Liberals and reality

[musicman]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
But can liberalism not be synonomous with freedom? The original tenets of Democracy were defined as Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe you are describing the original tenets of democracy as defined by the French, during their ill-fated revolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
While liberty and equality I believe are self-explanatory, fraternity loosely translated referers to the natural bonds of brotherhood existing between man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democracy, as defined by our Founding Fathers, was based on a more peculiarly Christian interpretation of man's essential nature. Rather than believing in the "natural bonds of brotherhood existing between man", they believed that man, by his nature, is totally depraved. By extension, then, governments, being creations of man, must strive toward tyranny. Hence, the great pains they went to, to keep government in check.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Liberal thought of Fraternity often suggests that fraternity suggests that there be a basic cooperation and support that exist between men and hence the roots of your basic welfare system. Of course how successful a given system is on acheiving that goal is open for debate. However the liberal democracy is one that tries to embrace the three tennets of democracy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The liberal democracy you espouse, then, was rejected by our Founding Fathers, as it is rejected by modern day conservatives.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by musicman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The liberal democracy you espouse, then, was rejected by our Founding Fathers, as it is rejected by modern day conservatives.

Indeed, you're right, it would seem to be the case. However, my point is that it has been embraced by countries and in many instances relatively successful in its implementation. I have no problem with the US system by any means. The US's Conservative Democracy, certainly works for most of you, but I am pointing out that there other liberal systems out there that work as well.

 

[kcmcdonald]

Issac a quick recap on the defentiton of a modern American conservative.

A modern american conservative is a reaction to teh 1930's "New deal" liberal. The new deal liberal holds the thought that the Govt( i.e taxpayers) are responsible for the absolute welfare of the Body politic. In other words the nation is responsible to the very definition of the word of it's own people. Mainly that the government believes(new deal liberals) that through govt. intervention in the economy and the individual that a entitilement can be provided to the society. Mainly that the nation is no longer split socailly but economically and the "New Deal liberals" believe that to support the poor populace and in there ideology prevent economic war-fare through subsidies and they can "force" upward mobility by redistributing the wealth that the economy creates.

The modern conservative has taken the view that this idea or political practice is the opposite and infact completly wrong if held up against the constitution. The modern republican believes that it is up to the idividual for the welfare of the indivduals. That a person is resposible for his own and it is not the Govt.s job to ensure the populations "welfare." That hte modern republican believes that the Govt. should follow what the framers put in the constitiution. The Federal Government is responsible for trade(economy) and defence. That it has no responsibility for the "welfare of the citizenry(the federal government)" Many republicans champion states rights. The constitution grants all powers not given the Fed's in the constitution to the states. This is the main idea of "Social welfare" for republicans. That it is a state issue and that the issue should be taken care of on a personal and individual basis.

So in conclusion if that sounded a little wordy, main difference.
Liberal-society is responsible for the welfare of the rest of the society and the government is needed to ensure that wealth is distributed evenally by manipulating the GDP.
Conservative-That governments only role is to serve as defence and to ensure that the economy runs smothly and unabaded by manipulating it with taxes and tariffs.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by kcmcdonald
Issac a quick recap on the defentiton of a modern American conservative.

A modern american conservative is a reaction to teh 1930's "New deal" liberal. The new deal liberal holds the thought that the Govt( i.e taxpayers) are responsible for the absolute welfare of the Body politic. In other words the nation is responsible to the very definition of the word of it's own people. Mainly that the government believes(new deal liberals) that through govt. intervention in the economy and the individual that a entitilement can be provided to the society. Mainly that the nation is no longer split socailly but economically and the "New Deal liberals" believe that to support the poor populace and in there ideology prevent economic war-fare through subsidies and they can "force" upward mobility by redistributing the wealth that the economy creates.

The modern conservative has taken the view that this idea or political practice is the opposite and infact completly wrong if held up against the constitution. The modern republican believes that it is up to the idividual for the welfare of the indivduals. That a person is resposible for his own and it is not the Govt.s job to ensure the populations "welfare." That hte modern republican believes that the Govt. should follow what the framers put in the constitiution. The Federal Government is responsible for trade(economy) and defence. That it has no responsibility for the "welfare of the citizenry(the federal government)" Many republicans champion states rights. The constitution grants all powers not given the Fed's in the constitution to the states. This is the main idea of "Social welfare" for republicans. That it is a state issue and that the issue should be taken care of on a personal and individual basis.

So in conclusion if that sounded a little wordy, main difference.
Liberal-society is responsible for the welfare of the rest of the society and the government is needed to ensure that wealth is distributed evenally by manipulating the GDP.
Conservative-That governments only role is to serve as defence and to ensure that the economy runs smothly and unabaded by manipulating it with taxes and tariffs.

