Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[Derideo_Te]

The continental congress isn't the law of the land either. And intellectual honesty requires a distinction between central government authority and the intended authority of the people of the states and local communities to determine what local government they wished to have and what education was appropriate for their children. The central government was intended to have no authority over that. .

President Jefferson himself did once petition Congress to help establish the University of Virginia, but Congress wisely shot that down as that was not a function given to the central government to do. He was instrumental in the founding of that institution, but did so via private funds, not taxpayer funds.

Taxpayers funds come from many different sources. Granting taxpayer owned land that could be sold and turned into funds to found colleges is how many started.

Morrill Land-Grant Acts - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Morrill Act was first proposed in 1857, and was passed by Congress in 1859, but it was vetoed by President James Buchanan. In 1861, Morrill resubmitted the act with the amendment that the proposed institutions would teach military tactics[5] as well as engineering and agriculture. Aided by the secession of many states that did not support the plans, this reconfigured Morrill Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln on July 2, 1862.

The purpose of the land-grant colleges was:

without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactic, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.[6]

Under the act, each eligible state received a total of 30,000 acres (120 km2) of federal land, either within or contiguous to its boundaries, for each member of congress the state had as of the census of 1860. This land, or the proceeds from its sale, was to be used toward establishing and funding the educational institutions described above. Under provision six of the Act, "No State while in a condition of rebellion or insurrection against the government of the United States shall be entitled to the benefit of this act," in reference to the recent secession of several Southern states and the contemporaneously raging American Civil War.

After the war, however, the 1862 Act was extended to the former Confederate states; it was eventually extended to every state and territory, including those created after 1862. If the federal land within a state was insufficient to meet that state's land grant, the state was issued "scrip" which authorized the state to select federal lands in other states to fund its institution.[7] For example, New York carefully selected valuable timber land in Wisconsin to fund Cornell University.[8]p. 9 The resulting management of this scrip by the university yielded one third of the total grant revenues generated by all the states, even though New York received only one-tenth of the 1862 land grant.[8]p. 10 Overall, the 1862 Morrill Act allocated 17,400,000 acres (70,000 km2) of land, which when sold yielded a collective endowment of $7.55 million.[8]p. 8​

 

[Foxfyre]

We can argue whether the Morrill Act exceeded the Constitutional authority of the federal government. But turning federal land over to the states is definitely a conservative concept.

More importantly there was no mandate on any state to participate in the Morrill Act. It was purely voluntary (a conservative value) as opposed to mandatory such as with Obamacare.

 

[Foxfyre]

Show me where the courts even considered social programs prior to the T Roosevelt administration. Show me where government action was challenged and given to the courts to judge prior to the T Roosevelt administration. I've already cited one situation in which Congress refused to go along with a social program proposed by the President. And the President didn't argue much either, no doubt because he knew in his heart Congress was right and even reflected his own arguments as to where federal government authority ended.

 

[oldernwiser]

IMO, one of the differences between modern liberalism and modern conservatism is that modern conservatism allows differences of opinion and looks to achieve compromise while modern liberalism more often requires uniform thought and opinion, and those who don't agree with the liberals are declared evil or bad or unacceptable.

For example, conservatives don't care whether one person wants guns in the home and another does not. They just want the central government to not interfere with those choices.

Conservatives don't care whether liberals believe the public schools are just fine, They just want the right to ensure their own kids get the best education possible and don't want to be forced to keep throwing more and more money at a system that never seems to get better.

Conservatives don't care if liberals want cradle to grave security from government. They just want choice, options, and liberty to look after their own healthcare, to educate their children as they think best, and freedom to pursue happiness and prosperity as they choose.

The fact is that what liberalism has embraced and pushed for a half century now has not delivered as advertised. It has created an 18 trillion dollar debt, and for every success story that can be pointed to, there are at least two or more unintended negative consequences. The more liberalism tries to produce a better society, the worse things seem to get.

