Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Warrior102, Jul 10, 2013.
Ah, if only life were that simple we could all live in that comic book.
Oh well -- Lonestar logic
Who and where are these victims you speak of and how are they any more innocent than the average Joe?
Or are you just manufacturing an issue like media does?
Don't assume that this was offered as justification for the crime. It might be that the incident offered another opportunity to voice a democrat talking point.
Okay, as one of the few that is neither a modern liberal nor a conservative, I suppose I'm as good a person as any to ask the question, why don't you explain the difference for us?
Can I assume when you refer to "Liberalism", you mean in the modern sense and not Classical Liberalism?
Similarly, when you state "Liberalism founded this country", are you talking about modern Liberalism or Classical Liberals, more akin to what we call libertarians today?
This may all be semantic nonsense, but for the moment, I'm open to hearing the difference between (modern) Liberalism and Leftism. Any citations or links would be appreciated.
I know we're on a tangent here but IMO a far more worthy one than the OP...
I guess first thing, I'm not sure why posters here seem to insist on redefining Liberalism as "classical" Liberalism. I suspect it's a way of driving a wedge into the word so it can then be demonized. And that's kinda weird.
When I say "Liberalism founded this country" I refer to the philosophy, new and revolutionary at the time, that sees the common populace as the driver of the vehicle, as opposed to the hierarchical structure of church/state/aristocracy that had held sway before that point in history. That concept of Liberalism comes under fire from both the left and the right for their own purposes of power-hungriness.
To revert to a previous example: the idea of egalitarianism, the "all men are created equal" plank of the platform and vital artery of our Constitution, is in every sense a Liberal concept. The idea of Affirmative Action, where the State actually takes action to make that happen --rather than letting it happen and refraining from influencing it, that is a Leftist concept. That's what I mean by the difference between them. Liberal leaves it to grow by itself; Leftist takes action to make it happen. So does Right, with its obsession with gay marriage and the like.
As far as I remember the term "Liberal" first began to be demonized in the presidential election of 1988 when it became a staple of the Bush stump speech against Dukakis. H.W. would use the term as if it were an insult. It was a deliberate dumbing-down that ignored the entire history of our nation for the sake of a cheap sound bite. Had Bush and his Lee Atwater guru chosen an honest path they might have instead insisted "Dukakis is no Liberal" as a strategy. But noooo...
I might have missed some rhetorical dynamic before that time but that's when I noticed it.
And it seems to be (this is a theory) part of some grand scheme to redefine "Liberal" -- the concept we're born on -- as a political "side", deliberately conflated with a concoction of Leftist Authoritarians so that that demonized group can then be Eliminated, which then turns everything over to the Rightist Authoritarians (the fascists), who are the entity driving the dumb-down for that purpose.
That's what it looks like to this observer anyway.
Or is it that liberals themselves have redefined the term as found upon their actions in which we all are seeing and have an understanding of them now? You blame others for mischaracterizing, but are they mischaracterizing or are they spot on in what they see as the new liberalism in this nation, and so do they see this because of what it clings to, and therefore what it has become because of what it clings to ? YES!
There is a uniting of specific groups in this nation, and their goal is to destroy the other group or groups in this nations power structure, thus leaving them the attackers as the ultimate power formed in a power vacuum in which they hope to create in all of this.
Sounds like you're saying that Liberalism is the same thing as what some here would call Classical Liberalism and others would call libertarianism. Further, it sounds like you're saying Leftism is what others might call 'Modern Liberalism', but you believe they should never have obfuscated the term 'liberal' and should rightly call them Leftists. Lastly, you suggest that both modern conservatives and leftists are big government meddlers and neither are worthy of the term Liberal.
Did I get that right?
Basically, yes. Although every one of those labels would have to be spelled out as to exactly who we mean. And it shouldn't have to be that way, but that's what happens when we start morphing terms into their own opposites. And when we decide on a whim that, hey, from this moment the term "apple" is going to mean "kumquat".
Linguistically I'm an arch-conservative. I'm prolly the only guy left who still spells Hallowe'en with an apostrophe. I just don't think we get to morph definitions like that. And I'm aware that when somebody starts changing definitions, there's some agenda behind it.
Anyway, what do you think of all that? Am I accurate with 1988, or did that start sometime earlier?
I think...but I'm not exactly sure...that the term 'liberal' was obfuscated by Leftists in the 1960s. Prior to that, Liberalism was what many call libertarianism today, as was evident in the seminal book by Mises, "Liberalism, The Classical Tradition".
Hey, maybe that's were the term 'Classical Liberal' came from? Not sure.
You may be correct about conservatives using the term liberal in a derogatory sense beginning in 1988. However, Leftists called themselves that beforehand.
Separate names with a comma.