Student of Ideologies - Hello!

Exactly. I often have been accused of cutting & pasting info, but when I do I try to have an understanding of 'why' it is pertinent to the discussion.

__________________
"We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all, we cannot go on being led as we are. Somehow or other, we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory."~Leo Amery 1940, while staring at Chamberlain

He dropped his ideals in the face of realilty and became pragmatic?

__________________
American Horse
Don't Take This Critter Too Seriously ~ Gaius Octavius
~~
“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
. Visit My Photo Album: Time Is Short And Art Is Long ~

Greetings, AH.

Earlier you asked about the modern liberal.

Actually, I'd like to put together some thoughts on the differences between the liberal, the fellow traveler, and the true believer.

But for now, I'd like to know what you think of these:

1. A Liberals axiom is that harmony is natural, a misreading of human nature. It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” The result of this belief is that country’s defenses are lowered by liberals, as represented by the Church Committee hearings, the Pike committee, the Torricelli Amendments, all of which tied the hands of the intelligence community, and made it necessary for the Bush Administration to use enhanced interrogation methods. And, of course, the liberal community raged that we were not treating terrorists like our brothers. To gain an understanding of human nature, consider reading The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris.

2. Liberals believe that political philosophy should inform economic policy. So we saw the Community Reinvestment Act, and GRE’s such as Fannie and Freddie, which put pressure on lending institutions to give loans with less stringent requirements.

3. Another liberal axiom is that everyone will behave, not in their own best interests, but in the best interests of society, as in “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” We see this false posit of the way people act in the Employee Free Choice Act, where we are expected to assume that there will not be pressure and intimidation if we do away with the secret ballot.

4. Liberals always see utopia as an attainable goal. At the heart of the philosophy is the view that the supposedly unique wisdom of government officials should be trusted to plan the lives of the people. The term “politburo” seems fitting here. In fact, for many American Liberals, Western Europe has been nothing less than an abstract symbol of progressive utopia. “Liberals seek utopia but reap dystopia.”

5. Liberals hunt for reasons to be insulted the way pigs hunt for truffles. Once they find a satisfactory mote in this category, they feel that it is entirely appropriate for them to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects.

6. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing. We see this in the oft-repeated claim that the use of “torture” techniques has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Where is the proof of this claim?
For liberals, taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem. Feeling passes for knowing.

7. Liberals are childlike in their view of the world. If only we destroy our nuclear weapons, so will our adversaries. Senator Biden, who is today our vice- president, and was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, once advocated a complete on ban covert action. Former New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli thought that the CIA should not associate with unsavory characters. Thus our intell community is blindfolded.

__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter

Let's just say picking up the Louisiana Purchase was too good to pass up, even though buying real estate was not in Article II of the Constitution. Calling it a treaty was sort of an 'end run'.

__________________
"We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all, we cannot go on being led as we are. Somehow or other, we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory."~Leo Amery 1940, while staring at Chamberlain

Don't we all, eventually?

Agreed, it was.

I applaude TJ for abandoning his foolish principles in favor of a well reasoned approach to governing the nation.

Had he not taken advantage of Napoleon's desperate need for cash, and Napoloeon's desire to help the USA be a thorn in the side of England, I'd have thought him a damned fool and a an idiot of a POTUS.

Before I answer, I believe there are a couple of different liberal types. Those who are in the power game, striving to work their way up through the structure as "public service" a life long occupation in the system, and there are the "minions" (the minor players) who are simply "true believers", whose actions are mildly innocent, but they firmly believe their hearts are in the right place.

Naked Ape - Read it.
And I think most liberals understand human nature better than they let on, but to pretend otherwise is more useful. Thus they don't seem to have a clue about the power of "incentives." But this pretense is more useful to accomplish their goal, a large part of which is polarization, to act out on their initiatives and see where they lead. Since they are “the people” (in the embodiment of the Democrat party -"party of the people") they assume they will always be in power to fix things to their will later. To not seem to aim for harmony would disable their projection that conservatives are divisive; thus their position that Republicans, the embodiment of the conservative creed, are, in the main criminals, criminalizing their policies and actions.

Another charade; their policies allow them to work within the capitalist system to undermine it to their own benefit, to spread the wealth to their supporters. But notice that the GRE structure lends itself to confusion as to its pretext. The conservative has to keep hammering at that deception, lest it be lost on the ordinary person living out their busy lives.

They know that people will behave in their own best interests; and believe it firmly. That’s why they are always complaining that Republican minions vote against their own best interests when they vote in favor of business, both small and large. Its anomalous that certain people would not cheat or use intimidation if it enabled them to gain their goals with its use.