An excellent post, answering many of my questions, thank you. I was not aware of the history behind the american conservative movement. I find it interesting how the US conservative movement grew quite independent of other conservative movements worldwide and appears, from your depiction, to be domestically rooted.

Perhaps you can also answer another one of my questions. I've noticed that while American conservatives and actually most world conservatives are often very laissez-faire on economic issues, some are often quite strident and hands-on in respects to social issues (ie Gay Marriage, Abortion, Religion, etc.). Or so, at least the stereotype goes. Liberals often, ironically, take the opposite perspective and are more hands-on economically, but hands-off socially. Why do you think that is?

 

[kcmcdonald]

Issac,
to address you're other statement on the validaty of "Liberal Democracies" of Europe and Canada.
These economies do work. I'll say that. And these economies do a good job of closing the gap between rich and poor. The next question to ask then becomes "at what cost do these individuals live in a somewhat social and equal society?"

The first difference i submit is that while these societies do have a realitive equal society they also have a lower wealth than america. Now all countries have there poor and all countries have there rich, but on a whole the US system produces more wealth. The fact of the matter being that with less intervention into the social lives of a countries citizenship individual investment and capital reproduction becomes much more efficiant. That's where we get the "In America you can go from rags to richs on an idea." Because all it takes is capital. I know this is the same in the other countries however this notion is embeded in our society and is know through out the thrid world.

The next difference i can see is in employment numbers. Right now the US is going through a job slump and the economy is running a 5.6% unemployed. While this number is a little alarming in america, it is much loer than the unemployment rate of western Europe and Canada whoes averages range around 8%. If 8% of our populatiuon was unemployed the sitting president would be hung in the town square. It is our lack of social, or Government managed, economy that the market produces at a higher rate and less amount of money is taken from the GDP and thrown towards social programs.

I could go one more but, I think these two examples illustrate my point well enouhj that others may piggyback on my thoughts.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Indeed, you're right, it would seem to be the case. However, my point is that it has been embraced by countries and in many instances relatively successful in its implementation. I have no problem with the US system by any means. The US's Conservative Democracy, certainly works for most of you, but I am pointing out that there other liberal systems out there that work as well.

Cool. I guess what concerns me, though, is that there are many in this country, who could be called liberal elitists, who are supportive of these interpretations, to the exclusion of US Constitutional democracy. Indeed, one of them sits on the US Supreme Court. Here's a quote from Justice Stephen Breyer:

" The US Constitution will have to evolve in order to fit with the documents of other countries".

Does anyone besides me find that frightening as hell?

 

[kcmcdonald]

Perhaps you can also answer another one of my questions. I've noticed that while American conservatives and actually most world conservatives are often very laissez-faire on economic issues, some are often quite strident and hands-on in respects to social issues (ie Gay Marriage, Abortion, Religion, etc.). Or so, at least the stereotype goes. Liberals often, ironically, take the opposite perspective and are more hands-on economically, but hands-off socially. Why do you think that is?

Hm? that's a good question. The only way i can figure it is that conservatives, in general, take the issue of "social welfare" and try to decunstruct it down to it's simppelest forms. Partly i think because no politician can rightly say that he wishes to do away with all social welfare. he would never get elected. By contrast the libs are mostly hands off because to exand certain programs any father than they are now would caot the taxpayers a great deal of money and in turn would cost that democrate his job.

I hope this helps you out. I've never had a question possed that way it is a very good point. I don't know 100% why. I'll look in to it and see if I can find something in the parties or ideoligies history.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by musicman
Cool. I guess what concerns me, though, is that there are many in this country, who could be called liberal elitists, who are supportive of these interpretations, to the exclusion of US Constitutional democracy. Indeed, one of them sits on the US Supreme Court. Here's a quote from Justice Stephen Breyer:

" The US Constitution will have to evolve in order to fit with the documents of other countries".

Does anyone besides me find that frightening as hell?

Yeah I can see that as being a disservice to your country. Any change to your consistution, which is an internal document, should be as a result of internal forces, never external sources. That goes for any other democracy.

 

[kcmcdonald]

musicman,
It has been said many times that the constitution is a living document. and many judges interpet it that way. Yes it is scary that an interpitation on a US law would be required to fit into the permeters of a foriegn nations law.

What case was this qoute from?

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by kcmcdonald
musicman,
It has been said many times that the constitution is a living document. and many judges interpet it that way. Yes it is scary that an interpitation on a US law would be required to fit into the permeters of a foriegn nations law.

What case was this qoute from?

I believe it was at a speaking engagement rather than in the context of a case. He was quoted in Mona Charen's wonderful book, "Useful Idiots".

 

[kcmcdonald]

funny that sounds about right.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I'm not accusing conservatives of anything, nor am I trying to committ a ruse, I'm simply asking questions for which I would like to know answers, nothing more, nothing less.

