The End of Liberalism

[Samson]

Did anyone point out that Liberalism was the ideology of the Founding Fathers and is very different from the big-government nanny state of the Democrats?

No, I think you're the first one to point out that the ideology of Brave Revolutionaries of 18th century North America is different from the Squeeling Rodents that Infest Their Legacy.

When was the last time I told you how much I admired you for sharing these Deep Thoughts?

 

[oreo]

This is great news

Since Conservatism is already in political exile...Liberalism will soon be joining them

There you go again Right winger--You have abandoned your previous political ideology. Congratulations to you on this. But--there is only one way to go--& that is back to the way you live your personal life. You pay your bilsl--you balance your check-book--you do everthing in your life to get ahead--& if you have kids--you save for their college educattion. Why shouldn't we expect the same out of our federal government?

Welcome to being a conservative. And now welvome to being a new member of the tea party movement of this country.

 

[Big Fitz]

"From the very beginning of the Obama presidency Democrats have been acting like kids in a candy store - doubling down on the TARP bailout and the $787 billion stimulus/slush fund. The most recent 1.1 trillion spending bill and now the health care bill which, with a little accounting sleight-of-hand, comes in at under one trillion, the Democrats are spending like there are no more tomorrows.

What will be the results of all of this out of control spending?

The consequences will be many but one of the most surprising results could be the end of liberalism. At least that's the opinion of this editorial in the Washington Examiner. Which begins with this extraordinary statement: " With its most vigorous advocate in memory presiding in the White House and commanding Democratic majorities in Congress, it's difficult to believe that the end of liberalism may be within sight."

In other words, within the lifetimes of the vast majority of living Americans, government as we have known it since the New Deal will become paralyzed, unable to deliver even basic services, let alone the myriad of entitlements that politicians had promised would last forever. Liberalism will owe its undoing to its blind faith that government could forever be the inexhaustible provider of ever more spending, more benefits and more prosperity, with nary a day of reckoning."
American Thinker Blog: The end of liberalism?

<singing> To dream... the impossible dreaaaaaammmmm!!! </singing>

That would be wonderful. Unfortunately I believe the truth lies in the middle, and some nasty evil will survive the collapse of socialism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How is more progress towards human freedom served when government has expanded over the last 200 years? I'm kind of curious at what state do you have more freedom. Is it when there is no government or total government and to which one of these do you think we should "progress" towards?

Gee, I don't know. Black people aren't slaves anymore. Women can vote. Children don't work in the coal mines. Industry doesn't dump anything it wants into our air water and land. For starters...

And we have Medicare now! Even conservatives love Medicare!!!!

None of these things you listed really were the byproduct of "less government...." .

No, they were the product of more government. Which I guess is why conservatives fought them every step of the way?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The liberal causes of the past are the status quo of the present. The conservative causes of the past are the contents of history's dustbins.

If this were 50 years ago and the internet magically existed, the conservatives on this forum would be railing against big central government trying to end segregation in the southern states.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Of course, NY, the very definition of 'conservatism' is 'backwards pieces of shit who enjoy things the way they are because they're on top, and the ignorant, moronic masses who serve them'.

 

[Big Fitz]

The liberal causes of the past are the status quo of the present. The conservative causes of the past are the contents of history's dustbins.

If this were 50 years ago and the internet magically existed, the conservatives on this forum would be railing against big central government trying to end segregation in the southern states.

Time to put on my analysis hat.

First off, historical context. The social conservatives of the Civil War era often were FOR the emancipation of the slaves thanks to the Biblical roots of the anti-slavery movement. The Abolitionists were mostly found in the Whig and Republican parties. Post Civil War it was the democrats of the era, combined with ex confederate soldiers who created the Ku Klux Clan. There are still members to this day in the DNC who are/were members of that party.

When the Industrial Revolution was in full bloom, liberalism became more attached to the anarchists and labor movement. While the conservatives sided with more or less the banks and industrialists. In this the conservatives were fighting to preserve the slavery of the working man in many regards. Technology and science was starting to show there were better ways to live and do business and achieve. On the other hand the capitalists had grown comfortable with the status quo and quite powerful, trying to force things to remain as is for them to maintain the power. This, thankfully was broken by people like Eugene V. Debs, Upton Sinclair, Jimmy Hoffa and Jacob Riis who did yeomans work muckraking and organizing in that era to help break a stranglehold industry had put on all men. Unfortunately, what has ended up happening here is that the sides of oppression have flipped over from the banks and industrialists to the unions and organizers who to this day survive off of protecting urban decay and incompetence through rules and political racketeering.