To pretend that utopia is an attainable goal is the only way to drive the “true believers” amongst them to follow using their passion of frustration as a politically uniting force. If it were not attainable, they would direct their passions (of frustration) to otherwise practical attainable goals. Although most liberals are doing fine they spend a lot of their passion in defense of the underprivileged, or the deprived, or the underdog, a noble cause, which wins hearts and minds. Their efforts are generally macro instead of micro; focused on this or that element of humanity instead of the individual who must instead be clumped together as “losers”; thus Algore or Biden, or any liberal gives only a pittance to charity, because it is more useful to transfer wealth on a grand scale to the needy.


Of course they do, because it keeps their issues to the fore. They enjoy the fight. Notice they are always “fighting for” something. Words pass for accomplishments; issues resolved are issues lost.

And this passes for logic, while the conservative idea of letting everyone have arms seems irrational to them. The proof is in the pudding. Just the knowledge that everyone in town could possibly have a concealed weapon is a deterrent against using a weapon for crime in that town. The natural inclination, then, would be to take one’s criminal inclinations to a district where weapons were prohibited, leaving everyone unguarded.

This follows the same pattern of taking guns away from lawful citizens, or perhaps police going under-cover to reveal the plans of the enemy; the danger of becoming them. But that childlike view passes for logic to their minions.

In tandem to your Naked Ape mention I recommend The True Believer for an understanding of the nature of mass movements (Eric Hoffer). It is eye opening.

PC, you do not speak for liberals and what they believe...but your mindless diatribe speaks volumes about YOU, your huge insecurities, your inability to live in a free society and your overwhelming FEAR...

The flip side of "your liberal world" is YOUR world rife with secrecy, oppression, suppression and regression...

Thomas Jefferson and Harry Truman knew your type PC...they warned about you...

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination.
President Harry S. Truman

__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

Lie 1 - Wells as 'Godfather,' only in Siegal's narrow mind. Notice he selected no liberal thinker: Rawls, Berlin, Waldron, Williams, Keynes, et al.
lie 2 - "Modern American liberalism, as it emerged in the 1920s, was animated by a revolt against the masses." Did he miss FDR and his help for the masses?
Lie 3 - the fact some people who he classified as being liberal saw Wells as a visionary is irrelevant and not provable. It is not exactly a lie but the entire piece is BS.

The author wanted to criticize liberalism, he chose Wells because Wells fit his preconceived idiocy. It makes no sense to any educated reader.

Your post #48 would win a award for "tired cliches with no relation to reality" believed because - damn, I have no idea why anyone would believe this stuff. I know they are conservative talking points (see my post below) that only make sense if you operate inside the conservative echo chamber. The cliches are old and useless as well as wrong.

Conservatism as I noted above is basically, maybe wholly, reactionary. There are no specific accomplishment one can point to as conservative. There are lots of slowdowns but nothing consensus positive. You can see this from Burke onward, he didn't like the French Revolution but if one can show me what he accomplished, do so. A short list of reactionary conservative opposition to progress is listed here: A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla And I have asked this question several times on-line and have yet to get a good answer. See my: What is a conservative? – Political Pass

Do this easy thought experiment. Place yourself in a cave with a conservative and a liberal. One will argue that change is not possible, that leaving the cave will be dangerous, that raising crops is not possible and will ruin hunting; the other will say let's try it, I think it can work, this cave is dark and dingy, I like the sun, and we can do better. One can then extrapolate to any historic time and use our two people. Slavery - suffrage - equal rights - welfare - better working conditions - labor laws - minimum wage - social security, you name them and you know who will move forward and who will stand still. Albert Hirschman who I url-ed above calls this reactionary tactic by three thesis tags: Perversity, futility, and jeopardy. Or 'it will make things worse, it won't work, or it will ruin existing structure. That is conservatism in nutshell today and maybe always. And the only area in which I see conservative allow change is in corporate power, at that altar conservatives worship - to the detriment of America's working class and often to the detriment of the world.

But I am conservative too, but not in the conservative think tank slogan form. I love - actually as a liberal 'love' is a bit much but I'll go with it - this country, I buy American, I support American working people, I will probably never shop in walmart, I want English only, I think public education should be free and diverse, but as a liberal I think we can do better than the cave.


Liberalism in Arms

It would be flattering to think that "Thomas Jefferson and Harry Truman knew [my] type..." but as I read your post, Shakespeare comes to mind: "The Devil can quote scriptures for his purpose."

But don't let it go to your head, I'm not saying that your degree of confusion is comparable to Satan's evil.

Rather, you seem to lack the interest in actually confronting my oh-so-specific points. No doubt your experience in the public schools has left you with a sense of being entitled to a second, and even a third chance to get it right.