You need to share a little more isaac. Where do you disagree with me? I know you do, you're just chicken to jump in until you see the endgame, Like all libs. God forbid they feel stupid after making an error. In IT we call it "analysis paralysis".

I've met many conservatives that do not share your point of view

On what?

and ironically, I've many liberals who also share your point of view on the political spectrum or coin, in your case.

You snide little judgements are uncalled for. I already debunked the common charge of binary thinking levelled against conservatives.

Is kcm's description of basic modern american political differences the one in his post on this thread or elsewhere?

Yes. The post on this thread. I'm not saying it's the rosetta stone of political definition or anything.

Your definition of conservatism, while quite rightly defining the forces driving the free market, does not necessarily equate the human factor.

What does it mean to "equate" the human factor?

While pure free market societies without regulation indeed provides a motive to acheive success though risk, it does not provide support for individuals who fail in their pursuit.

I don't want anarchy, I believe in a low level social net of welfare, but I think shame should be attached to receiveing welfare, unless of course a person is crippled or something, this social factor alone could vastly reduce the number on welfare, but no, as it is, libs tell people they deserve this money, and that republicans and whitey are the reason they need it. They are actively taught to blame others for their troubles.

Pure free market societies also cater to posterity which create economic problems where eventually the majority of individuals fall into poverty as seen in the early days of capitalism.

Perhaps in the old days when the instruments of capitalism were not available to all and the entrepeneurial mindset was not prevalant, that was the outcome. Now we all must become entrepeneurs, we must take personal responsibility for all aspects of delivering our good or service, collecting payment and seeing to the continuation and growth of the endeavor. The dumb, comfortable days of being a cog on someone else's wheel are gone, and rightfully so. Are we men or are we "workers"?

Such is what happened in England in the 19th century before social reforms. Social reforms open the gates of the capital trickle down, eventually allowing for the vast improvement of quality of life for the average englishment. Is it economically "fair", not strictly speaking, but was it socially "fair", perhaps. Now some liberals take that idea too far and want there not only be a net for the poor, but TV's, DVD's and pool tables. I, however, do not share that opinion and believe a welfare net must present, but earned.

We agree on this one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
But can liberalism not be synonomous with freedom?

There are an infinite number of realities in the multiverse. Redefining liberalism as freedom would put you greatly outside modern concensus reality. Maybe that doesn't matter to you.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Your snide little judgements are uncalled for.

What was this statement then, RWA??

you're just chicken to jump in until you see the endgame, Like all libs.

Fact it most certainly is not. May be that it's your experience, but certainly not fact. Your snide little judgements are uncalled for.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
There are an infinite number of realities in the multiverse. Redefining liberalism as freedom would put you greatly outside modern concensus reality. Maybe that doesn't matter to you.

Outside of YOUR consensus reality perhaps, not alot of others.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Outside of YOUR consensus reality perhaps, not alot of others.

Do you mean whacked out libs?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Do you mean whacked out libs?

They are probably in that mix as well, yes, but Liberalism CAN be synonymous with freedom when not taken to an extreme. Much like conservatism, or even that whacked out group of neo-conservatives.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
They are probably in that mix as well, yes, but Liberalism CAN be synonymous with freedom when not taken to an extreme. Much like conservatism, or even that whacked out group of neo-conservatives.

Are you talking about the old definition of liberalism, which is actually what conservatives are now, or are you talking about the thinly veiled socialists of today?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Are you talking about the old definition of liberalism, which is actually what conservatives are now, or are you talking about the thinly veiled socialists of today?

modern day conservatives are NOT classic liberals by ANY stretch of the imagination. and NO, I'm not talking about the wanna be socialists

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
modern day conservatives are NOT classic liberals by ANY stretch of the imagination. and NO, I'm not talking about the wanna be socialists

It's not that big of a stretch,actually.

http://www.ukpoliticsbrief.co.uk/netsecure/MA pol Liberalism.htm


"MODERN LIBERALS HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON WITH THEIR CLASSICAL
PREDECESSORS"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberalism developed in the 17th and 18th centuries as a response and alternative to, monarchical tyranny and absolutism, that is the belief in unlimited powers for the monarch. Instead liberalism supports the principles of individualism and limited government; that the state should allow maximum individual liberty ( residual freedom) and interfere as little as possible with individual choice ; this is linked with religious toleration and support for the laissez faire economy, where free enterprise is allowed to flourish. Liberalism is the foundation of the prevailing ideology of the Western world, that of liberal capitalism that we see today.

The main ideas within liberalism in the classical sense are:

Freedom

- government should permit the individual maximum freedom; the individual is the building block of society rather than classes, and the state and its institutions are creations of man for his benefit, rather than having any other historical justification. The state is seen as a necessary evil ( Tom Paine 18th century ) Government is by the consent of the governed, and so is always limited so as to respect the rights ( freedoms ) of individuals. The liberal idea of freedom is residual, that is people should be left to get on with their own lives; this contrasts with the socialist view that freedom is a positive thing that needs to be supported by state intervention.

