Thank a Liberal

[midcan5]

To address some of the points and comments above:

If labels mean nothing then why use them and why do they have such power? I am in many areas extremely conservative, but I would never call myself conservatives as the word is used in America, it connotates for me an alien world I find reprehensible and un-American at core.

Rules are often created and often broken, everything changes, some rules suck. Remember 'separate but equal.' Sowell is playing with words there is a reality, real consequences, he must have missed during all those years.

Social justice is one of those phrases that has come to mean a negative in the conservative / republican / libertarian world. If the word were taken in its dictionary meaning it would be agreed upon by all but add the baggage of the propagandists and all bets are off. What this should say to the thoughtful reader is the power of agitprop.

Poor unions, they only helped create fairness in a world in which power only like power. Having worked in a union in my early career they are a mixed bag but without them, as without law, workers are exploited by many corporations and business owners. Another example of the power of propaganda on the minds of the right.

Politics is about creating a workable society in which everyone has a chance to share in the wealth of that society. That some have advantages will always be the case, but when those with advantages make the society a poor society politics intervenes. "Poor countries are poor not because they lack resources, but because they lack effective political institutions." Francis Fukuyama

The point of the OP was demonstrated in the list of names noted in the books noted and their accomplishments. Somehow that was missed.

Since the entire point of the OP was to outline what liberalism has accomplished, Wiseacre missed that. These are real, pragmatic changes. Conservatives have opposed all. A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla

"If conservatism is the ideology of freedom, how come they’re the ones who are always trying to take that freedom away from us, especially women and minorities? Why did they fight against the effort to end slavery, or to give women and minorities the vote, or to protect them from discrimination? Why are they still supporting efforts to disenfranchise minorities?" The Regressive Antidote - If Conservatism Is The Ideology of Freedom, I'm The Queen of England


"President Eisenhower describes his administration's political philosophy as 'dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive, dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive moderation,' then as 'moderate progressivism,' and then as 'positive progressivism.'" William Manchester

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Control the language of the debate, you determine the outcome.

In that manner John Dewey termed 'socilaism,' 'liberalism.'

If you'd like to speculate what rightfully belongs to another, well, simply call it 'social justice.'

 

[dblack]

Social justice is one of those phrases that has come to mean a negative in the conservative / republican / libertarian world. If the word were taken in its dictionary meaning it would be agreed upon by all but add the baggage of the propagandists and all bets are off. What this should say to the thoughtful reader is the power of agitprop.

That leaves me wondering who the propagandists are, in your view. I'm content to just aim for plain 'justice'. But clearly, 'social justice' means something else. It focuses on different problems and implies a different kind of government.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Economy in the Shitter - Thanks Liberals!

 

[Intense]

There is no substitute for acting within the consent of the principle of the Law, and knowing It's strengths and limits.

 

[manifold]

There is no substitute for acting within the consent of the principle of the Law, and knowing It's strengths and limits.

I have no idea what that statement is intended to mean, or even imply.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[Wiseacre]

Midcan5 wrote:
"
Since the entire point of the OP was to outline what liberalism has accomplished, Wiseacre missed that. These are real, pragmatic changes. Conservatives have opposed all. A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla

"If conservatism is the ideology of freedom, how come they’re the ones who are always trying to take that freedom away from us, especially women and minorities? Why did they fight against the effort to end slavery, or to give women and minorities the vote, or to protect them from discrimination? Why are they still supporting efforts to disenfranchise minorities?" The Regressive Antidote - If Conservatism Is The Ideology of Freedom, I'm The Queen of England
"


It is modern liberalism that intends to erode individual freedoms in favor of the state. One need look no further than the ACA to see that. A fully functioning and growing society needs both a liberal and conservative philosophy; if either one succumbs to the other, disaster awaits. One need look no further than the failing countries in southern Europe to see the results of liberalism run amuck. Likewise an overly conservative nation withers and dies from a lack of progress and an inability to change with the times.

 

[regent]

"For the framers of the constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
General Douglas MacArthur

 

[Dragonlady]

Economy in the Shitter - Thanks Liberals!