So be it. Have another go. To make it easier for you, I've tried to reduce my verbiage.

Item #1 Would you like to argue the point that Democrat administrations have reduced our military and intell defenses?

Item #2 Do you deny that sans the CRA and GRE's, Democrat creations, the current financial crisis would not have happened?

Item #3 Would you argue that under Democrat auspices the rich and successful are not taxed to provide for, in many cases, those who choose not to embark on business ventures, show ambition, or take risks?

Item #4 Are you ready to claim that Democrats do not invest in big government, vast regulation, and statutes that give rise to the appellation 'nanny state'?

Item #5 Have you not noted that every Republican is always cast as being dumb, and real ninnys like President Carter are referred to as " the smartest president he ever met..." (Walter Cronkite)

Item #6 Being a liberal means requiring no proof for a statement, as in "taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem." Have you read John Lott's well documented "More Guns, Less Crime"?

Item #7 speaks for itself, as do the others, actually. The Church Committee, Biden, Leahy, Torricelli, etc. all fought to limit, hamstring, and obviate our attempts to remain ahead of our enemies. The 'Can't We All Just Get Along' wing of the Congress, and all Democrat liberals.

Unlike your last feeble attempt, you will lose points for every item you leave out.

Summer School beckons.

__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter

Yes. And I was going to use the Hoffer idea that those with a sense of fulfillment think that the world is good, as opposed to liberals.

And, of course, I like you main thesis that there are several kinds of liberals. I've been thinking about delineating same, and will in a future post.

And, I agree that without separating the types of liberals, it is difficult to discuss the source and examples of their errors.

But sadly, and ultimately, I am afraid that we lose the war as long as the schools, at every level, are filled with liberals. You would like us to hammer at the false beliefs, but, alas, they have claimed the heights, in the schools and the media.

__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter

Forgive me for not responding to this one point by point, but it's been a long day- just took the kids to Central Park Victorian Gardens. Highly recommend.

But as a general response, have you seen the recent polls, which include
"Fifty-four percent (54%) of U.S. voters say the average Democrat in Congress is more liberal than they are..."
and
"Interestingly, despite big gains in last November’s election which further strengthened Democratic control over both houses of Congress, voters are more likely to say congressional Republicans have about the same views they do than Democrats – by a 33% to 26% margin."
and
"...Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Republicans and 59% of voters not affiliated with either party say the average Democrat in Congress is more liberal than they are. "
Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere
and
"For the second straight month, voters are more likely to trust Republicans than Democrats on the economy."
Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere
and
"Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election, Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to 18%,...more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left...These findings, from a June 14-17 Gallup Poll, somewhat conform to Gallup’s annual trends on Americans’ self-defined political ideology. Thus far in 2009 (from January through May), 40% of Americans call themselves conservative, up from 37% in 2007 and 2008, and the highest level since 2004"
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Rasmussen: Obama still slipping

So, when I read "conservative talking points... that only make sense if you operate inside the conservative echo chamber. The cliches are old and useless as well as wrong," I think I see a bit of perspiration on your upper lip, and hear you whistling past the graveyard.

When I look at those polls, and recall that McCain, as weak a candidate as he was, was actually ahead prior to the financial meltdown, I, and the rest of the " conservative echo chamber" may be engaging in some awesome acapella.

__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter

Mind if I give this part a whirl? (I'll do it my way, simply because I think it's easier to follow than copying every point.)

[quote=PoliticalChic;1331886][quote=Bfgrn;1330801]See that last one shouts out your failure at credibility. Anyone who doesn't lock into your rabid idealism is considered "feeble" (see your #5). You are NOT always 'right.' Just because you are well schooled in Ayn Rand conservatism doesn't mean even that can apply to today's plethora of social problems. It leaves out a whole new set of problems that she never dreamed would happen.

__________________

Maggie, long time no see.

Item #1 Would you like to argue the point that Democrat administrations have reduced our military and intell defenses?

We continue to have the strongest and most powerful weapons on earth. There is no fixed analysis on how good (or how bad) our intelligence agencies perform because the intracacies are not public knowledge to begin with.

Item #2 Do you deny that sans the CRA and GRE's, Democrat creations, the current financial crisis would not have happened?

Yes, denied. Federal Reserve Board data show that:

•More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
•Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
•Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.
That law would be the aforementioned Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

While Fannie and Freddie were a small part of the problem, the mortgage failure actually happened as Fannie and Freddie were reducing their holdings of subprime mortgages by a factor of 2, from 48% to 24% between 2004 and 2006. In fact, in 2005 and 2006, private investment banks stopped using Fannie and Freddie for 2/3rds of all the mortgages they initiated, preferring instead to package them into questionable mortgage-backed securities.

