Liberalism: Can It Survive?

[Adam's Apple]

Good article by John Leo for U. S. News & World Report
www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/050307/opinion/7john.htm

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I think he nails it when he says:

The failure to perceive the importance of community has seriously wounded liberalism and undermined its core principles. So has the strong tendency to convert moral and social questions into issues of individual rights, usually constructed and then massaged by judges to place them beyond the reach of majorities and the normal democratic process.

 

[dilloduck]

I think he nails it when he says:

They may have been cornered into stating what they really are--Socialists teetering on the brink of communism. We're already hearing them calling themselves " Progressives". Makes you think they are actually heading foreward.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

They may have been cornered into stating what they really are--Socialists teetering on the brink of communism. We're already hearing them calling themselves " Progressives". Makes you think they are actually heading foreward.

Can't see how they are moving "forward"...especially looking at his decriptions of liberalism:

the liberal agenda consists of wanting to spend more

Its fundamental value is that society should have no fundamental values, except for a pervasive relativism that sees all values as equal. Part of the package was a militant secularism, pitched against religion, the chief source of fundamental values.

Modern liberalism, says Harvard political philosopher Michael Sandel, has emptied the national narrative of its civic resources, putting religion outside the public square and creating a value-neutral "procedural republic."

Students are taught that objective judgments are impossible. All knowledge is compromised by issues of power and bias. Therefore, there is no way to come to judgment about anything, since judgment itself rests on quicksand. This principle, however, is suspended when the United States and western culture are discussed, because the West is essentially evil and guilty of endless crimes. Better to declare a vague transnational identity and admiration for the United Nations. The campuses indulge in heavy coercion and indoctrination.

I laugh when he says:

Liberals have been slow to grasp the mainstream reaction to the no-values culture…

In their bafflement over rejection of their product…

...and they think WE are stupid?

 

[dilloduck]

Can't see how they are moving "forward"...especially looking at his decriptions of liberalism:



I laugh when he says:

...and they think WE are stupid?

LOL actually I do think they respect conservative wisdom because they have to be so surreptitious and use proxies to further their agenda.

 

[Bonnie]

They may have been cornered into stating what they really are--Socialists teetering on the brink of communism. We're already hearing them calling themselves " Progressives". Makes you think they are actually heading foreward.

All part of that sophisticated Liberalise language that suggests the rest of us are just a bunch of moonshine drinkin, illiterate UFO hotline efficianados, religious zealots who kill abortion doctors and gays :firing:

 

[Bonnie]

I think he nails it when he says:

Yes that statement was right on target In my opinion.

 

[KarlMarx]

All part of that sophisticated Liberalise language that suggests the rest of us are just a bunch of moonshine drinkin, illiterate UFO hotline efficianados, religious zealots who kill abortion doctors and gays :firing:

That's a totally unfair stereotype.... I don't believe in UFOs

Actually, stop and think about it. Neo-communism (which is what we usually call "liberalism", but actually is just warmed over communism) bases itself on a lot of flawed assumptions about human nature and the world in general....

1. Humans are naturally capable of doing good, without laws, without God, without the fear of God.
2. Society is inherently evil and all problems in the world are the result of class struggle.
3. People's dignity is expendable
4. Your worth and reason for existence comes from the State.
5. The State has the right to take away your property plus any or all of your rights for any reason whatsoever.

So... if someone tells you that you're not worth anything, you're expendable, you're evil because of what you do or what you are and that you're a greedy so-and-so because you have some money in your pocket (whether you do or don't).... I'm sure that you'll just warm up to him, right? But that is what "liberals" (a.k.a. neo-comms) are implying about the rest of us by their actions, their attitudes etc. No wonder they're losing popularity!

 

[Bonnie]

That's a totally unfair stereotype.... I don't believe in UFOs

Actually, stop and think about it. Neo-communism (which is what we usually call "liberalism", but actually is just warmed over communism) bases itself on a lot of flawed assumptions about human nature and the world in general....

1. Humans are naturally capable of doing good, without laws, without God, without the fear of God.
2. Society is inherently evil and all problems in the world are the result of class struggle.
3. People's dignity is expendable
4. Your worth and reason for existence comes from the State.
5. The State has the right to take away your property plus any or all of your rights for any reason whatsoever.

So... if someone tells you that you're not worth anything, you're expendable, you're evil because of what you do or what you are and that you're a greedy so-and-so because you have some money in your pocket (whether you do or don't).... I'm sure that you'll just warm up to him, right? But that is what "liberals" (a.k.a. neo-comms) are implying about the rest of us by their actions, their attitudes etc. No wonder they're losing popularity!

Well stated as always... Neo-Comms :teeth: I like that!

The one that stands out the most to me right now is that we are all expendable, and surely human expendability for the purposes of ingraining an agenda has been all over the news lately.

 

[Annie]

So... if someone tells you that you're not worth anything, you're expendable, you're evil because of what you do or what you are and that you're a greedy so-and-so because you have some money in your pocket (whether you do or don't)....