It wasn't liberals who did in the economy. It was the voodoo economics of the successive Republican administrations starting with Reagan and his "trickle down" theory. Thirty years of cutting revenues and increasing spending.

Republicans TALK about fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget, but as the expression goes, talk is cheap. Clinton and Obama both have been far more responsible
in reducing government spending than Reagan, Bush I or Bush II. Reagan, to his credit, recognized that his cut and spend policies were not working and restored many of his tax cuts throughout both the first and second terms.

I would be more inclined to support the Republican Party if they showed even the tiniest amount of fiscal responsibility or even some math skills, but they continue to believe that you can increase spending while cutting revenues, and balance the budget. Try that on your household budget and see how it works for you.

 

[midcan5]

"The 20Th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey

Social justice is one of those phrases that has come to mean a negative in the conservative / republican / libertarian world. If the word were taken in its dictionary meaning it would be agreed upon by all but add the baggage of the propagandists and all bets are off. What this should say to the thoughtful reader is the power of agitprop.

That leaves me wondering who the propagandists are, in your view. I'm content to just aim for plain 'justice'. But clearly, 'social justice' means something else. It focuses on different problems and implies a different kind of government.

An excellent question and one I have puzzled over for a long time having grown up in another time not so long ago. I will include a quote from the time of Eisenhower, and a few books, which, for the interested reader outline certain reasons for these changes. I still puzzle over the change in attitudes, but the recent election gives me hope. Now if we could get a 'House' made up of those old time Americans, that would be great.

It may just be that any change creates winners and losers and thus there is always a conflict of interests. But the transition from a nation of people who came together during the Great Depression and WWII to a nation in which a political candidate for the highest office in the land could label 47% of the nation parasites is simply amazing. Consider this is a person who would represent all of America? Un-real in my reality.

Here's a funny kinda ironic non fiction, I know a couple who lived in the top 1% category, very conservative, very republican, very well to do. But secrets were discovered and divorce soon followed with much of the ugliness of divorce. Soon the wife found herself in need of FMLA, and took it for granted that this was a privilege. Dwell on that for a bit, I'll leave the insight up to you.

The propagandists are all those opposed to change for some good and some bad reasons. Kim Phillips-Fein outlines the corporate side brilliantly in book noted below. But I look to the sixties, and to technology, and 24 by 7 news as reasons too. I look to Reagan's Cadillac mom too, and to Civil rights and many other things too. Somewhere I see Lee Atwater. Change often takes time, it is the theme of the book that opened this OP. And something we can discuss further, good Lord willing and the creek don't rise.


In the mid fifties, "generosity was voted the most conspicuous American characteristic, followed by friendliness, understanding, piety, love of freedom, and progressivism. The American faults listed were petty: shallowness, egotism, extravagance, preoccupation with money, and selfishness." William Manchester in "The Glory and the Dream" quoting George Gallup's Institute of public opinion.

Read the first two if nothing else.

'Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan' Kim Phillips-Fein
'The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy' Albert O. Hirschman - understand the roots of conservatism
'Ill Fares the Land' Tony Judt
The Culture of Contentment' John Kenneth Galbraith

 

[peach174]

Thanks to liberal far left policies.
We have a breakdown in Society.
A do as you please and take what you can mentality.
We are exposing sex and violence to our young.
No respect for parents, the elderly or people's property.
An all time high record of drugs and alcohol.
The dummying down of our education.
Divorce and breakdown of family units.
Children being born out of wedlock.
The complete opposite of what our Government should be.
Our government is now like Europe where Gov. controls and hinders businesses as well as their citizens.

 

[Underhill]

Thanks to liberal far left policies.
We have a breakdown in Society.
A do as you please and take what you can mentality.
We are exposing sex and violence to our young.
No respect for parents, the elderly or people's property.
An all time high record of drugs and alcohol.
The dummying down of our education.
Divorce and breakdown of family units.
Children being born out of wedlock.
The complete opposite of what our Government should be.
Our government is now like Europe where Gov. controls and hinders businesses as well as their citizens.