During the Civil Rights era, it was the Democrats behind Al Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd who fought so hard to stop the equal rights for all races. LBJ could never have passed the legislation if it had not been senate republicans, helping him push past a determined group of dedicated segregationists and put paid to MLK's beliefs that all men should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. But look how even this has become perverted. Now those who marched with MLK and supported him have turned his own words upside down, creating an us vs them society. Affirmative Action, Article 9 and race based hate crime legislation have become weapons to divide people based on sex and race and now we have pushes to protect certain behavior. This perversion of the beliefs of true equality have become hallmarks of liberalism as we know it today.

What's most sad is that liberalism's core is based in one fundamental statement, really; the desire to improve the lives of all men.

The problem is that it has become perverted by many who have come to claim liberalism as their mantle. They become obsessed with change. Throwing out the past for it is old and trying to recreate the world in their current fad. The desire to improve the lives of your fellow man is a good and laudable thing. It should be encouraged. It should also be responsibly tempered, for social change for the sake of itself lends itself to corruption and ultimately it's own destruction. Think of how the united tribes of the North East taught our founding fathers the wisdom of slowing down the decision making process and to think far beyond their own lives. Change for the better is good, but the cost must always be weighed.

Of course we can never overlook the role technology has played into this society. Every period, if you put technology from 100 years later into it would be dramatically improved and probably would quickly move to mimic society of the future. The is a process. We must proceed through these steps to actually gain the wisdom of future years in which to prove or refuse changes.

Conservatism is not dead or irrelevant or in the dustbin of history. It is the voice standing athwart a pell-mell charge into change. It demands analysis versus tradition. It demands proof that it is a good idea before giving in to it. They want to know if there is not a better way. It is reason and careful thought versus the passion and feeling of liberalism.

This is why liberalism will not die off.

All this being said...

Socialism/Fascism/Marxism/Maoism... COLLECTIVISM is dying. This is different from liberalism. These philosophies have co opted the word liberal as a cover for what is technically nothing more than authoritarian collectivist militarism. This desire to destroy individuality and become one of the communal home will be destroyed soon. Why? Because it is contrary to the laws of economics and human nature. It denies individual achievement, drive and does not reward hard work. It protects the indigent and pathological. This is the philosophy that will die just as it achieves victory, for it's victory is really one of nihilism and destruction. As it achieves it's goal it loses the ability to maintain it. Ayn Rand illustrates this incredibly well in "Atlas Shrugged", which should be mandatory for all high school English courses.

To paraphrase a historical event.... "And as he surveyed the final victory of his armies, Alexander wept, for there were no more worlds left to conquer."

This is what is to come for the usurpers of liberalism. Decline, downfall and dissolution.

 

[Big Fitz]

Of course, NY, the very definition of 'conservatism' is 'backwards pieces of shit who enjoy things the way they are because they're on top, and the ignorant, moronic masses who serve them'.

That's the definition of elitist. Those can be found in both parties and philosophies for it is based on the belief that "I am better than you and therefore entitled."

And it's evil to its core.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

First off, historical context. The social conservatives of the Civil War era often were FOR the emancipation of the slaves thanks to the Biblical roots of the anti-slavery movement

It takes a liberal interpretation of the bible to use it to oppose slavery. The OT commands slavery and Jesus never spoke against it.

During the Civil Rights era, it was the Democrats behind Al Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd who fought so hard to stop the equal rights for all races. LBJ could never have passed the legislation if it had not been senate republicans,

Are you seriously trying to turn this from an matter of ideology to one of political affiliation?

Conservatism is not dead or irrelevant or in the dustbin of history. It is the voice standing athwart a pell-mell charge into change. It demands analysis versus tradition. It demands proof that it is a good idea before giving in to it.

It simply opposes change; conservatism is the poisition of the kking, the slavemaster, and the chairman of AIG.

Socialism/Fascism/Marxism/Maoism... COLLECTIVISM is dying

You say as ever more collectivist programs are put into place

 

[Big Fitz]

It takes a liberal interpretation of the bible to use it to oppose slavery. The OT commands slavery and Jesus never spoke against it.