- belief in benefit of rational argument; individuals are capable of reaching solutions to problems by the use of reason, and so do not need the church or the acceptance of traditional values in place of reasoned argument;

- Laissez-faire in economic life. Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations' 1776, argued that individual choice in the economic sphere would maximise material good for all, so that he gave an economic interpretation to the liberal view.

- Liberals are against big government as they see this as undermining the above principles.

Equality.

People are equal in some fundamental sense as being born with certain basic rights; this is best exemplified in the American Declaration of Independence: '...all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights......' Liberals see equality in terms of equality of opportunity; this contrasts with the socialist view of equality of outcome, or positive freedoms, ie that people have a right to minimum standards in welfare and public services. Equality also means that people have equal rights before the law.

Tolerance

Tolerance is an important element of classical liberalism since society consists of individuals with varying values and principles and as far as possible these differences should be respected; minority groups need the protection of the law in some cases to prevent the 'tyranny of the majority'. Where liberalism took hold, such as in the USA we see constitutional safeguards for freedom of expression, religious and political.



Internationalist

Liberalism has tended towards what we could call internationalism, that is support for the community of nations idea - the view that human rights are not specific to one nation, and in addition support for international laissez faire or free trade.



In the later part of the 19th century, Liberals became more aware of the problems associated with industrialisation and there developed a variation of classical liberalism known as social liberalism, which believed that individual progress in some cases needed state assistance with some forms of welfare and state intervention. This is based on what some see as a basic dilemma in the liberal position: that of reconciling equality and freedom, since very often freedom has been associated with growing inequality. Thus the Liberal government of 1906 began what we know today as the welfare state, and in the 1930s Maynard keynes and Lord Beveridge built on this to lay the foundations of the post war consensus. In the UK governments accepted the principle of full employment and the welfare state after 1942, and in the USA Roosevelt brought in the New Deal programme.

Liberalism as a separate force tended to be squeezed in most democracies by the conservatives on the one hand and the social democrats on the other; the latter were represented by Labour in Britain and they took up many Liberal ideas and became associated with the social liberal position.

The Conservative position draws on many liberal ideas in the economic sense, but gives more emphasis to law and order and the preservation of state sovereignty. For this reason it is more authoritarian than the liberal position. It has also emphasised more traditional family values. It also places greater importance on traditional institutions such as the monarchy and parliament; this is influenced by the thinking of Edmund Burke. Liberals are more inclined to look at political institutions in a pragmatic way.

The Liberal party in Britain nevertheless campaigned for greater individual rights and constitutional checks on government; before Labour were converted to constitutional reform, the Liberals campaigned for among other things:

voting reform

Regional representation ( subsidiarity )

Freedom of information

a Bill of Rights

Good quality public services especially education ( Lib Dems the only party to support higher taxes for education; NB ear-marked tax idea )

Pro-European / internationalist

Consensus politics / move away from partisan ( non-liberal ) banter

It is notable to what extent new Labour has moved into this traditional Liberal area.

The New Right grew out of the collapse of the post war consensus in the UK but was part of a wider international revival of 19th century classical liberal economics and conservatism. The approach is based on the ideas of people like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, both supporters of the use of free market solutions to social problems. In the words of Margaret Thatcher, 'you can't buck the market'. It draws on classical liberal thinkers such as J S Mill and Bentham. Society is seen as based on individual self interest: our motivation is primarily towards our family and their needs rather than any general concept of a 'common good' as put forward by the social democratic model. Mrs Thatcher is reputed to have said, 'there's no such thing as society'. By this she meant that ultimately it is individuals who must be seen as the building block of policy, their responsibilities and behaviour is crucial to how society as we know it functions. Against this is the corporatist tendency of the post war era that viewed society more as competing classes or interests, ( eg labour versus capital ); this was formalised in the principle of tri-partism, that was the system of negotiating between the CBI, TUC and government. The New Right believed that the paternalistic, corporatist tendency of post war governments had created a lot of society's problems such as benefit dependency and the suppression of enterprise. As part of this approach, social inequality was seen as a necessary part of an enterprise economy. This draws directly on Friedman and his views of pauperisation.

On the other hand, another strand of the New Right is actually authoritarian, the belief in a strong national identity, law and order, and traditional values; this is illustrated in the introduction by the Conservatives of Clause 28 banning the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities. This draws on a view of human nature similar to the views of Thomas Hobbes. But in general there has been a major rejection of big government and state involvement in the economy and society.

As a result of the ascendancy of the New Right, classical liberal principles are now the foundations of modern political debate throughout the Western world.