You would think with all these self destructive policies and the staggering number of abortions they alone get, liberals would be bred right out of the gene pool

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Classic Liberals would never have said that Obama is their Lord, Savior and Daddy

Classic Liberals would never have been total pussies and allow POTUS to start wars, whack civilians with drones and go uncontested that they have the unfettered right to kill even US citizens on their say so.

Modern "American" Liberals are hive-minded creatures who have Obama as male head of household

 

[dblack]

"The 20Th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey

Social justice is one of those phrases that has come to mean a negative in the conservative / republican / libertarian world. If the word were taken in its dictionary meaning it would be agreed upon by all but add the baggage of the propagandists and all bets are off. What this should say to the thoughtful reader is the power of agitprop.

That leaves me wondering who the propagandists are, in your view. I'm content to just aim for plain 'justice'. But clearly, 'social justice' means something else. It focuses on different problems and implies a different kind of government.

An excellent question and one I have puzzled over for a long time having grown up in another time not so long ago. I will include a quote from the time of Eisenhower, and a few books, which, for the interested reader outline certain reasons for these changes. I still puzzle over the change in attitudes, but the recent election gives me hope. Now if we could get a 'House' made up of those old time Americans, that would be great.

I'm not really clear what point you're trying to make. I was responding to the suggestion that the meaning of the term 'social justice' has been twisted by propagandists, and I'm not seeing that. The term is predominantly used by people who favor pursuing it as a matter of policy. So if you're claiming there is some misunderstanding of the term, perhaps you should clarify your preferred definition.

(see new thread...)

It may just be that any change creates winners and losers and thus there is always a conflict of interests. But the transition from a nation of people who came together during the Great Depression and WWII to a nation in which a political candidate for the highest office in the land could label 47% of the nation parasites is simply amazing. Consider this is a person who would represent all of America? Un-real in my reality.

It tracks right along with the growth of government interference in our lives and degradation of dependable limits on state power. The more government has the power to impact our lives (for good or bad), the more aggressively people will fight to control it. Consider it 'blow back' from a long series of Court decisions that expand the scope and reach of government. It's going to get worse as government becomes more and more involved in our lives.

 

[Underhill]

Classic Liberals would never have said that Obama is their Lord, Savior and Daddy

Classic Liberals would never have been total pussies and allow POTUS to start wars, whack civilians with drones and go uncontested that they have the unfettered right to kill even US citizens on their say so.

Modern "American" Liberals are hive-minded creatures who have Obama as male head of household

I agree it's a problem. But if the left has a problem, the right has an epidemic on that front.

 

[bripat9643]

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

The idea that modern liberals bear any resemblance to the Founding Fathers is too absurd for words.

 

[midcan5]

I'm not really clear what point you're trying to make. I was responding to the suggestion that the meaning of the term 'social justice' has been twisted by propagandists, and I'm not seeing that. The term is predominantly used by people who favor pursuing it as a matter of policy. So if you're claiming there is some misunderstanding of the term, perhaps you should clarify your preferred definition.

(see new thread...)

No time now. My point was language and meaning is twisted, 'social justice' being just one part of that. "Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Too vague you say.

This video is a great example of the changes to ideas, be they science or even history I am referring to as prop. Social and political commentary starts around minute 30. Are they propagandists, you answer. I'll check other stuff later.

Video: The Revisionaries | Watch Independent Lens Online | PBS Video


quote above from Jeremy Waldron

 

[Dragonlady]

Classic Liberals would never have said that Obama is their Lord, Savior and Daddy

I have not seen a single liberal poster EVER express the sentiment that Obama is any of these things, nor have I seen this idea expressed in any liberal media. I have no idea where you would ever get the idea that ANYONE thinks of Obama in these terms.

Classic Liberals would never have been total pussies and allow POTUS to start wars, whack civilians with drones and go uncontested that they have the unfettered right to kill even US citizens on their say so.

I don't know of anyone who is happy with the lack of due process, however, if one is an enemy of the state and is actively fighting with the enemy, they are already risking their life. I also note that allies of the US have been noteably silent on these abuses as well.

I think that some intervention in Libya was warranted but I'm glad the US was in and out of that situation in a very short time. OTOH, I am disappointed that Assad in Syria continues on his bloody path and no one will step in to stop it. Despots frequently lose their minds and tens of thousands of people lose their lives as a result. That the peoples' rebellion continues unabated despite the horrific loss of life says how desperate people are to rid themselves of this man.

Compared to the crap pulled by the administrations of both Bush I and Bush II in terms of starting unprovoked wars, and torturing prisoners, shipping American and Canadian citizens off to Middle Eastern countries for "enhanced interrogation", and on and on, there has been far too much of this kind of shit going on in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Washington's most powerful have often thought themselves above the law (Nixon), or that the ends justified the means (Bush II). I had hoped that Obama would close Gitmo, rescind the Patriot Act, and show more respect for due process. I don't think anyone should ever let up in criticizing him for these things.

Modern "American" Liberals are hive-minded creatures who have Obama as male head of household

Liberals are free thinkers and hardly hive-minded at all. I'm not a fan of unions, I believe in balanced budgets, and the less red tape the better. I don't believe in a nanny state at all, but I do believe in government security programs for seniors and children. I believe in good pay for teachers, and that children need bright, clean modern classrooms, full of books, computers and all of the tools that children need to learn.

I think that nutritious lunches should be provided to all children in inner city schools, and that all children need gym classes, and home economics classes where they can learn about nutrition, meal planning, and basic household repair skills, as well as learning the skills they will need to compete in today's global economy.

I also know corporations exist for no other purpose than to make as much money as possible, without thought to the broader social consequences of their actions. It is the government's responsibility to provide the infrastructure, the well-educated work force, and the business climate which encourages innovation and entrepreneurs. I know that the public must be protected from unsafe products and thus certain production and safety standards are required, which means a certain amount of government regulation is required.

I am not so slow or brainwashed to believe that all conservatives are as narrow-minded and bigotted as you appear to be and I thank the Lord for that.

 

[jasonnfree]

Classic Liberals would never have said that Obama is their Lord, Savior and Daddy

I have not seen a single liberal poster EVER express the sentiment that Obama is any of these things, nor have I seen this idea expressed in any liberal media. I have no idea where you would ever get the idea that ANYONE thinks of Obama in these terms.

Classic Liberals would never have been total pussies and allow POTUS to start wars, whack civilians with drones and go uncontested that they have the unfettered right to kill even US citizens on their say so.

I don't know of anyone who is happy with the lack of due process, however, if one is an enemy of the state and is actively fighting with the enemy, they are already risking their life. I also note that allies of the US have been noteably silent on these abuses as well.

I think that some intervention in Libya was warranted but I'm glad the US was in and out of that situation in a very short time. OTOH, I am disappointed that Assad in Syria continues on his bloody path and no one will step in to stop it. Despots frequently lose their minds and tens of thousands of people lose their lives as a result. That the peoples' rebellion continues unabated despite the horrific loss of life says how desperate people are to rid themselves of this man.

Compared to the crap pulled by the administrations of both Bush I and Bush II in terms of starting unprovoked wars, and torturing prisoners, shipping American and Canadian citizens off to Middle Eastern countries for "enhanced interrogation", and on and on, there has been far too much of this kind of shit going on in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Washington's most powerful have often thought themselves above the law (Nixon), or that the ends justified the means (Bush II). I had hoped that Obama would close Gitmo, rescind the Patriot Act, and show more respect for due process. I don't think anyone should ever let up in criticizing him for these things.

Modern "American" Liberals are hive-minded creatures who have Obama as male head of household

Liberals are free thinkers and hardly hive-minded at all. I'm not a fan of unions, I believe in balanced budgets, and the less red tape the better. I don't believe in a nanny state at all, but I do believe in government security programs for seniors and children. I believe in good pay for teachers, and that children need bright, clean modern classrooms, full of books, computers and all of the tools that children need to learn.

I think that nutritious lunches should be provided to all children in inner city schools, and that all children need gym classes, and home economics classes where they can learn about nutrition, meal planning, and basic household repair skills, as well as learning the skills they will need to compete in today's global economy.

I also know corporations exist for no other purpose than to make as much money as possible, without thought to the broader social consequences of their actions. It is the government's responsibility to provide the infrastructure, the well-educated work force, and the business climate which encourages innovation and entrepreneurs. I know that the public must be protected from unsafe products and thus certain production and safety standards are required, which means a certain amount of government regulation is required.

I am not so slow or brainwashed to believe that all conservatives are as narrow-minded and bigotted as you appear to be and I thank the Lord for that.

Republicans should thank liberal presidents for Social Security and Medicare. Or maybe they'd rather have the old ones living with them and have to take care of them like in an earlier time in America. Even anti government people like Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek found the need to use governments help when they were in need. I always ask people, what's a Republican ever done for you. They have no answer because the answer --nothing, zero, nada.

Hate to get nasty but Republicans are dogs. Not the suckers that vote Republican, but the politicians that represent only the very wealthy and the corporations. They always have and they always will.

 

[dblack]

Classic Liberals would never have said that Obama is their Lord, Savior and Daddy

I have not seen a single liberal poster EVER express the sentiment that Obama is any of these things, nor have I seen this idea expressed in any liberal media. I have no idea where you would ever get the idea that ANYONE thinks of Obama in these terms.



I don't know of anyone who is happy with the lack of due process, however, if one is an enemy of the state and is actively fighting with the enemy, they are already risking their life. I also note that allies of the US have been noteably silent on these abuses as well.

I think that some intervention in Libya was warranted but I'm glad the US was in and out of that situation in a very short time. OTOH, I am disappointed that Assad in Syria continues on his bloody path and no one will step in to stop it. Despots frequently lose their minds and tens of thousands of people lose their lives as a result. That the peoples' rebellion continues unabated despite the horrific loss of life says how desperate people are to rid themselves of this man.

Compared to the crap pulled by the administrations of both Bush I and Bush II in terms of starting unprovoked wars, and torturing prisoners, shipping American and Canadian citizens off to Middle Eastern countries for "enhanced interrogation", and on and on, there has been far too much of this kind of shit going on in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Washington's most powerful have often thought themselves above the law (Nixon), or that the ends justified the means (Bush II). I had hoped that Obama would close Gitmo, rescind the Patriot Act, and show more respect for due process. I don't think anyone should ever let up in criticizing him for these things.

Modern "American" Liberals are hive-minded creatures who have Obama as male head of household

Liberals are free thinkers and hardly hive-minded at all. I'm not a fan of unions, I believe in balanced budgets, and the less red tape the better. I don't believe in a nanny state at all, but I do believe in government security programs for seniors and children. I believe in good pay for teachers, and that children need bright, clean modern classrooms, full of books, computers and all of the tools that children need to learn.

I think that nutritious lunches should be provided to all children in inner city schools, and that all children need gym classes, and home economics classes where they can learn about nutrition, meal planning, and basic household repair skills, as well as learning the skills they will need to compete in today's global economy.

I also know corporations exist for no other purpose than to make as much money as possible, without thought to the broader social consequences of their actions. It is the government's responsibility to provide the infrastructure, the well-educated work force, and the business climate which encourages innovation and entrepreneurs. I know that the public must be protected from unsafe products and thus certain production and safety standards are required, which means a certain amount of government regulation is required.

I am not so slow or brainwashed to believe that all conservatives are as narrow-minded and bigotted as you appear to be and I thank the Lord for that.

Republicans should thank liberal presidents for Social Security and Medicare. Or maybe they'd rather have the old ones living with them and have to take care of them like in an earlier time in America. Even anti government people like Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek found the need to use governments help when they were in need. I always ask people, what's a Republican ever done for you. They have no answer because the answer --nothing, zero, nada.

Hate to get nasty but Republicans are dogs. Not the suckers that vote Republican, but the politicians that represent only the very wealthy and the corporations. They always have and they always will.

Huh... thought this thread was about liberals.