Sounds like one of my days on the boards. They are wrong about the $!

 

[Bonnie]

Sounds like one of my days on the boards. They are wrong about the $!

Surely not here??

 

[Adam's Apple]

LOL actually I do think they respect conservative wisdom ...

To go along with your comment, Dillo, recently I read a column by a liberal writer who was trying to convince his readers that the Democrat Party was the real Republican Party. How weird is that?

 

[KarlMarx]

Well stated as always... Neo-Comms :teeth: I like that!

The one that stands out the most to me right now is that we are all expendable, and surely human expendability for the purposes of ingraining an agenda has been all over the news lately.

Thanks Bonnie.... but neo-communism really IS what today's liberalism is today.....

As far as the classical definition of the word "liberal" goes.... conservatives, ironically, are more likely to fit the bill! Same with "progressives".... conservatives, not liberals also fit the definition. Some "for instances"

1. Which side has done more to advance the cause of democracy (i.e. a liberal form of government)?

2. Which side is more in favor of a free market economy with only reasonable amounts of regulation (i.e. a liberal economy)

3. Which side has come with ideas (ideas such as school vouchers, privatizing Social Security etc.) to CHANGE THE WAY THINGS ARE NOW BEING DONE TO SOLVE SOCIAL ILLS (the definition of progressive) ?

on the other hand.....

1. Which side cozies up to dictators and doesn't want to do anything to combat tyrrany?

2. Which side is opposing progressive ideas tooth and nail and clinging on to the status quo?

3. Which side is currently in favor of a regulated economy with lots and lots of government involvement?


I think I've proven my point..... WE'RE the liberals (according to the classic definition) and WE'RE the progressives! Ironic, isn't it?

 

[007]

Well stated as always... Neo-Comms :teeth: I like that!

Me too. I'm going to remember that one. I'll either use it here again, or in conversation with a liberal, and I can't wait for the later... :teeth:

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Thanks Bonnie.... but neo-communism really IS what today's liberalism is today.....

As far as the classical definition of the word "liberal" goes.... conservatives, ironically, are more likely to fit the bill! Same with "progressives".... conservatives, not liberals also fit the definition. Some "for instances"

1. Which side has done more to advance the cause of democracy (i.e. a liberal form of government)?

2. Which side is more in favor of a free market economy with only reasonable amounts of regulation (i.e. a liberal economy)

3. Which side has come with ideas (ideas such as school vouchers, privatizing Social Security etc.) to CHANGE THE WAY THINGS ARE NOW BEING DONE TO SOLVE SOCIAL ILLS (the definition of progressive) ?

on the other hand.....

1. Which side cozies up to dictators and doesn't want to do anything to combat tyrrany?

2. Which side is opposing progressive ideas tooth and nail and clinging on to the status quo?

3. Which side is currently in favor of a regulated economy with lots and lots of government involvement?


I think I've proven my point..... WE'RE the liberals (according to the classic definition) and WE'RE the progressives! Ironic, isn't it?

Ironic for sure. Maybe we should start calling things for what they are: the Democrats are neo-comms and the Republicans are liberals. The rest of us poor fools are conservatives.

 

[dilloduck]

Ironic for sure. Maybe we should start calling things for what they are: the Democrats are neo-comms and the Republicans are liberals. The rest of us poor fools are conservatives.

Seems to me that the once party of the liberals is now merely a party of obstructionist who are trying to stem the tide of conservativism until they can figure out who in the hell they are and what in the hell they stand for.

 

[Bonnie]

Seems to me that the once party of the liberals is now merely a party of obstructionist who are trying to stem the tide of conservativism until they can figure out who in the hell they are and what in the hell they stand for.

They already know what they stand for, what they are trying to figure out is how to re package and sell Communism to look like something desirable to the non baby boomers.

 

[Adam's Apple]

...the Democrats are neo-comms

I think the Democrat Party today is a socialist/communist cult. Just about the same as a religious cult, but political in nature. If you don't toe the "party" line, you're "excommunicated" and become a pariah. JMHO

 

[theim]

They already know what they stand for, what they are trying to figure out is how to re package and sell Communism to look like something desirable to the non baby boomers.

Agreed. With all the talk from strategists about liberals needing to find what they stand for, they are forgetting or ignoring the fact that they do know what they stand for. The only problem is how to disguise it as conservatism. Like Howard Dean and religion. Does ANYONE really, honestly think, when they hear that man recite scripture, that he has found God? Of course not. He is trying to make people THINK he has found God.

 

[Bonnie]

Agreed. With all the talk from strategists about liberals needing to find what they stand for, they are forgetting or ignoring the fact that they do know what they stand for. The only problem is how to disguise it as conservatism. Like Howard Dean and religion. Does ANYONE really, honestly think, when they hear that man recite scripture, that he has found God? Of course not. He is trying to make people THINK he has found God.

Well they will probably just keep trying to beat the rest of us into submission hoping we will either not notice or just get too tired and ashamed to fight back, but of course the method they use will be a kinder more sneaky one.