This is what more people are beginning to see and understand and reject. It is not that conservatism is any more well intended or righteous or noble. But conservatism produces better results. And people prefer better results to worse ones. So looking at the trends in the U.K. and here in America, I think Goldberg is probably right..

I'm sorry Foxfyre. If we're going to debate here, at least be honest and factual with what you bring up.

modern conservatism allows differences of opinion

Conservatives don't care whether liberals believe the public schools are just fine

Conservatives don't care if liberals want cradle to grave security from government.

Yep, lot's of compromise there.

Here's what I reject as a liberal (and I'm only doing this because you're telling us what you think as a conservative): I reject the conservative notions about what liberals think and want. I reject the comment that "what liberalism has embraced and pushed for a half century now has not delivered as advertised" when just as many things that were embraced by conservatives have also not delivered as advertised.

I'm kind of curious as to which UK trends shows that conservative values have had such positive results that they should also be adopted here.

Whether I am or am not honest is not the topic of this thread, and rule one for this thread puts such ad hominem comments off limits. And I did not say what liberals think or want. I expressed what I think conservatives do not think and what I think they want.

From what I have read, the UK has had a far less deep and a much shorter recessionary period because of the conservative economic policies of the more conservative government. And the conservatives were rewarded for that in the recent election.

And whether or not you agree with my opinion re liberalism and conservatism, the thread topic is whether Goldberg is right that there is a trend to reject liberalism and embrace conservatism. Based on that recent UK election and recent U.S. elections and other arguments over the course of this thread, I think he is probably right, though maybe not to the degree he seems to argue in his essay.

And in so doing, you engaged in ad hominem attacks against liberals. You broke your own rule.

I'm not going to even try to give a lesson in macroeconomics - particularly in British economics. Simon Wren-Lewis, who has been busy debunking the media's economic line for sometime can give you somewhat of a lesson in not believing everything you read - particularly those with a well-known and dedicated conservative bias. In the US, this would be tantamount to Hannity worship.

Since it seems that ad hominem attacks against groups instead of individuals is fair game, why is it that conservatives tend to only listen to the things they want to believe and then insist that everyone else accept that as proof? These same people were predicting the end of liberalism back in October of 2012 for the same reasons, and yet, what emerged in November of that year? Conservatives tend to be self-delusional, they seem to be content with saying the same things over and over with the hope that more people will believe them regardless of the veracity of their statements.

Growing up Protestant in Boston in the 60s when Kennedy was CinC and it was cool to be Catholic feels a lot like this pseudo-debate.

 

[candycorn]

Some things are just too off the mark (stupid) or non sequitur to respond to. I'm pretty sure the conservatives have done a pretty good job of supporting Goldberg's argument. At least better than the liberals have refuted it since so far none have come up with a reasonable argument to refute it. Ya'll all have a nice afternoon. I'm sure having a great day here.

Gee sounds like an attack. You have supported nothing.

A simple question that proves it:

What is the objective data you are using to suggest that there is an embracement of conservatism?

 

[Foxfyre]

IMO, one of the differences between modern liberalism and modern conservatism is that modern conservatism allows differences of opinion and looks to achieve compromise while modern liberalism more often requires uniform thought and opinion, and those who don't agree with the liberals are declared evil or bad or unacceptable.

For example, conservatives don't care whether one person wants guns in the home and another does not. They just want the central government to not interfere with those choices.

Conservatives don't care whether liberals believe the public schools are just fine, They just want the right to ensure their own kids get the best education possible and don't want to be forced to keep throwing more and more money at a system that never seems to get better.

Conservatives don't care if liberals want cradle to grave security from government. They just want choice, options, and liberty to look after their own healthcare, to educate their children as they think best, and freedom to pursue happiness and prosperity as they choose.

The fact is that what liberalism has embraced and pushed for a half century now has not delivered as advertised. It has created an 18 trillion dollar debt, and for every success story that can be pointed to, there are at least two or more unintended negative consequences. The more liberalism tries to produce a better society, the worse things seem to get.

This is what more people are beginning to see and understand and reject. It is not that conservatism is any more well intended or righteous or noble. But conservatism produces better results. And people prefer better results to worse ones. So looking at the trends in the U.K. and here in America, I think Goldberg is probably right..

I'm sorry Foxfyre. If we're going to debate here, at least be honest and factual with what you bring up.

modern conservatism allows differences of opinion

Conservatives don't care whether liberals believe the public schools are just fine

Conservatives don't care if liberals want cradle to grave security from government.

Yep, lot's of compromise there.

Here's what I reject as a liberal (and I'm only doing this because you're telling us what you think as a conservative): I reject the conservative notions about what liberals think and want. I reject the comment that "what liberalism has embraced and pushed for a half century now has not delivered as advertised" when just as many things that were embraced by conservatives have also not delivered as advertised.

I'm kind of curious as to which UK trends shows that conservative values have had such positive results that they should also be adopted here.

Whether I am or am not honest is not the topic of this thread, and rule one for this thread puts such ad hominem comments off limits. And I did not say what liberals think or want. I expressed what I think conservatives do not think and what I think they want.

From what I have read, the UK has had a far less deep and a much shorter recessionary period because of the conservative economic policies of the more conservative government. And the conservatives were rewarded for that in the recent election.

And whether or not you agree with my opinion re liberalism and conservatism, the thread topic is whether Goldberg is right that there is a trend to reject liberalism and embrace conservatism. Based on that recent UK election and recent U.S. elections and other arguments over the course of this thread, I think he is probably right, though maybe not to the degree he seems to argue in his essay.

And in so doing, you engaged in ad hominem attacks against liberals. You broke your own rule.

I'm not going to even try to give a lesson in macroeconomics - particularly in British economics. Simon Wren-Lewis, who has been busy debunking the media's economic line for sometime can give you somewhat of a lesson in not believing everything you read - particularly those with a well-known and dedicated conservative bias. In the US, this would be tantamount to Hannity worship.

Since it seems that ad hominem attacks against groups instead of individuals is fair game, why is it that conservatives tend to only listen to the things they want to believe and then insist that everyone else accept that as proof? These same people were predicting the end of liberalism back in October of 2012 for the same reasons, and yet, what emerged in November of that year? Conservatives tend to be self-delusional, they seem to be content with saying the same things over and over with the hope that more people will believe them regardless of the veracity of their statements.

Growing up Protestant in Boston in the 60s when Kennedy was CinC and it was cool to be Catholic feels a lot like this pseudo-debate.

I didn't engage in ad hominem. Criticism of the ACTIONS of persons or groups or the results or consequences of their policy is fair game. Commenting on their character or motives is not. So you can comment on what conseratives or liberals say, how they vote,, specific legislation or theory you know that they have promoted, etc. But not on what they seem to be willing to listen to as you have no way of knowing that.

 

[Spare_change]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

Again SC, no matter how accurate it may be, ad hominem is not allowed on this thread. So you cannot assume whatever kind of logic liberals use. You can only comment on what liberals do or point out how the logic they actually post or say or write is wrong if you believe it to be wrong.

Again, Foxy --- that is NOT an ad hominem attack. It is a commentary in response to the original question, as well as commentary on the previous posts. Your restriction is unrealistic. You give them the rhetorical advantage.

No. Common sense delivers the advantages to liberalism.

Again, if we didn't have FEMA, we'd have to invent it. If we didn't have NASA, we'd have to invent it. If the Clean Water Act, the 40 hour work week, the FMLA, FDIC, Social Security Administration were not here, we'd do well to invent them.

There are zero conservatives who anyone has heard of who wish to do-away with these programs that were all liberal inventions.

Therefore the embracement of liberalism by conservatives is proof positive that if there is a dying, defunct, misguided, antiquated, and obsolete ideology, it is that of the conserveatives.

You'll note that the OP will not give any objective data to support the central question...there is a reason for that; there are none.

For you to take programs that have widespread support on both sides of the aisle, and try to use them as divisive issues, is intellectually corrupt.

Your insistence on the 0 vs 100 positions make your argument invalid. Most agree that FEMA is necessary --- but violently disagree with the manner in which is it being operated today. Just because liberals are perverting valid needs into power grabs doesn't mean that we have to salute smartly and march off the same cliff.

 

[oldernwiser]

Some things are just too off the mark (stupid) or non sequitur to respond to. I'm pretty sure the conservatives have done a pretty good job of supporting Goldberg's argument. At least better than the liberals have refuted it since so far none have come up with a reasonable argument to refute it. Ya'll all have a nice afternoon. I'm sure having a great day here.

Oh... I didn't realize this pseudo-debate was about Goldberg's article. I thought we were discussing the death of liberalism. My bad.

Ginsberg bases his entire premise on network TV? Liberalism is dead because, unlike Fox viewers, they don't need to be constantly told what they should believe over and over until they can recite it in arguments without thinking? This is what the OP assumes is the death of liberalism? Could it simply be that liberals actually think about what they see and hear and form their own opinions? Does the OP even think that's even possible (trying very hard not to go all ad hominem here)? Personally, and you conservatives out there might want to respond to this, I think that being conservative means that you can check your brain at the door. Maybe Fox viewers (and those seeking affirmation via websites like RealClearPolitics) need to get out more, because it seems that the constant drum of someone else's opinion is supplanting their ability to form their own.

A year ago, from my own state, a very conservative mayor from a very conservative NC district walked to Washington to ask the president and the congress to intervene in NC's decision not to allow medicaid expansion for ACA. He did this because his much vaunted free-market was closing down the only medical facility in his district for miles. (A quick search for this on the Fox archives shows no mention at all, btw, nor have I seen this in any "conservative" media.) This seems to me, at least, that liberal ideals exist even in staunch conservatives - which is what I said in my very first reply (which actually cast the light of ridiculousness on the OP's premise).

As to MSNBC, on occasion I watch Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, and sometimes Lawrence O'Donnell. And while I have at times disagreed with some of their conclusions, the facts they present have been pretty much sound and unbiased when I check them against other sources (and I do). I can't say the same for much of the programming I've seen on Fox - the facts presented have been pre-spun so that the conclusions drawn are, well, insane. Like listening to Ted Cruz - at a very early point, I find myself wanting to wash my ears. (That didn't violate the rule where I couldn't bring up a politician - every liberal on this board will understand that reference.) At that, the only real time I've found Fox using real, unadulterated facts is when it's sufficient just to point them out.

Even so, are we really trying to equate TV ratings with political mood? Really??? How did that work out for Mitt?

 

[candycorn]

I am continually amused by the twisted and perverted logic liberals use to try to prop up a dying and failed political methodology.

Again SC, no matter how accurate it may be, ad hominem is not allowed on this thread. So you cannot assume whatever kind of logic liberals use. You can only comment on what liberals do or point out how the logic they actually post or say or write is wrong if you believe it to be wrong.

Again, Foxy --- that is NOT an ad hominem attack. It is a commentary in response to the original question, as well as commentary on the previous posts. Your restriction is unrealistic. You give them the rhetorical advantage.

No. Common sense delivers the advantages to liberalism.

Again, if we didn't have FEMA, we'd have to invent it. If we didn't have NASA, we'd have to invent it. If the Clean Water Act, the 40 hour work week, the FMLA, FDIC, Social Security Administration were not here, we'd do well to invent them.

There are zero conservatives who anyone has heard of who wish to do-away with these programs that were all liberal inventions.

Therefore the embracement of liberalism by conservatives is proof positive that if there is a dying, defunct, misguided, antiquated, and obsolete ideology, it is that of the conserveatives.

You'll note that the OP will not give any objective data to support the central question...there is a reason for that; there are none.

For you to take programs that have widespread support on both sides of the aisle, and try to use them as divisive issues, is intellectually corrupt.

No it isn't. And here is why.

The allegation in the OP is that the country is moving to embrace conservatism. That is not in dispute.
My counter allegation is that the country has never been more liberal. That is not in dispute.

Do we agree so far? If not, please tell me where I am mistaken in digesting what the OP's allegation is. She refuses to support it with objective criteria so I may be mistaken.

Anyway, at several points the OP has alleged that conservatives cling, endorse, or otherwise want to return to the limited government that our founders sat up.

Conservatism indeed is pretty uniform in putting great value on the concepts the Founders built the country on which basically boiled down to a central government that fulfilled some very narrowly defined .necessary functions and then left the people alone to live their lives as they choose to live them.

If conservatism is the opposite of liberalism and conservatism means only doing what is "narrowly defined necessary functions" by the Constitution, then anything outside that narrow definition must be, by default, liberal in some manner or measure.

That nobody thinks twice to send FEMA in, that nearly everyone is thankful for their social security check in the end of their work lives, that nearly everyone is happy with clean water, the advancements of NASA, the security of banking, energy, air travel, etc.... just further proves that Americans embrace liberalism since these are all liberal creations.

[

Your insistence on the 0 vs 100 positions make your argument invalid. Most agree that FEMA is necessary --- but violently disagree with the manner in which is it being operated today. Just because liberals are perverting valid needs into power grabs doesn't mean that we have to salute smartly and march off the same cliff.

I'm not sure who you are referring to that violently disagrees with FEMA....can you name someone with some standing who has such "violent" objections?

What "power" has FEMA grabbed? I'd be interested to see what you come up with.

 

[Foxfyre]

Some things are just too off the mark (stupid) or non sequitur to respond to. I'm pretty sure the conservatives have done a pretty good job of supporting Goldberg's argument. At least better than the liberals have refuted it since so far none have come up with a reasonable argument to refute it. Ya'll all have a nice afternoon. I'm sure having a great day here.

Oh... I didn't realize this pseudo-debate was about Goldberg's article. I thought we were discussing the death of liberalism. My bad.

Ginsberg bases his entire premise on network TV? Liberalism is dead because, unlike Fox viewers, they don't need to be constantly told what they should believe over and over until they can recite it in arguments without thinking? This is what the OP assumes is the death of liberalism? Could it simply be that liberals actually think about what they see and hear and form their own opinions? Does the OP even think that's even possible (trying very hard not to go all ad hominem here)? Personally, and you conservatives out there might want to respond to this, I think that being conservative means that you can check your brain at the door. Maybe Fox viewers (and those seeking affirmation via websites like RealClearPolitics) need to get out more, because it seems that the constant drum of someone else's opinion is supplanting their ability to form their own.

A year ago, from my own state, a very conservative mayor from a very conservative NC district walked to Washington to ask the president and the congress to intervene in NC's decision not to allow medicaid expansion for ACA. He did this because his much vaunted free-market was closing down the only medical facility in his district for miles. (A quick search for this on the Fox archives shows no mention at all, btw, nor have I seen this in any "conservative" media.) This seems to me, at least, that liberal ideals exist even in staunch conservatives - which is what I said in my very first reply (which actually cast the light of ridiculousness on the OP's premise).

As to MSNBC, on occasion I watch Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, and sometimes Lawrence O'Donnell. And while I have at times disagreed with some of their conclusions, the facts they present have been pretty much sound and unbiased when I check them against other sources (and I do). I can't say the same for much of the programming I've seen on Fox - the facts presented have been pre-spun so that the conclusions drawn are, well, insane. Like listening to Ted Cruz - at a very early point, I find myself wanting to wash my ears. (That didn't violate the rule where I couldn't bring up a politician - every liberal on this board will understand that reference.) At that, the only real time I've found Fox using real, unadulterated facts is when it's sufficient just to point them out.

Even so, are we really trying to equate TV ratings with political mood? Really??? How did that work out for Mitt?

If you had read the OP you would have known that the concept of the thread was based on Goldberg's article. And if you had read the OP you would know that the OP did not suggests anybody was running to embrace liberalism but was rather rejecting liberalism as an attractive theory or theology or at least was rejecting liberals' defense or doctrine of liberalism. And if you had read the OP, you would have known that the decline of MSNBC was not used as definitive proof of the mood of the nation but rather his illustration of the canary in the coal mine. And you would know that he specifically mentioned the 2012 election and that the phenomenon of liberalism losing favor was not necessarily a reflection of who would win an election.

And about Mayor O'Neal, you should change your browser because whatever you are using isn't very good at finding good information apparently:
North Carolina mayor walks to Washington to bring focus to ObamaCare s effect on rural hospitals Fox News

 

[Spare_change]

I have noted a central theme in this thread, from our liberal counterparts, that they somehow believe that the federal government is necessary and, at this point in time, too small.

We read about FEMA, EPA, and all the rest of the alphabet federal monstrosities, as if they are shining examples of the necessity of having the federal government interfere in our lives. No one talks about the damage they do, or the alternatives to them.

For conversation's sake, let's do a little drill ----

If we assume that all federal dollars that support a particular program are redirected to the state level, name an alphabet organization that can't be done at the state level. Show us an economy of scale as a result of centralization at the federal level. Surely, it's not education, or disaster response, or even environmental control. So, what is it? Besides the obvious federal functions (provide for the general defense, etc.), just what advantage does the federal government bring to the table?

We all recognize the necessity for a federal government, but they seem to have forgotten one important thing - they exist because we create them. Without our permission, the federal government couldn't tax us, couldn't regulate us, couldn't pass onerous laws and regulations. In short, (he,he) they screw us because we bend over and ask them to.

Test for liberals - name a federal function that can't be performed at the state level (with the obvious exceptions), and done more closely aligned to the wishes of those people.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I have noted a central theme in this thread, from our liberal counterparts, that they somehow believe that the federal government is necessary and, at this point in time, too small.

We read about FEMA, EPA, and all the rest of the alphabet federal monstrosities, as if they are shining examples of the necessity of having the federal government interfere in our lives. No one talks about the damage they do, or the alternatives to them.

For conversation's sake, let's do a little drill ----

If we assume that all federal dollars that support a particular program are redirected to the state level, name an alphabet organization that can't be done at the state level. Show us an economy of scale as a result of centralization at the federal level. Surely, it's not education, or disaster response, or even environmental control. So, what is it? Besides the obvious federal functions (provide for the general defense, etc.), just what advantage does the federal government bring to the table?

We all recognize the necessity for a federal government, but they seem to have forgotten one important thing - they exist because we create them. Without our permission, the federal government couldn't tax us, couldn't regulate us, couldn't pass onerous laws and regulations. In short, (he,he) they screw us because we bend over and ask them to.

Test for liberals - name a federal function that can't be performed at the state level (with the obvious exceptions), and done more closely aligned to the wishes of those people.

FAA
FDA
FBI
CIA
NSA
DOJ
DOS
CG
NTSB
USDA
EPA
SSA
CINS

Those are just the ones that come immediately to mind.

 

[Spare_change]

I have noted a central theme in this thread, from our liberal counterparts, that they somehow believe that the federal government is necessary and, at this point in time, too small.

We read about FEMA, EPA, and all the rest of the alphabet federal monstrosities, as if they are shining examples of the necessity of having the federal government interfere in our lives. No one talks about the damage they do, or the alternatives to them.

For conversation's sake, let's do a little drill ----

If we assume that all federal dollars that support a particular program are redirected to the state level, name an alphabet organization that can't be done at the state level. Show us an economy of scale as a result of centralization at the federal level. Surely, it's not education, or disaster response, or even environmental control. So, what is it? Besides the obvious federal functions (provide for the general defense, etc.), just what advantage does the federal government bring to the table?

We all recognize the necessity for a federal government, but they seem to have forgotten one important thing - they exist because we create them. Without our permission, the federal government couldn't tax us, couldn't regulate us, couldn't pass onerous laws and regulations. In short, (he,he) they screw us because we bend over and ask them to.

Test for liberals - name a federal function that can't be performed at the state level (with the obvious exceptions), and done more closely aligned to the wishes of those people.

FAA
FDA
FBI
CIA
NSA
DOJ
DOS
CG
NTSB
USDA
EPA
SSA
CINS

Those are just the ones that come immediately to mind.

We all recognize the necessity of military, law enforcement, and intelligence organizations -

However, I adamantly disagree with FAA, DOJ (surely, you didn't think that one thru), USDA, EPA, SSA, and CINS. All those functions can be performed at the local level. You COULD make a case for the FAA managing interfaces between state organizations, but I'm not convinced that is necessary. The same could be said for DOJ, if we ignore the political hammer and sickle it's become over the past 6 years.

 

[Coyote]

Let's stick to the topic guys - not the poster, not goal posts - the topic. I think the idea here is treat each other with respect.

 

[Spare_change]

Let's stick to the topic guys - not the poster, not goal posts - the topic. I think the idea here is treat each other with respect.

Respect is earned.

 

[Coyote]

Let's stick to the topic guys - not the poster, not goal posts - the topic. I think the idea here is treat each other with respect.

Respect is earned.

In this thread - no. Read the thread rules and follow them, if you don't like the topic or how the thread is conducted you can start your own in this zone, with your own set of rules.

 

[Spare_change]

Let's stick to the topic guys - not the poster, not goal posts - the topic. I think the idea here is treat each other with respect.

Respect is earned.

In this thread - no. Read the thread rules and follow them, if you don't like the topic or how the thread is conducted you can start your own in this zone, with your own set of rules.

Ahhh .... now I got it .... respect is mandated. You know, kinda like in all those dictatorship thingies.

I'm done. I'm married ---- I don't need somebody else telling me what I can and cannot say.

 

[Votto]

Okay I'll wade in and offer the first post in the new Structured Debate zone.

In his column today Jonah Goldberg proposes a thesis that liberalism as it is defined and practiced in modern day America has worn itself out. It's proponents in the media have lost their luster and are no longer able to gain much if any traction in popular appeal. The 2014 election suggested people are looking for something different. President Obama has been able to move his party far to the left, but has been unable to attract recruits to join them.

The article: Is Liberalism Exhausted RealClearPolitics

Rules for this debate:
:
1. No ad hominem. Address the member's post and make no comment on the character or motive or intent of the member himself or herself.

2. No mention of Republicans or Democrats or any other political party. Keep the focus on liberalism and whether it has or has not run its course in America.

3. Please keep criticism of specific media, political, or other personalities to a minimum.

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED:

Is liberalism exhausted, i.e. has it run its course in America and will fade into the background in coming years?

Liberalism will be exhausted when it's host, the country, is dead.

Politics is all about getting a leg up on the average Joe. People send their money to candidates that can help get them money, or have some other political perk waiting for them if they are elected. This is why corporate America sends their money hand over fist to Washington, and it is why many corporations pay next to nothing in federal income taxes.

As for the voters, they believe the rhetoric that taxing the rich will bring them more money. They believe, or want to believe, that certain political parties actually represent them to give them a leg up on everyone else. The trouble is, this never happens cause they have not greased the wheels in Washington like corporate America has.

I think there is a reason corporate American lavishes politicians like Obama and Hillary. The only question is, when will the average voter understand why corporate America throws their money at them, and will will they grow weary of waiting for their promised utopia? How long will the rhetoric appease their appetite for a piece of the pie?

At the end of the day, eventually the rhetoric and government coercion of the press will not enough. Then it will be time for Marshall law.

 

[Coyote]

Let's stick to the topic guys - not the poster, not goal posts - the topic. I think the idea here is treat each other with respect.

Respect is earned.

In this thread - no. Read the thread rules and follow them, if you don't like the topic or how the thread is conducted you can start your own in this zone, with your own set of rules.

Ahhh .... now I got it .... respect is mandated. You know, kinda like in all those dictatorship thingies.

I'm done. I'm married ---- I don't need somebody else telling me what I can and cannot say.

This board has mutliple rooms where folks can post. There are different rules for different sections. I truly don't get why - if you have a problem with rules of a particular thread in Debate Now - you feel you must disrupt it. If it's not to your liking - there's a zillion other threads and sections.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay I'll wade in and offer the first post in the new Structured Debate zone.

In his column today Jonah Goldberg proposes a thesis that liberalism as it is defined and practiced in modern day America has worn itself out. It's proponents in the media have lost their luster and are no longer able to gain much if any traction in popular appeal. The 2014 election suggested people are looking for something different. President Obama has been able to move his party far to the left, but has been unable to attract recruits to join them.

The article: Is Liberalism Exhausted RealClearPolitics

Rules for this debate:
:
1. No ad hominem. Address the member's post and make no comment on the character or motive or intent of the member himself or herself.

2. No mention of Republicans or Democrats or any other political party. Keep the focus on liberalism and whether it has or has not run its course in America.

3. Please keep criticism of specific media, political, or other personalities to a minimum.

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED:

Is liberalism exhausted, i.e. has it run its course in America and will fade into the background in coming years?

Liberalism will be exhausted when it's host, the country, is dead.

Politics is all about getting a leg up on the average Joe. People send their money to candidates that can help get them money, or have some other political perk waiting for them if they are elected. This is why corporate America sends their money hand over fist to Washington, and it is why many corporations pay next to nothing in federal income taxes.

As for the voters, they believe the rhetoric that taxing the rich will bring them more money. They believe, or want to believe, that certain political parties actually represent them to give them a leg up on everyone else. The trouble is, this never happens cause they have not greased the wheels in Washington like corporate America has.

I think there is a reason corporate American lavishes politicians like Obama and Hillary. The only question is, when will the average voter understand why corporate America throws their money at them, and will will they grow weary of waiting for their promised utopia? How long will the rhetoric appease their appetite for a piece of the pie?

At the end of the day, eventually the rhetoric and government coercion of the press will not enough. Then it will be time for Marshall law.

You know, sometimes I think it isn't anything really specific. Certain sound bite kinds of things catch on and are repeated with confidence even when the 'liberals' could not explain in their own words why they are accurate if their lives depended on it. I think it is some kind of cognitive disconnect that substitutes common sense for a kind of nobility or sense of 'rightness' and a 'we are just better, nicer people and therefore justiifed' kind of mentality. Everything they read or hear is filtered through that prism and often comes out quite different from what the writer or speaker actually said.

Example: On another thread I argued a change in the way the political debates are structured so that the mostly unknowns receive at least some valuable face time and have a chance to be known. Another member, most likely quite sincerely, translated that to equating winning a debate with winning on the ground. My comments didn't even suggest that.

I don't think this kind of disconnect is intentional except when the professional pundits and promoters do it. But I suspect there is something in the 'liberal' psyche that just causes him/her to see things differently from how they actually are.

But it is because liberals are as well educated and intelligent, maybe even more so, in the general public, that I think at some point this person or that person has a flash of inspiration and actually does try to honestly explain and defend some things he/she has considered gospel. And when such people are unable to do so, they are more able to see the flaws in the philosophies and begin to acknowledge those flaws.

And that is when liberalism begins to lose its appeal as a religion for them. And they no longer embrace it as they once did.