Student of Ideologies - Hello!

[Bfgrn]

Annie, I will allow Robert F. Kennedy Jr answer your question...he frames it perfectly IMO...

There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. I own a corporation. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government.....

http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/speeches/2005-09-10rfkjr.asp

Thanks for that. Robert was a genuine good guy.

"It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war." Abraham Lincoln in a letter to William F. Elkins, November 21, 1864.

A piece I wrote years ago. http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/50779-end-of-democracy.html

Robert JR still IS a good guy midcan...and he does have his dad's genes...

 

[Bfgrn]

I guess you have read Russell Kirk but I included a conservative for balance. LOL As time moves the only direction it can, conservatives start to sound like liberals as things do change in spite of our initial discomfort.

This is true, and I call it pragmatism as opposed to idealism and to claim to act on "principles" regardless of outcome.

Mark Twain said it a little more direct...

The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.
Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935

 

[MaggieMae]

Hello everyone,

I'm just a college student who wants to deepen my understanding of ideologies. I don't hide the fact that I am conservative, but I do believe I am one of the "relatively" open-minded conservatives. I don't follow the news and current events as much as I read ancient philosophers. I imagine people on these boards frown upon the labeling of people's views, but here are my pathetically optimistic reasons for joining these message boards:

1. To better understand the ideology of liberalism.
2. To become more nuanced / balanced / fair in my thinking
3. To have this community weed out my weakest thoughts
4. To have thoughtful members of these boards change my mind on certain issues. Perhaps in a year I'll have to sign up as a new user named "TimelessLiberal."

I do have a website, but it only has a few articles/posts so far. I hope to write more in the following weeks. So far I have an article (dialogue) about Gay Marriage, and one about College and Conservatives. Visit timelessconservative.blogspot.com if you feel like reading amateur philosophy/politics.


Thanks for reading,
I hope to see you around these boards,
----
Timeless Conservative

Welcome. You really don't need to be a "timeless" anything. The more you learn, the more you'll know that adherence to strict ideology (party-first attitude) is what causes societies (like ours) to fail. It causes anger, resentment, and ultimate polarization and gridlock. No country can remain in civil war for any length of time. Eventually, we need to climb out of the ring and face reality.

 

[MaggieMae]

Hello everyone,

I'm just a college student who wants to deepen my understanding of ideologies. I don't hide the fact that I am conservative, but I do believe I am one of the "relatively" open-minded conservatives. I don't follow the news and current events as much as I read ancient philosophers. I imagine people on these boards frown upon the labeling of people's views, but here are my pathetically optimistic reasons for joining these message boards:

1. To better understand the ideology of liberalism.

define 'liberalism'

1. To become more nuanced / balanced / fair in my thinking

You'll learn that your first point was naive

1. To have this community weed out my weakest thoughts

Wrong forum for that.....

1. To have thoughtful members of these boards

That's a short list; you want to go to LoR or the Dawkins forums

That's odd. I see nothing in the rules and regulations making such stupid determinations as to what is acceptable on this message board or not.

 

[MaggieMae]

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...

Conservatives
"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/03/block.pdf

That's great. I was reminded of the commerical (can't remember what it was for) of the white and black children having fun on a playground together and the white mother dragging her child away saying she couldn't play with those kids. The child just says "Why?" And the screen goes dark.

And please...no racial tone was intended. Just the fact that children LEARN from their parents how to react to social situations starting very very young.

 

[MaggieMae]

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...

Conservatives
"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/03/block.pdf

If as you claim Democrats believe people are 'basically good', why do they need to be controlled by government? Why wouldn't they be able to make their own choices in what is 'fair' and 'good for others?'

Most do. The problem is you only read about those who don't because of the current hysterics so you just assume "all" libs/dems must be as you describe. That's hardly the case.

 

[MaggieMae]

"Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron

Welcome. An excellent book on Ideology is linked below, worth a read.

In truth we are all conservative and liberal. Getting through youth and adolescence, getting married, serving in the military, raising children, working with others, growing up and living in society requires balance. Freedom means something other than an abstract concept - It is only in our behaviors that we show who we are.

The two quotes here by two liberal thinkers capture a bit of my ideal liberal thought. I think in politics and society liberals look forward, conservatives backward. Conservatism often seems to me only a justification for privilege and hierarchy. Power in another sense.

Conservatism (always?) is basically reactive (see Link AH), whether it be to oppose civil rights, suffrage, gay marriage, individual rights (abortion) or other more practical things such as welfare, UHC, or social security. American conservatism is a hodgepodge of things that today has fallen apart because it had no sound agreed upon base of ideas. Mixing free market greed and religious fundamentalism is a tough mix.

I guess you have read Russell Kirk but I included a conservative for balance. LOL As time moves the only direction it can, conservatives start to sound like liberals as things do change in spite of our initial discomfort.

Amazon.com: Ideology: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Michael Freeden: Books


Agee is hard on you guys.
What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

AH - excellent assessment of the reactionary element of C.
Amazon.com: The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy: Albert O. Hirschman: Books


Conservatism - some we can all agree on others I find ????
The Kirk Center - Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk

"Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact." John Rawls

My own brief analysis of the difference between conservatives and liberals is that the right always lives in a "what if" state of mind; the left lives in a "what is" state of mind.

 

[MaggieMae]

Annie, I will allow Robert F. Kennedy Jr answer your question...he frames it perfectly IMO...

There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. I own a corporation. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

And that doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process. Let them do their thing, but they should not be participating in our political process, because a corporation cannot do something genuinely philanthropic. It's against the law in this country, because their shareholders can sue them for wasting corporate resources. They cannot legally do anything that will not increase their profit margins. That's the way the law works, and we have to recognize that and understand that they are toxic for the political process, and they have to be fenced off and kept out of the political process. This is why throughout our history our most visionary political leaders -- Republican and Democrat -- have been warning the American public against domination by corporate power.

This White House has done a great job of persuading a gullible press and the American public that the big threat to American democracy is big government. Well, yeah, big government is a threat ultimately, but it is dwarfed by the threat of excessive corporate power and the corrosive impact that has on our democracy. And you know, as I said, you look at all the great political leaders in this country and the central theme is that we have to be cautious about, we have to avoid, the domination of our government by corporate power.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.

Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.

http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/speeches/2005-09-10rfkjr.asp

That's a keeper, and so much more "current" than dragging out the ol' history books for similar statements.

 

[Toro]

Ideology is for fools who cannot think.

Otherwise, welcome aboard.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hello everyone,

I'm just a college student who wants to deepen my understanding of ideologies. I don't hide the fact that I am conservative, but I do believe I am one of the "relatively" open-minded conservatives. I don't follow the news and current events as much as I read ancient philosophers. I imagine people on these boards frown upon the labeling of people's views, but here are my pathetically optimistic reasons for joining these message boards:

1. To better understand the ideology of liberalism.
   
   Thanks for reading,
   I hope to see you around these boards,
   ----
   Timeless Conservative

1. 
   
   How about one at a time.
   
   To understand the liberals of today, it is important to recognize the forces and themes that serve as their provenance began as far back as the early 20th Century.
   
   1.The modern liberalism began as “… a revolt against the masses. Liberal thinkers accused the great unwashed of smothering creative individuals in a blanket of materialist, spiritually empty cultural conformity. The liberal project was to replace its business civilization—a “dictatorship of the middle class,” …with a new, more highly evolved leadership…liberals also embraced government economic planning, which depended on making people more predictable, …by proposing to place power in the hands of scientists, academics, artists, and professionals, a new and truly worthy aristocracy that could govern based on what was good for both leaders and the led.”
   
   2. H. G. Wells, known primarily for his science-fiction works, was also a prime mover for the intellectual elite of the time. As George Orwell wrote: “I doubt whether anyone who was writing books between 1900 and 1920, at any rate in the English language, influenced the young so much.” Reviling the masses, Wells was both antidemocratic and elitist, and gained great popularity and influence in America, “not just through his defense of liberal freedoms such as free speech but through his hostility to population growth, capitalism, and democracy itself.” The direct line to modern liberals can be seen in the antipathy to business, favoring legislating by activist judges, and in the attempts to shut down any contrary opinions.
   
   3. “More than any other intellectual of the time, Wells spoke to two enormous nineteenth-century shifts: the growth of giant industries, which undercut the old assumptions about the sovereignty of the individual; and Darwinism’s concussive reassignment of humanity from the spiritual to the natural world.” Here are axioms which still resonate in the modern liberal, who abhors businesses, especially the successful ones, like Wal-Mart, and roils against those who do not accept evolution as the only explanation for the species. As with our modern liberals, Wells rhapsodized on the permanent misery of the urban working class, and he loathed “the idle, parasitic rich.” How often we hear echoes of this on our board.
   
   4. Wells’ ideas of scientific socialism, parallel to other paths toward utopian reform, such as Marxism, which he felt were too class-war-oriented, “called for a different kind of struggle, a “revolt of the competent” against the confines of conventional middle-class morality.” Modern liberalism resonates between these analogous philosophies, at times reviling the ‘common man,’ while at other times claiming to champion same.
   
   5. “In A Modern Utopia, written in 1905, Wells updated John Stuart Mill’s culturally individualist liberalism in light of the horizons opened by Darwin and Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics.” Margaret Sanger, a leading feminist, militant proponent of the First Amendment, and champion of birth control and eugenics—all causes shared by Wells—believed that the author had “influenced the American intelligentsia more than any other one man.”
   
   6. Liberal hopes in the postwar period found Lenin “ascribing the war to the cupidity of capitalism and offering Communist internationalism as the means to peace.” Wells, in another of the common themes we see today, wrote the two-volume Outline of History (1920) which was the secularist Bible, the creation according to Darwin, and redemption if man were “to minimize the scourge of nationalism [and patriotism] by creating a world government led by” [the intellectual elite], or perhaps a President seen by many followers as their ‘messiah.” The ‘new world order would be filled with followers who would “lead lives of deliciously complete sexual and emotional fulfillment.” Indeed, how seductive is liberalism?
   
   7. How ironic that the way Wells refers to the fascists and Communists could apply to today’s liberals: “they embody the rule of a minority conceited enough to believe that they have a clue to the tangled incoherencies of human life, and need only sufficiently terrorize criticism and opposition to achieve a general happiness,…” And even more prescient, when we consider the current administration against the backdrop of Wells’ criticism of Soviet Communism as central-planning with “police-state thuggery.”
   
   Read more about Wells and Liberalism:
   
   “The Godfather of American Liberalism”
   The Godfather of American Liberalism by Fred Siegel, City Journal Spring 2009

 

[Darkwind]

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...

Conservatives
"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/03/block.pdf

I see he'll not be learning anything truthful from you.

 

[midcan5]

To understand the liberals of today, it is important to recognize the forces and themes that serve as their provenance began as far back as the early 20th Century.

...

That piece of revisionist bunk is in a league of its own. It makes no sense and yet appears to present a genuine analysis. Read Siegal's resume below and you know you are in the hands of ideological stodge. I love these think tank idiots as they make a livelihood writing the most inane nonsense. If the following about Wells is liberal thinking then anything is anything.

"During his work on the League of Nations charter, he opposed any mention of democracy. He feared the average citizen could never be educated or aware enough to decide major world issues. Therefore, he favoured suffrage to be limited to scientists, organisers, engineers, and others of merit, though he believed citizens should have as much freedom as possible without restricting the freedom of others."

H. G. Wells - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I love how the think tanks are always about greater economic choice - but whose?

"The Mission of the Manhattan Institute is to develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility."

Manhattan Institute Scholar | Fred Siegel

 

[PoliticalChic]

To understand the liberals of today, it is important to recognize the forces and themes that serve as their provenance began as far back as the early 20th Century.

...

That piece of revisionist bunk is in a league of its own. It makes no sense and yet appears to present a genuine analysis. Read Siegal's resume below and you know you are in the hands of ideological stodge. I love these think tank idiots as they make a livelihood writing the most inane nonsense. If the following about Wells is liberal thinking then anything is anything.

"During his work on the League of Nations charter, he opposed any mention of democracy. He feared the average citizen could never be educated or aware enough to decide major world issues. Therefore, he favoured suffrage to be limited to scientists, organisers, engineers, and others of merit, though he believed citizens should have as much freedom as possible without restricting the freedom of others."

H. G. Wells - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I love how the think tanks are always about greater economic choice - but whose?

"The Mission of the Manhattan Institute is to develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility."

Manhattan Institute Scholar | Fred Siegel

So, Wikipeidia is your source of info?

Would you mind pointing out two or three of the items in the post which you find to be untrue?

 

[PoliticalChic]

To understand the liberals of today, it is important to recognize the forces and themes that serve as their provenance began as far back as the early 20th Century.

...

That piece of revisionist bunk is in a league of its own. It makes no sense and yet appears to present a genuine analysis. Read Siegal's resume below and you know you are in the hands of ideological stodge. I love these think tank idiots as they make a livelihood writing the most inane nonsense. If the following about Wells is liberal thinking then anything is anything.

"During his work on the League of Nations charter, he opposed any mention of democracy. He feared the average citizen could never be educated or aware enough to decide major world issues. Therefore, he favoured suffrage to be limited to scientists, organisers, engineers, and others of merit, though he believed citizens should have as much freedom as possible without restricting the freedom of others."

H. G. Wells - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I love how the think tanks are always about greater economic choice - but whose?

"The Mission of the Manhattan Institute is to develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility."

Manhattan Institute Scholar | Fred Siegel

You know, at first, and even at second reading, I thought that your post made no sense.

But I just figured it out. Now I understand your difficulties with my original post.

You don't know what 'provenance' means.

And if you looked up the word, advisable, you were offended by the ideas that propelled Wells, and early 'Liberals,' and feel that they do not apply to your beliefs.

Is that it?

Siegal? Try to use a more erudite source, and possibly an authority who has expertise with reference to Wells, rather than having as his about police in NYC. But I suppose you saw the movie rather than read the book.

The post was intended to show what was once considered 'Liberalism,' and how it was related to conditions that resulted from the Industrial Revolution.

Here is an internet source that might be within your ken:
"In Great Britain and the United States the classic liberal program, including the principles of representative government, the protection of civil liberties, and laissez-faire economics, had been more or less effected by the mid-19th cent. The growth of industrial society, however, soon produced great inequalities in wealth and power, which led many persons, especially workers, to question the liberal creed. It was in reaction to the failure of liberalism to provide a good life for everyone that workers' movements and Marxism arose. Because liberalism is concerned with liberating the individual, however, its doctrines changed with the change in historical realities."
liberalism: Classical Liberalism — Infoplease.com

If you require my analysis of the modern liberal, just let me know.

 

[Bfgrn]

To understand the liberals of today, it is important to recognize the forces and themes that serve as their provenance began as far back as the early 20th Century.

...

That piece of revisionist bunk is in a league of its own. It makes no sense and yet appears to present a genuine analysis. Read Siegal's resume below and you know you are in the hands of ideological stodge. I love these think tank idiots as they make a livelihood writing the most inane nonsense. If the following about Wells is liberal thinking then anything is anything.

"During his work on the League of Nations charter, he opposed any mention of democracy. He feared the average citizen could never be educated or aware enough to decide major world issues. Therefore, he favoured suffrage to be limited to scientists, organisers, engineers, and others of merit, though he believed citizens should have as much freedom as possible without restricting the freedom of others."

H. G. Wells - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I love how the think tanks are always about greater economic choice - but whose?

"The Mission of the Manhattan Institute is to develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility."

Manhattan Institute Scholar | Fred Siegel

You know, at first, and even at second reading, I thought that your post made no sense.

But I just figured it out. Now I understand your difficulties with my original post.

You don't know what 'provenance' means.

And if you looked up the word, advisable, you were offended by the ideas that propelled Wells, and early 'Liberals,' and feel that they do not apply to your beliefs.

Is that it?

Siegal? Try to use a more erudite source, and possibly an authority who has expertise with reference to Wells, rather than having as his about police in NYC. But I suppose you saw the movie rather than read the book.

The post was intended to show what was once considered 'Liberalism,' and how it was related to conditions that resulted from the Industrial Revolution.

Here is an internet source that might be within your ken:
"In Great Britain and the United States the classic liberal program, including the principles of representative government, the protection of civil liberties, and laissez-faire economics, had been more or less effected by the mid-19th cent. The growth of industrial society, however, soon produced great inequalities in wealth and power, which led many persons, especially workers, to question the liberal creed. It was in reaction to the failure of liberalism to provide a good life for everyone that workers' movements and Marxism arose. Because liberalism is concerned with liberating the individual, however, its doctrines changed with the change in historical realities."
liberalism: Classical Liberalism — Infoplease.com

If you require my analysis of the modern liberal, just let me know.

The classic liberal you describe would be more of a libertarian today. So if we are to believe your time line, Teddy Roosevelt was a modern liberal. And, a case could be made for Thomas Jefferson. He strongly opposed Alexander Hamilton and his desire for industrialization. Jefferson witnessed first hand the human conditions industrialization brought to a society when he was in Europe. Jefferson's vision was an agrarian society.

You really need to educate yourself on the strict limits our founding fathers put on corporations and how the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Supreme Court Case undermined our Constitution....

 

[PoliticalChic]

...

That piece of revisionist bunk is in a league of its own. It makes no sense and yet appears to present a genuine analysis. Read Siegal's resume below and you know you are in the hands of ideological stodge. I love these think tank idiots as they make a livelihood writing the most inane nonsense. If the following about Wells is liberal thinking then anything is anything.

"During his work on the League of Nations charter, he opposed any mention of democracy. He feared the average citizen could never be educated or aware enough to decide major world issues. Therefore, he favoured suffrage to be limited to scientists, organisers, engineers, and others of merit, though he believed citizens should have as much freedom as possible without restricting the freedom of others."

H. G. Wells - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I love how the think tanks are always about greater economic choice - but whose?

"The Mission of the Manhattan Institute is to develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility."

Manhattan Institute Scholar | Fred Siegel

You know, at first, and even at second reading, I thought that your post made no sense.

But I just figured it out. Now I understand your difficulties with my original post.

You don't know what 'provenance' means.

And if you looked up the word, advisable, you were offended by the ideas that propelled Wells, and early 'Liberals,' and feel that they do not apply to your beliefs.

Is that it?

Siegal? Try to use a more erudite source, and possibly an authority who has expertise with reference to Wells, rather than having as his about police in NYC. But I suppose you saw the movie rather than read the book.

The post was intended to show what was once considered 'Liberalism,' and how it was related to conditions that resulted from the Industrial Revolution.

Here is an internet source that might be within your ken:
"In Great Britain and the United States the classic liberal program, including the principles of representative government, the protection of civil liberties, and laissez-faire economics, had been more or less effected by the mid-19th cent. The growth of industrial society, however, soon produced great inequalities in wealth and power, which led many persons, especially workers, to question the liberal creed. It was in reaction to the failure of liberalism to provide a good life for everyone that workers' movements and Marxism arose. Because liberalism is concerned with liberating the individual, however, its doctrines changed with the change in historical realities."
liberalism: Classical Liberalism — Infoplease.com

If you require my analysis of the modern liberal, just let me know.

The classic liberal you describe would be more of a libertarian today. So if we are to believe your time line, Teddy Roosevelt was a modern liberal. And, a case could be made for Thomas Jefferson. He strongly opposed Alexander Hamilton and his desire for industrialization. Jefferson witnessed first hand the human conditions industrialization brought to a society when he was in Europe. Jefferson's vision was an agrarian society.

You really need to educate yourself on the strict limits our founding fathers put on corporations and how the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Supreme Court Case undermined our Constitution....

Now that you bring it up, I am concerned with the desecration of our Constitution, and I'm certain that you will agree with me about the following:

1. Remember the cacophonous wailing of the left over the Bush administration's alleged politicization of the Justice Department? We always knew they were just projecting, but now we have even more proof.
I first learned from my friend Andy McCarthy's blog post on National Review Online that Attorney General Eric Holder had rejected the legal opinion of his own Justice Department lawyers that the D.C. voting rights bill, which would give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional.
Why would Holder reject the legal opinion of his own deputies? Dumb question. Because he doesn't like the answer and neither does his boss, President Obama. They both strongly support passage of the bill and do not believe a little trifle, such as an express constitutional provision forbidding it, should be permitted to get in their way. How many times do leftists have to demonstrate that they are an ends-justify-the-means bunch before it sinks in?
The Washington Post confirms that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, "an elite unit that gives legal and constitutional advice to the executive branch," did issue an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the voting rights bill is unconstitutional.
David Limbaugh : Holder's Injustice - Townhall.com


2. Interview on WJR radio, Detroit of Bankruptcy Lawyer Tom Lauria by Beckman, re: the White House attempt to strong arm investors in Chrysler to drop their contractual rights to be paid first in a bankruptcy.
a. These “1st Lien Lenders” took a chance on Chrysler, accepting a low rate of return in exchange for high security.
b. Clients include pensioners, teacher’s unions, etc. in Pirello-Weinberg, Oppenheimer Funds, Stairway Capital.
c. The White House is demanding concessions and an abrogation of the contract, and have been directly threatened by the White House, if they didn’t give in.
d. The Lenders have offered to accept 50%, and the White House is demanding that they accept 29%
e. This becomes a Constitutional issue, as Contract and Property rights should be sacrosanct. Lauria contends that as our government is composed of three independent branches, and the Executive is now taking over the role of the Judiciary.
News/Talk 760 WJR
White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm's Reputation* - Political Punch


3. There appears to be a side to the Chrysler bankruptcy that has the look of an ugly partisanship not seen in this town since Tricky Dick Nixon was in the White House composing his enemies list and checking it twice every night while watching the evening TV newscast.

Bloggers on the Right side of the Blogosphere are up in arms over data suggesting that President Obama’s White House auto industry potentates are targeting for closure Chrysler dealers with records of contributing either to Republicans like John McCain or to other Democrats in the 2008 presidential primary.

Posts at RedState, Reliapundit, American Thinker, Gateway Pundit, Joey Smith and Doug Ross pointed intitially at the remarkable number of closed Chrysler dealerships whose owners happen to have been contributors to Obama opponents, mainly Republicans.
Is Obama closing GOP-leaning car dealers? Opinion Articles - Mark Tapscott | Editorials on Top News Stories | Washington Examiner

4. With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.
HolyCoast.com: Obama Might Have to "Temporarily Bypass the Senate" on Treaty Ratification

 

[Bfgrn]

You know, at first, and even at second reading, I thought that your post made no sense.

But I just figured it out. Now I understand your difficulties with my original post.

You don't know what 'provenance' means.

And if you looked up the word, advisable, you were offended by the ideas that propelled Wells, and early 'Liberals,' and feel that they do not apply to your beliefs.

Is that it?

Siegal? Try to use a more erudite source, and possibly an authority who has expertise with reference to Wells, rather than having as his about police in NYC. But I suppose you saw the movie rather than read the book.

The post was intended to show what was once considered 'Liberalism,' and how it was related to conditions that resulted from the Industrial Revolution.

Here is an internet source that might be within your ken:
"In Great Britain and the United States the classic liberal program, including the principles of representative government, the protection of civil liberties, and laissez-faire economics, had been more or less effected by the mid-19th cent. The growth of industrial society, however, soon produced great inequalities in wealth and power, which led many persons, especially workers, to question the liberal creed. It was in reaction to the failure of liberalism to provide a good life for everyone that workers' movements and Marxism arose. Because liberalism is concerned with liberating the individual, however, its doctrines changed with the change in historical realities."
liberalism: Classical Liberalism — Infoplease.com

If you require my analysis of the modern liberal, just let me know.

The classic liberal you describe would be more of a libertarian today. So if we are to believe your time line, Teddy Roosevelt was a modern liberal. And, a case could be made for Thomas Jefferson. He strongly opposed Alexander Hamilton and his desire for industrialization. Jefferson witnessed first hand the human conditions industrialization brought to a society when he was in Europe. Jefferson's vision was an agrarian society.

You really need to educate yourself on the strict limits our founding fathers put on corporations and how the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Supreme Court Case undermined our Constitution....

Now that you bring it up, I am concerned with the desecration of our Constitution, and I'm certain that you will agree with me about the following:

1. Remember the cacophonous wailing of the left over the Bush administration's alleged politicization of the Justice Department? We always knew they were just projecting, but now we have even more proof.
I first learned from my friend Andy McCarthy's blog post on National Review Online that Attorney General Eric Holder had rejected the legal opinion of his own Justice Department lawyers that the D.C. voting rights bill, which would give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional.
Why would Holder reject the legal opinion of his own deputies? Dumb question. Because he doesn't like the answer and neither does his boss, President Obama. They both strongly support passage of the bill and do not believe a little trifle, such as an express constitutional provision forbidding it, should be permitted to get in their way. How many times do leftists have to demonstrate that they are an ends-justify-the-means bunch before it sinks in?
The Washington Post confirms that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, "an elite unit that gives legal and constitutional advice to the executive branch," did issue an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the voting rights bill is unconstitutional.
David Limbaugh : Holder's Injustice - Townhall.com


2. Interview on WJR radio, Detroit of Bankruptcy Lawyer Tom Lauria by Beckman, re: the White House attempt to strong arm investors in Chrysler to drop their contractual rights to be paid first in a bankruptcy.
a. These “1st Lien Lenders” took a chance on Chrysler, accepting a low rate of return in exchange for high security.
b. Clients include pensioners, teacher’s unions, etc. in Pirello-Weinberg, Oppenheimer Funds, Stairway Capital.
c. The White House is demanding concessions and an abrogation of the contract, and have been directly threatened by the White House, if they didn’t give in.
d. The Lenders have offered to accept 50%, and the White House is demanding that they accept 29%
e. This becomes a Constitutional issue, as Contract and Property rights should be sacrosanct. Lauria contends that as our government is composed of three independent branches, and the Executive is now taking over the role of the Judiciary.
News/Talk 760 WJR
White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm's Reputation* - Political Punch


3. There appears to be a side to the Chrysler bankruptcy that has the look of an ugly partisanship not seen in this town since Tricky Dick Nixon was in the White House composing his enemies list and checking it twice every night while watching the evening TV newscast.

Bloggers on the Right side of the Blogosphere are up in arms over data suggesting that President Obama’s White House auto industry potentates are targeting for closure Chrysler dealers with records of contributing either to Republicans like John McCain or to other Democrats in the 2008 presidential primary.

Posts at RedState, Reliapundit, American Thinker, Gateway Pundit, Joey Smith and Doug Ross pointed intitially at the remarkable number of closed Chrysler dealerships whose owners happen to have been contributors to Obama opponents, mainly Republicans.
Is Obama closing GOP-leaning car dealers? Opinion Articles - Mark Tapscott | Editorials on Top News Stories | Washington Examiner

4. With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.
HolyCoast.com: Obama Might Have to "Temporarily Bypass the Senate" on Treaty Ratification

LOL...after you educate yourself of corporate personhood, you really need to turn off the right wing radio, it is ALL one sided, or didn't you know that???

 

[PoliticalChic]

The classic liberal you describe would be more of a libertarian today. So if we are to believe your time line, Teddy Roosevelt was a modern liberal. And, a case could be made for Thomas Jefferson. He strongly opposed Alexander Hamilton and his desire for industrialization. Jefferson witnessed first hand the human conditions industrialization brought to a society when he was in Europe. Jefferson's vision was an agrarian society.

You really need to educate yourself on the strict limits our founding fathers put on corporations and how the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Supreme Court Case undermined our Constitution....

Now that you bring it up, I am concerned with the desecration of our Constitution, and I'm certain that you will agree with me about the following:

1. Remember the cacophonous wailing of the left over the Bush administration's alleged politicization of the Justice Department? We always knew they were just projecting, but now we have even more proof.
I first learned from my friend Andy McCarthy's blog post on National Review Online that Attorney General Eric Holder had rejected the legal opinion of his own Justice Department lawyers that the D.C. voting rights bill, which would give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional.
Why would Holder reject the legal opinion of his own deputies? Dumb question. Because he doesn't like the answer and neither does his boss, President Obama. They both strongly support passage of the bill and do not believe a little trifle, such as an express constitutional provision forbidding it, should be permitted to get in their way. How many times do leftists have to demonstrate that they are an ends-justify-the-means bunch before it sinks in?
The Washington Post confirms that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, "an elite unit that gives legal and constitutional advice to the executive branch," did issue an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the voting rights bill is unconstitutional.
David Limbaugh : Holder's Injustice - Townhall.com


2. Interview on WJR radio, Detroit of Bankruptcy Lawyer Tom Lauria by Beckman, re: the White House attempt to strong arm investors in Chrysler to drop their contractual rights to be paid first in a bankruptcy.
a. These “1st Lien Lenders” took a chance on Chrysler, accepting a low rate of return in exchange for high security.
b. Clients include pensioners, teacher’s unions, etc. in Pirello-Weinberg, Oppenheimer Funds, Stairway Capital.
c. The White House is demanding concessions and an abrogation of the contract, and have been directly threatened by the White House, if they didn’t give in.
d. The Lenders have offered to accept 50%, and the White House is demanding that they accept 29%
e. This becomes a Constitutional issue, as Contract and Property rights should be sacrosanct. Lauria contends that as our government is composed of three independent branches, and the Executive is now taking over the role of the Judiciary.
News/Talk 760 WJR
White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm's Reputation* - Political Punch


3. There appears to be a side to the Chrysler bankruptcy that has the look of an ugly partisanship not seen in this town since Tricky Dick Nixon was in the White House composing his enemies list and checking it twice every night while watching the evening TV newscast.

Bloggers on the Right side of the Blogosphere are up in arms over data suggesting that President Obama’s White House auto industry potentates are targeting for closure Chrysler dealers with records of contributing either to Republicans like John McCain or to other Democrats in the 2008 presidential primary.

Posts at RedState, Reliapundit, American Thinker, Gateway Pundit, Joey Smith and Doug Ross pointed intitially at the remarkable number of closed Chrysler dealerships whose owners happen to have been contributors to Obama opponents, mainly Republicans.
Is Obama closing GOP-leaning car dealers? Opinion Articles - Mark Tapscott | Editorials on Top News Stories | Washington Examiner

4. With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.
HolyCoast.com: Obama Might Have to "Temporarily Bypass the Senate" on Treaty Ratification

LOL...after you educate yourself of corporate personhood, you really need to turn off the right wing radio, it is ALL one sided, or didn't you know that???

So tough to find good competition these days.

Not even a good evasion. I'm surprised you didn't use the old "looks like rain."

Did you not read the post? Too difficult? Where did you sniff out anything about radio?

Did you miss that each item includes documentation so that you could- excuse the term- 'read' the original. Or did you try to 'hear' each?

Any of the 'unconstitutional' efforts of the administration, whose executive claims to have taught Constitutional Law, meet with your approval?

I was going to include a note about the Signing Statements kerfluffle, but good thing I didn't, huh? I'm pretty sure it would be beyond you.

 

[Annie]

...

That piece of revisionist bunk is in a league of its own. It makes no sense and yet appears to present a genuine analysis. Read Siegal's resume below and you know you are in the hands of ideological stodge. I love these think tank idiots as they make a livelihood writing the most inane nonsense. If the following about Wells is liberal thinking then anything is anything.

"During his work on the League of Nations charter, he opposed any mention of democracy. He feared the average citizen could never be educated or aware enough to decide major world issues. Therefore, he favoured suffrage to be limited to scientists, organisers, engineers, and others of merit, though he believed citizens should have as much freedom as possible without restricting the freedom of others."

H. G. Wells - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I love how the think tanks are always about greater economic choice - but whose?

"The Mission of the Manhattan Institute is to develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility."

Manhattan Institute Scholar | Fred Siegel

You know, at first, and even at second reading, I thought that your post made no sense.

But I just figured it out. Now I understand your difficulties with my original post.

You don't know what 'provenance' means.

And if you looked up the word, advisable, you were offended by the ideas that propelled Wells, and early 'Liberals,' and feel that they do not apply to your beliefs.

Is that it?

Siegal? Try to use a more erudite source, and possibly an authority who has expertise with reference to Wells, rather than having as his about police in NYC. But I suppose you saw the movie rather than read the book.

The post was intended to show what was once considered 'Liberalism,' and how it was related to conditions that resulted from the Industrial Revolution.

Here is an internet source that might be within your ken:
"In Great Britain and the United States the classic liberal program, including the principles of representative government, the protection of civil liberties, and laissez-faire economics, had been more or less effected by the mid-19th cent. The growth of industrial society, however, soon produced great inequalities in wealth and power, which led many persons, especially workers, to question the liberal creed. It was in reaction to the failure of liberalism to provide a good life for everyone that workers' movements and Marxism arose. Because liberalism is concerned with liberating the individual, however, its doctrines changed with the change in historical realities."
liberalism: Classical Liberalism — Infoplease.com

If you require my analysis of the modern liberal, just let me know.

The classic liberal you describe would be more of a libertarian today. So if we are to believe your time line, Teddy Roosevelt was a modern liberal. And, a case could be made for Thomas Jefferson. He strongly opposed Alexander Hamilton and his desire for industrialization. Jefferson witnessed first hand the human conditions industrialization brought to a society when he was in Europe. Jefferson's vision was an agrarian society.

You really need to educate yourself on the strict limits our founding fathers put on corporations and how the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Supreme Court Case undermined our Constitution....

I can understand Teddy as a classic liberal, though a Republican. Jefferson, not so much. Can you expand on the Jeffersonian position?

 

[Bfgrn]

Now that you bring it up, I am concerned with the desecration of our Constitution, and I'm certain that you will agree with me about the following:

1. Remember the cacophonous wailing of the left over the Bush administration's alleged politicization of the Justice Department? We always knew they were just projecting, but now we have even more proof.
I first learned from my friend Andy McCarthy's blog post on National Review Online that Attorney General Eric Holder had rejected the legal opinion of his own Justice Department lawyers that the D.C. voting rights bill, which would give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional.
Why would Holder reject the legal opinion of his own deputies? Dumb question. Because he doesn't like the answer and neither does his boss, President Obama. They both strongly support passage of the bill and do not believe a little trifle, such as an express constitutional provision forbidding it, should be permitted to get in their way. How many times do leftists have to demonstrate that they are an ends-justify-the-means bunch before it sinks in?
The Washington Post confirms that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, "an elite unit that gives legal and constitutional advice to the executive branch," did issue an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the voting rights bill is unconstitutional.
David Limbaugh : Holder's Injustice - Townhall.com


2. Interview on WJR radio, Detroit of Bankruptcy Lawyer Tom Lauria by Beckman, re: the White House attempt to strong arm investors in Chrysler to drop their contractual rights to be paid first in a bankruptcy.
a. These “1st Lien Lenders” took a chance on Chrysler, accepting a low rate of return in exchange for high security.
b. Clients include pensioners, teacher’s unions, etc. in Pirello-Weinberg, Oppenheimer Funds, Stairway Capital.
c. The White House is demanding concessions and an abrogation of the contract, and have been directly threatened by the White House, if they didn’t give in.
d. The Lenders have offered to accept 50%, and the White House is demanding that they accept 29%
e. This becomes a Constitutional issue, as Contract and Property rights should be sacrosanct. Lauria contends that as our government is composed of three independent branches, and the Executive is now taking over the role of the Judiciary.
News/Talk 760 WJR
White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm's Reputation* - Political Punch


3. There appears to be a side to the Chrysler bankruptcy that has the look of an ugly partisanship not seen in this town since Tricky Dick Nixon was in the White House composing his enemies list and checking it twice every night while watching the evening TV newscast.

Bloggers on the Right side of the Blogosphere are up in arms over data suggesting that President Obama’s White House auto industry potentates are targeting for closure Chrysler dealers with records of contributing either to Republicans like John McCain or to other Democrats in the 2008 presidential primary.

Posts at RedState, Reliapundit, American Thinker, Gateway Pundit, Joey Smith and Doug Ross pointed intitially at the remarkable number of closed Chrysler dealerships whose owners happen to have been contributors to Obama opponents, mainly Republicans.
Is Obama closing GOP-leaning car dealers? Opinion Articles - Mark Tapscott | Editorials on Top News Stories | Washington Examiner

4. With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.
HolyCoast.com: Obama Might Have to "Temporarily Bypass the Senate" on Treaty Ratification

LOL...after you educate yourself of corporate personhood, you really need to turn off the right wing radio, it is ALL one sided, or didn't you know that???

So tough to find good competition these days.

Not even a good evasion. I'm surprised you didn't use the old "looks like rain."

Did you not read the post? Too difficult? Where did you sniff out anything about radio?

Did you miss that each item includes documentation so that you could- excuse the term- 'read' the original. Or did you try to 'hear' each?

Any of the 'unconstitutional' efforts of the administration, whose executive claims to have taught Constitutional Law, meet with your approval?

I was going to include a note about the Signing Statements kerfluffle, but good thing I didn't, huh? I'm pretty sure it would be beyond you.

Thank you for addressing my post...LOL

Do you really think voting rights for citizens of the District of Columbia is NEW? Really PC. I say they deserve that right, so let the courts decide it. I WONDER why right wingers are opposed to it? I surmise it has NOTING to do with the Constitution...

As far as Lauria's accusations, that is what they are...were YOU there PC?

Chrysler dealers... the Republicans VOTED against the bailout...that means they were ALL FOR letting ALL dealers close...also, are you aware that about 90% of auto dealer contribute to Republicans not to Democrats?