back to the gloomy bad old days of the late 1970s... death by a thousand paper cuts.

The Left's situation is just like my golf game, with one major difference. They are losing ground- their policies and ideas failing... just like my golfing skills, they are both broken. Yet the thing is, I KNOW this is the case, but I choose not to put in the time and effort to turn it around. The Left remains in denial.

First, no group has been "brought down". Except for the mild downturn since the dot-com bubble, Americans as a whole have never been so wealthy.

Claiming the left was solely responsible for the 70s stagflation is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of here. That situation began long before Carter took office, and was the fault of both parties (but particularly Nixon's fiscal irresponsibility during the Vietnam war).

The rest of your post is just pure partisan crap. The Left is responsible, the left is failing, blah, blah, blah. You're not sure how or why, but (just like a good talk show host) you want to make us believe just because you say it. Thank you for keeping American divided :roll:

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Here's your well deserved

That's not fair at all, it was a legitimate reply...

Hardly...

 

[cwjerome]

First, no group has been "brought down". Except for the mild downturn since the dot-com bubble, Americans as a whole have never been so wealthy.

I don't even know what you're talking about here. Did you read someone else's post?

Claiming the left was solely responsible for stagflation is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of here. That situation began long before Carter took office, and was the fault of both parties

I didn't say solely, although it was primarily. Since the 60s, Congress was overwhelmingly Democrat, and fairly liberal at that. Nice dance, but it's transparent: the policies that created the sh*tsoup in the 70s were left-wing (even if a jack@ss like Nixon was a supporter of the policies).

The rest of your post is just pure partisan crap. The Left is responsible, the left is failing, blah, blah, blah. You're not sure how or why, but (just like a good talk show host) you want to make us believe just because you say it. Thank you for keeping American divided

Get off yourself... <borrow's moonbeam's mirror> ...and you expect to make me believe it just because you say it? :roll:


EDIT: adjusted naughty words

 

[miketheidiot]

cookies taste good, especially when freshly baked.

to this thread

 

[cwjerome]

That's quality...

obviously the sting of truth can be painful on one's worldview

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
That's quality...

obviously the sting of truth can be painful on one's worldview

Yes, the real truth is your post does nothing than split America, and this forum, apart by placing labels on everyone. Your OP then takes those with a specific label or stereotype and seeks to demean them as obsolete and calling them "wingnuts". Perhaps it is best we look at your post and realize, that it is just one person's interpretation of history, just one person's perception of the world, just one person's idea of "how it is". Then just as if you were walking down a bustling sidewalk with a man on the corner screaming, "The world is going to end! The world is going to end!" You simply and calmly, keep on walking, realizing there are more important things than one man's interpretation of the world spouted out at the top of his lungs.

In the future, I hope we can learn and remember, "Divided we fall, united we stand." Is not just an over used phrase past it's time. It is a phrase which speaks to human nature and our ability to either destroy ourselves through division, alienation, and single mindedness or to unite ourselves and make something bigger than our individual selves. Thus, allowing us to face any challange boldy and without fear.

 

[Steeplerot]

The wingnuts shall inherit the earth.....

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Here's your well deserved

That's not fair at all, it was a legitimate reply...

grumpy?

1-14-2005 HUD could lose billions under White House plan

The White House will seek to shrink the Department of Housing and Urban Development's $8 billion community branch dramatically, purging dozens of economic-development projects, scrapping a rural-housing program and folding high-profile anti-poverty efforts into the Labor and Commerce departments, administration officials said yesterday.

Advocates for the poor, however, contended the White House is trying to gut federal programs for the poorest Americans to make way for tax cuts, a mission to Mars and other Bush priorities.

 

[conjur]

Budget cuts are going to have to come and they are going to hurt. What sucks the most, though, is that our military spending is going to be inordinately high for years to come because of the f-up in Iraq.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Centinel
Sorry for the rant, I just figured I would try to explain myself better....I tend to be on the "other" side from most posters here because I quite frankly find a veeeeery large bias here towards the left. What I mean by bias is a inherent ability to see every single flaw in the right, ignore any of the good from the right, and ignore any problems of the left.

The trouble with the right, though, is the momentum of the GOP is to move further and further to the right. That *should* mean greater fiscal responsibility as well as socially conservative. However, what we're seeing is the fiscal aspect being tossed aside in a dangerous manner and the social conservatism deepening. This is relatively new ground in modern times and it threatens this nation on a number of fronts.

At the same time, there are some in the DNC that want to moderate from the more socially-minded.

Is this the beginning to a true 3-party system with far-right, a middle, and far-left parties? Could be. That may be a good thing but it may be a bad thing. IMO, extremism on any side is bad. Moderation is the key which is why many up here find the Republican party reprehensible these days.

Ok this is scary...twice in one day I completely agree with conjur

Shouldn't be scary.

Many up here take my grand distaste of Bush as meaning I'm total a liberal, a communist, a Saddam-lover, etc. That's just bunk. I've been a Republican my entire adult life. But, it seems the GOP and its current stance is pushing me more and more toward the Democratic party (even though there are stances there with which I don't agree). I just feel the GOP has lost its way. Just as Newt said on Meet The Press several months ago when he commented that the Republican Party has become power-hungry and that's what they hated about the Democrats when the GOP took control in the early 90s. They've become that which they despised.

Have my ideals changed? No. The parties are changing.

Agreed. The question remains as to how this will play out however....it's unfortunate most of the voting public will not consider third party options. The clearest message we could send to the democrats and republicans is to totally ignore them. But I doubt that will happen as long as people get their political knowledge from 30 second soundbytes from Crossfire or O'Reilly Factor.

To CNN's credit, they've sh*tcanned Crossfire. Think FOX would do the same to Hannity and Colmes? No way...too much revenue in the ratings.

Our media is chasing the almighty dollar instead of the ultimate truth.

I agree. But since our media is set up as corporations, isn't profit supposed to be their number one priority?

I don't think the problem is so much the media, but the people who watch, and those that advertise.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: conjur
To CNN's credit, they've sh*tcanned Crossfire. Think FOX would do the same to Hannity and Colmes? No way...too much revenue in the ratings.

Our media is chasing the almighty dollar instead of the ultimate truth.

I agree. But since our media is set up as corporations, isn't profit supposed to be their number one priority?

I don't think the problem is so much the media, but the people who watch, and those that advertise.

Well, back in the days of Walter Cronkite, one had reasonable footing in assuming the news was accurate. Back when journalists like Woodward and Hersh were at their prime. Although, it seems each of them is on a second wind now.

To me, the news corporations are seeking more and more revenue to cover the costs of the big mergers and to keep the sales growth going to please investors. 4% growth of several billions of dollars is a helluva lot more dollars then for smaller media firms.

 

[cwjerome]

Journalism without a moral position is impossible
-- Marguerite Duras

----------------


gutharius: Yeah... sooooo polarizing, soooooo "labeling." How dare me identify anyone or a group?!? How dare me question their beliefs?!? Your platitudes and slogans sound good in a star trek universe, but they are helplessly unrealistic in this world. If you are truly sincere in your pie-in-the-sky mentality, than do yourself a favor and spend a little lecture time on those that run around slobbering about Fox News and Wal-Mart (or Fundies, or neocons, or RRRs, or FFLs, and on... and on... and on....)

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Journalism without a moral position is impossible

-- Marguerite Duras

Morality without a moral position is impossible.


---Ozoned

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Journalism without a moral position is impossible

-- Marguerite Duras

Morality without a moral position is impossible.

---Ozoned

Well... yes! Let's take it one more step just for sh*ts and giggles- Life without morality is impossible. (But that's another topic...)