Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
...that being "There is no intellectual debate about whether or not someone can be called a conservative, they don't care how they are seen. They just act on what they believe."
Problem is, conservatism is morally bankrupt. It stands for greed and imposing one's will on others - through war or law - both of which are not founding principles of this country, and are genuinely loathesome to most sane individuals.
Second problem is, conservatism is intellectually bankrupt. Smaller government in a world of $5 Trillion GDPs and globe-spanning corporations is not the answer, because smaller government will get trampled and ignored (and eventually subsumed) by competing interests who have no concern for the citizenry. Something else conservatives mistake: religion is fantasy, not reality, and fundamentalist/literalist interpretations of any religion has no place in government of a real-world society. As Matt Damon paraphrased me, "Anyone ignorant enough to believe dinosaurs walked the earth next to man four thousand years ago has no business being in the same room as launch codes, never mind being in possession of them."
About the only thing left is "personal responsibility," which isn't part of conservatism any more - as demonstrated by the fervent conservative support of the Bush administration, to the point of criticising anyone who suggested accountability for the various and massively lethal blunders and crimes of that administration.
The issue with the remaining moderates and liberals about what to call themselves is something that most thinking individuals consider at any given time. How do they/we wish to be perceived? Languages aren't static elements, and words change over time. The debate here focuses on whether or not a certain word still holds the appropriate meaning for the group to consider it representative of their purpose.
If it isn't, they move to a new term. If it is, or if it can be re-modified to work again, they'll stay with it.
It's not rocket science, Max. Grow some brains.
T
What is it with you LIBERALS? You ARE weak on Defence. Just look what happened in Iraq. You guys were all GUNG HO, until things got tough. WHO was voting to PULL THE PLUG on the TROOPS? HMMM? WHO betrayed our ALLIES in South East Asia, by cutting off the MILITARY AID, that we PROMISED them, so they could fight, THEMSELVES, like YOU wanted them to? WHO'S done EVERYTHING that they can, to throw a wrench in to MISSILE DEFENCE? WHO VOWED to CUT FUNDS for NEW WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY? WHO wants to forgoe the production of a NEW GENERATION NUCLEAR MISSILE PROGRAM? WHO'S WEAK ON DEFENCE? So you see, it doesn't matter WHAT you call yourselves. Everybody KNOWS who you are. And you ARE, WEAK on defence, SOFT on crime, and STUPID everwhere else.
...is that mid-to late-20th century liberals became identified with expanding access and rights to those who had been discriminated against -- blacks, gays, women, the urban poor. It did not include any coherent, vocal critique of American capitalism. The American system, it seemed, was just perfect -- except that it was racist, sexist, homophobic and insufficiently protective of the environment.
As such, it left white working-class and middle-class people completely out of its group of "people we care about." The image of upper-middle-class whites lifting up poor African-Americans while looking down on working-class white Americans had a real kernel of truth to it. The Republicans found that opening and used it to reign over America for the past 30 years.
The liberal party tradition, starting in England, was strongly identified with property rights and laissez-faire capitalism, which is why most left-of-center Democrats actually are more philosophically similar to European Social Democrats than to European Liberals.
Unless liberals somehow incorporate a more populist philosophy on economic issues to the liberal "brand," "liberal" will be a problematic term for American politics. But who knows what the future brings in terms of re-alignments and the branding of political parties? Over the next ten years, we may be in for an entirely new synthesis.
voting for the lesser of two evils means NOTHING OF THE SORT.
now YOU PEOPLE are going to push your crap on the rest of society?!?
What 'liberal' stands for is not simply a matter of the Republicans controlling the spin. From the late-60s on, the Democrats' effort to keep their Big Tent full meant that all sorts of initiatives, concepts, and the Identity Politics approach - often incompatible with democracy, democratic politics, and even each other - were accepted in some form by the Democratic Party which was the 'liberal' Party and thus these intiatives became 'liberal' mostly by default.
The 'civil liberatarianism' and 'renewed interest in checks on the imperial presidency' were offset by the awefull and still under-appreciated confluence of Identity Politics, the sense of 'revolution', and the Progressive (and revolutionary) self-righteous determination to do an end-run around an 'inefficient' and too-slow democratic politics and citizenry so that a de-fact vanguard elite that knew better and that 'got it' could effect their desired change. It undermined not only the Democrats' cohesion as a Party of the people but also as a Party supporting the deliberative and mature processes of a democratic Republic. (And the Republicans, inspired by Atwater and his spawn, raced in to fill the vacuum - alas.)
If 'liberals can be revolutionary' or can foment 'violent revolution' (Europe in 1848, I guess) that can never be the case here because the whole ground of the American polity is that the democratic process precludes violent and revolutionary change. Far too many movements of the late-Sixties, however, used 'revolution' and 'revolutionary' way too much as a metaphor when they weren't actually trying to nurture violent revolution (in a 'good' cause, of course).
A modern 'liberal' is not Liberal and the whole word has to be put back up on blocks until word and concept can be examined and a new connection agreed upon.
Most rabid conservatives like to pin the label on anyone who doesn't agree with their ultra conservative visions of the world. It doesn't make any difference if the person is middle of the road in their politics. They get called 'liberal' anyway! Because conservatives are so far right anymore, they make everyone who is middle of the road look like they are a liberal! They use the word like a weapon! It's thrown around so much by rabid conservatives I often wonder if they have any clue what the word really means. Or they just use it because Rush Limbaugh does and they think it makes them fit in with the far right crowd! Or they wish to express their contempt for anyone who doesn't agree with their fascist ideals. It's the only way they have learned to vet their rage is to call someone a 'liberal'. Because the word doesn't sound the same if one isn't foaming at the mouth! But, I am like a lot of other people. It doesn't bother me in the slightest to be called liberal. I am proud to call myself a liberal.
In the Letter's to the editor of my local newspaper I have heard the word overused in the last week to the point of being tiresome. I often wonder if these conservatives vocabularies are that severely limited they only know one word 'liberal'! Since Obama was elected the fringe lunatics have finally started coming out of shock and are starting to foam at the mouth. They all say the same tired old phrases word for word and blame the 'liberal media' for all their failures. The 'liberal' media wasn't hard enough Obama and didn't question him enough on Republican allegations. Unmindful there was nothing to question Obama on. Most of the slime they wanted Obama questioned on was manufactured by the right wing lunatics to begin with. And unmindful that the media is no longer 'liberal' like Rush tells them it is. They all gave McCain a free pass on Hagee and Parsley both. But, they have put 'a pox' on all of us for voting for Obama! We are all going to wish we had never voted for a Muslim! The gun sales are booming here in town. The lunatics expect the worst any day now. There is a big gun show this weekend. But, it will no doubt be the last. I often wonder if these people really believe all the drivel they spew??????
At any rate, I am not totally certain what conservatives thought most American's would do during the election? Continue to allow the Republican party to destroy the country wholesale or vote for something different into office! These people's thoughts defy any large amount of logic!
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