Item #3 Would you argue that under Democrat auspices the rich and successful are not taxed to provide for, in many cases, those who choose not to embark on business ventures, show ambition, or take risks?

Income tax bracketing began in 1917. Other than that, you'll need to show which programs where the wealthy have been specifically taxed in order to support a program solely for slackers or the poor.

Item #4 Are you ready to claim that Democrats do not invest in big government, vast regulation, and statutes that give rise to the appellation 'nanny state'?

Democrats believe that any public necessity to sustain the citizenry in general (i.e., financial institutions, transportation infrastructure, food, housing, utilities) should be regulated. The "nanny state" is a lame exaggeration and has become a worn-out catch phrase. Republicans don't try to diminish necessary 'welfare' programs that sustain life either.

Item #5 Have you not noted that every Republican is always cast as being dumb, and real ninnys like President Carter are referred to as " the smartest president he ever met..." (Walter Cronkite)

Oh that's a crock. When a Republican says something dumb, it's rightfully called dumb. When a liberal says something dumb, s/he's usually called even worse (or perhaps you should re-read some of your own posts).

Item #6 Being a liberal means requiring no proof for a statement, as in "taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem." Have you read John Lott's well documented "More Guns, Less Crime"?

Another crock. I for one post link after link after link to support most of what I say on this board and many others do too. That said, why is it so awful for a lib to make a generalized opinion like you put in quotes? You mean you do not ever offer a simple statement unless it's one from one of your tomes? And no, I for one have enough reading material to last me another lifetime, and I don't intend to read all of your supporting data in addition to my own less radical conservative publications. John Lott isn't part of that pile yet.

Item #7 speaks for itself, as do the others, actually. The Church Committee, Biden, Leahy, Torricelli, etc. all fought to limit, hamstring, and obviate our attempts to remain ahead of our enemies. The 'Can't We All Just Get Along' wing of the Congress, and all Democrat liberals.

Well that's a whole 'nuther topic completely. Quite simply, the "new" enemy (terrorism) is a method and it's not as easy "staying ahead" of something that's intangible.


Rather than a whirl, your response to #1 is a tap dance. You did not respond to the question.

And the response to #2 is equally flawed. Rather than 2006, let's beging with 1938 for the GRE's. Since economics is less than a science, we don't know the time frame for catastrophic results of a given policy. Except for he current one. 70 years. Without the GRE's, the Democrat party, and the CRA, the imposition of strictly fiduciary principles would have obviated the meltdown.

Item #3 "which programs where the wealthy have been specifically taxed in order to support a program solely for slackers or the poor". Which programs are not funded by taxation? Or does it depend on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. You said slackers, not I. Taxation itself is the question. Democrats believe in higher, even confiscatory taxation. Repubs, lower taxes. Later, for what is a fair level. Tough argument for you in the light of the current administration.

Answer #4 is another example of tap dancing.

#5 You are usually more honest than this. Many studies indicate that Democrats get far better and slanted press than Repubs.

#6 I am generally the solipsist around her, but you seem to think this is the Maggie-thread. This thread is about liberals in general, not specifically about you. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't try to wear it. My statement #6 is accurate.

It's clear why you don't want to face #7.

__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter

This is really quite funny PC...thank you...ALL you're doing is PROVING my point: "The basic difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil...thus, conservatism is based of FEAR...the strongest human emotion..."

How funny that you CAN understand how the events on 911 galvanized and mobilized OUR nation against an "enemy" ...

BUT you CAN'T even fathom that subversive activities America engaged in could have the SAME effect on others...HOW is that being a thinking person PC, where is the logic and cognitive thought? Instead, you speak from total emotion...FEAR

How funny that you CAN accuse Democrats of creating big government, because they try to help our citizens, follow the basic laws of civics and the tenets of wise men like Abraham Lincoln: "The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."

BUT, you CAN'T see that big military, big surveillance programs and a big prison system IS big government that is very expensive, intrusive, and an oppressive NANNY state...HOW is that being a thinking person PC, where is the logic and cognitive thought? Instead, you speak from total emotion...FEAR

Most of your numbered points have been debunked by me in previous posts...do we have to go through them every single time we talk PC??? BTW, how DID Georges Clemenceau's need to severely punish Germany work out in the Treaty of Versailles, has something changed since the last time I destroyed your contention?

You either need to quell your overwhelming FEAR and educate yourself on the courage required to live in a free and open society and KEEP it that way, OR you should move to a country that has a dictator that will make you FEEL warm, fuzzy and secure...

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither.
Benjamin Franklin

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincoln

__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith