Thank a Liberal

[midcan5]

The Greatest Americans are from the left side of life for who else could imagine a better world. "Much of what we now take for granted as common sense was once espoused by people who were widely considered left-wing radicals."

The greatest Americans are on the left side of the political spectrum, why is that? Liberals, lefties, and other left leaning radicals need to take a bow. I've often asked my conservative friends to list conservative accomplishments. What you get is an invasion of liberal ideas starting with Humanism in the middle ages, the Renaissance, and finally the Enlightenment. As I have noted often, no nation was founded by conservative ideas as conservative ideas require a foundation and foundations do not exist on their own, they must be imagined and pushed forward against a wall of let's keep things as they are.

"The 20Th century is a remarkable story of progressive accomplishments against overwhelming odds. But it is not a tale of steady progress. At best, it is a chronicle of taking two steps forward, then one step backward, then two more steps forward. The successful battles and social improvements came about in fits and starts. When path breaking laws are passed -- such as the Nineteenth Amendment (which granted women suffrage in 1920), the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (which created the minimum wage), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which outlawed many forms of racial discrimination), and the Clean Air Act of 1970 -- we often forget that those milestones took decades of work by thinkers, activists, and politicians. The people I profile in the book were not sprinters; they were long-distance runners for justice."

The book outlines Americans who got things done. Listing Left | Dissent Magazine

But a question remains why is it that change comes so slowly, eventually to be accepted as just the way things are by all? And there are those who claim greatness for people, who while being successful at some endeavor fought against the kind of world that our Preamble imagines.

"You won't find Henry Ford, John Rockefeller, Thomas Edison, Charles Lindbergh, Walt Disney, Louis B. Mayer, Sam Walton, Ronald Reagan, Elvis Presley, Babe Ruth, or Billy Graham in my book. They may have been great in their specific fields of endeavor but they did not contribute to making America a more just, equal, or democratic society. Most of them, in fact, actively opposed movements for social justice." Peter Dreier: The 15 Greatest Americans Of The 20th Century (PHOTOS)

'The 100 Greatest Americans of the 20th Century' The 100 Greatest Americans of the 20th Century: A Social Justice Hall of Fame - Peter Dreier - Google Books

 

[dblack]

Modern liberalism jumped the shark when it abandoned equal protection in favor of "social justice".

 

[Tambellini]

Modern liberalism jumped the shark when it abandoned equal protection in favor of "social justice".

DING! Classical liberalism is good, what they have today is a joke and horrible for the country

 

[Mr Natural]

If it wasn't for Liberals, we'd still be singing "God Bless the Queen" and drinking warm beer.

 

[Sallow]

Modern liberalism jumped the shark when it abandoned equal protection in favor of "social justice".

"Social Justice" included getting rid of slavery, giving equal protections to the people affected horribly by slavery and allowing the very same people to "catch up".

That's not jumping the shark.

 

[Sallow]

Modern liberalism jumped the shark when it abandoned equal protection in favor of "social justice".

DING! Classical liberalism is good, what they have today is a joke and horrible for the country

There is no such thing as "Classical Liberalism". It's a wives' tale told by conservatives to include themselves into things they had nothing to do with..

Liberalism is constantly changing.

 

[Votto]

The terms liberal and conservative have become so bastardized that they mean absolutely nothing today.

The traditional term liberal means the opposite of authoritarian. Looking at the police state with it's mandate that we buy corporate health care and we cannot even drink a biggie soda in New York for fear of a fine or the NDAA which Obama signed taking our rights to due process away that was gauranteed by the Constitution, indicates that the modern liberal is anything but liberal.

The term you are looking for is a statist. For it is the statist who looks to government to solve societies never ending problems. That means that there will be an ever increasing expansion of government to "fix" those problems. Of course, these modern liberals will have far more legislative "accomplishments" in this regard, because of who and what they are. However, they never own up to the consequences of their actions, like the nanny state bankrupting the nation.

And they never will.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Too bad Liberals became Authoritarians.

 

[Decus]

I have to agree with Sowell:

If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.
Thomas Sowell

I do believe that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards but thought that was simply being fair. Seems times have changed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Modern liberalism jumped the shark when it abandoned equal protection in favor of "social justice".

"Social Justice" included getting rid of slavery, giving equal protections to the people affected horribly by slavery and allowing the very same people to "catch up".

That's not jumping the shark.

True.

Indeed, there is no such thing as ‘social justice,’ it’s another rightist contrivance, like ‘political correctness.’

And liberals and progressives never ‘abandoned’ equal protection doctrine, in fact they’re its greatest advocates dating back to Brown and before.

Unfortunately it’s conservatives who for the most part oppose equal protection jurisprudence, as with their opposition to same-sex couples having access to marriage law.

 

[dblack]

Modern liberalism jumped the shark when it abandoned equal protection in favor of "social justice".

DING! Classical liberalism is good, what they have today is a joke and horrible for the country

There is no such thing as "Classical Liberalism".

Is there such a thing as "equal protection", or "social justice"? Do you know the difference between the two? The first is founded on the principles of tolerance, respect for the individual and equal rights for everyone regardless of race, gender, class, etc. The later demands conformity and obedience and assigns everyone different rights depending on group identity or lobbying clout.

 

[dblack]

Indeed, there is no such thing as ‘social justice,’ it’s another rightist contrivance, like ‘political correctness.’

Really? I see it used all the time by so-called progressives and liberals. I sure as hell didn't make up the term. In fact, it's used 'liberally' in the articles quoted in the OP. So much for its 'non-existence'.

And liberals and progressives never ‘abandoned’ equal protection doctrine, in fact they’re its greatest advocates dating back to Brown and before.

They used to be. But they have abandoned it, pretty much anywhere it gets in the way of their social agenda (however you choose to classify that effort - I never realized 'social justice' was an offensive term).

Unfortunately it’s conservatives who for the most part oppose equal protection jurisprudence, as with their opposition to same-sex couples having access to marriage law.

True that. But I'm not the slightest bit interested in the left/right pissing match. Both sides are currently dominated by authoritarian corporatists. I actually think it's more likely that liberals will re-discover the principles I'm arguing for, which is why I speak up. I DO think some of them get it.

 

[Votto]

I have to agree with Sowell:

If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.
Thomas Sowell

I do believe that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards but thought that was simply being fair. Seems times have changed.

Blacks were given rights under the progressive movement. Now we are to give them a liscence to do anything they wish for this great servic?.

Hmmm?

Why were black slaves in the first place? Was it not the well entrinched democrat party of the South who needed free labor to continue their desired life style on the plantation? Of course, to do so they needed to justify it by claiming that Blacks were not equals. In fact, they were like glorified monkeys that were beasts of burden so that they could treat them as they wished.

However, today we see the same thing with the unborn. To continue the progressive high standards of living they enjoyed in the 1800's, we now need to dehumanize the unborn inconvenience as subhuman as well so we can kill them off.

Too bad Jefferson was compelled to remove condemning slavery in the Declaration of Independence. If he had not, the progressive movement would have virtually nothing to hang their collective hats on.

 

[Votto]

Modern liberalism jumped the shark when it abandoned equal protection in favor of "social justice".

"Social Justice" included getting rid of slavery, giving equal protections to the people affected horribly by slavery and allowing the very same people to "catch up".

That's not jumping the shark.

True.

Indeed, there is no such thing as ‘social justice,’ it’s another rightist contrivance, like ‘political correctness.’

And liberals and progressives never ‘abandoned’ equal protection doctrine, in fact they’re its greatest advocates dating back to Brown and before.

Unfortunately it’s conservatives who for the most part oppose equal protection jurisprudence, as with their opposition to same-sex couples having access to marriage law.

Really? Where is the progressive movement to have polygamists marry? Who is concerned about their "rights"? Progressives certainly don't care about a group that is essentially made of conservative Mormons.

And why is it those in unions get certain perks others do not? Politics is all about dividing and conquering. Otherwise why would I send my hard earned money into Washington and spend my invaluable time bolstering their party if they were simply to treat us all equally? The name of the game is to get a leg up on the other guy. The only difference between the two parties is what direction money flows to various supporters.

 

[dblack]

And why is it those in unions get certain perks others do not? Politics is all about dividing and conquering. Otherwise why would I send my hard earned money into Washington and spend my invaluable time bolstering their party if they were simply to treat us all equally? The name of the game is to get a leg up on the other guy. The only difference between the two parties is what direction money flows to various supporters.

That's the essence of corporatism, and it's troublesome that so many liberals support it. I suppose they rationalize it away on promises that, once their favored leaders have enough power, truth and justice will prevail. There's one born every minute I spose.

 

[midcan5]

Modern liberalism jumped the shark when it abandoned equal protection in favor of "social justice".

The problem is what is 'equal protection' and for whom? Even 'social justice' becomes desert or a stick dependent on use. If we assume change is inevitable and humans are given to all sorts of behaviors from the good to the bad, then maybe attempts at social justice becomes a requirement, even a moral issue. I think you/most would agree that much of the work of FDR and LBJ added something to that American preamble.

I have to check other replies before further comment.

This is Your Story - The Progressive Story of America. Pass It On.

"Liberals and progressives have been slow to realize that their preferred vocabulary has been hijacked and that when they respond to once - hallowed phrases they are responding to a ghost now animated by a new machine, The point is not a small one, for in any debate, especially one fought in the arena of public opinion, the battle is won not by knock - down arguments but by the party that succeeds in placing its own spin on the terms presiding over the discussion. That's what the conservatives in and out of Congress have managed to do with old war horses like "individual" and so long as they are allowed to get away with it, the opposition will spend its time insisting that it too is for the individual or for color-blindness or equal opportunity - and before we know it all the plovers will be dead and all the subcontractors will once again be white." Stanley Fish, 'The Trouble with Principle'

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If only the American Left still had anything in common with those classic Liberals. Modern American Left hates the rich, wants free stuff, has turned their life over to Big Government and does not utter a peep when the US Government starts another war or even murders US citizens.

Not sure what the point of the OP was

 

[dblack]

Modern liberalism jumped the shark when it abandoned equal protection in favor of "social justice".

The problem is what is 'equal protection' and for whom?

It means we all have the same legal rights. We don't cut deals for the elite or special interest groups. Essentially, the opposite of corporatism.

As far as 'for whom', as soon as you raise the question equal protection is nullified. Not asking 'for whom?' is the point.

 

[editec]

If your national-view-narrative is that Liberalism and Conservatism are vying for power?

You're such a damned fool that discussing the nation with you is truly a waste of time.

 

[dblack]

If your national-view-narrative is that Liberalism and Conservatism are vying for power?

You're such a damned fool that discussing the nation with you is truly a waste of time.

Agreed. The left/right dispute is puppet theater.