Often the book of Philemon (IIRC off the top of my head) was used to justify it. But at the same time, the teachings of Christ speak out against it when you look at the spirit of what He said. How does one love your neighbor as yourself if you have them in chains?

You say as ever more collectivist programs are put into place

Can't collapse the structure till you put enough weight on it to overload it. It's incredible how much it's survived so far.

re you seriously trying to turn this from an matter of ideology to one of political affiliation?

So you're saying they did not oppose Civil Rights legislation based on ideology? I figure since the collectivists do it, it's fair game.

It simply opposes change; conservatism is the poisition of the kking, the slavemaster, and the chairman of AIG.

No, it is the voice of tradition. When tradition is shown to be less useful than something new, it will change. THAT is conservative change. The new must prove itself.

Now maybe this has been a recent trend in my experience, but what the heck is it lately with people believing that because they voice an opinion, they are entitled to be accepted and those that hear it are required to change their minds to agree? I really am confused by this, and it seems to be happening more frequently.

Sigh... maybe we're just in a society of spoiled brats who have never been told 'no'.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

When tradition is shown to be less useful than something new

Useful to whom? Abolition was far less useful to the slaveowners that keeping things as they were.

BTW, Jesus never condemned slavery, nor could he. Jesus could not have ever opposed slavery, since he (as God) commanded slavery. If he opposed it, he'd be calling that which was ordered by God wrong- the entire premise of a god with meaningful values who is also Jesus falls apart.

 

[Samson]

Of course, NY, the very definition of 'conservatism' is 'backwards pieces of shit who enjoy things the way they are because they're on top, and the ignorant, moronic masses who serve them'.

If this is true, then I'm astonished Rudy Juilianni was able to be elected Mayor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The liberal causes of the past are the status quo of the present. The conservative causes of the past are the contents of history's dustbins.

If this were 50 years ago and the internet magically existed, the conservatives on this forum would be railing against big central government trying to end segregation in the southern states.

Let's fill in your history lacunae:

1. Modern history presents us with two divergent models of economic arrangement: socialism, and capitalism. One of these appears preoccupied with the common good, and social betterment, the other with profits and production.

2. In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, “the common good.”

3. A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.

4. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”

5. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”

6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

7. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society.

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05


Judging by the results of both capitalism and socialism, the only folks who still believe in totalist doctrine are the simple minded, or the 'can't we all just get along ' rapid-eye-blinkers.

What did Lenin call those folks, 'Useful Idiots'?

 

[Big Fitz]

In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, “the common good.”

Ahhhh La Boheme and Les Miserables. Children of the Revolution, one and all.

6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong!

I always submit too soon... so, EDIT.

Exactly. But that is because of two things. It denies the advances of technology in it's ability to improve the lives of people everywhere by making the ability to meet needs as well as luxuries easier to attain. Secondly it assumes all capitalists is without ethics, morals or desires to improve the lives of their fellow man. Capitalism is separate from morality and ethics, for it is an economic system.

This is why I can say I am an "Ethical Capitalist".

That being said, until we had gone through many years of improvement, experience taught Marx and other socialists that what they HAD experienced under the Robber Barons and caprice of old world Elitism (both nobility and new industrialist) this was nothing more than a continuation of the same systems borne out in Feudalist society.

 

[JakeStarkey]

First, the Bible was used by both sides to justify or condemn slavery before the Civil War.

Second, the Civil Rights fight was one of ideology, of North and South, not Democrat or Republican.

Third, conservatism is both the conservator of tradition and the obstacle to progress.

Fourth, governmental regulation of unhibited corporatism is a necessary fact of modern society.

 

[Big Fitz]

First, the Bible was used by both sides to justify or condemn slavery before the Civil War.

Thus proving that mankind will use anything it wants to justify it's desires, regardless of how evil they may be.

Third, conservatism is both the conservator of tradition and the obstacle to progress.

Often for good reason. Untempered change is bad. People die in revolutions. Lives and nations are destroyed for want of inflamed passions.

Fourth, governmental regulation of unhibited corporatism is a necessary fact of modern society.

You do realize that Corporatism is what Mussolini called Fascism, right? Now if you are talking regulation of the free market, yes. That is government's job to regulate and moderate the free market and protect those from fraud, abuse and other evils well documented with uncontrolled capitalism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, “the common good.”

Ahhhh La Boheme and Les Miserables. Children of the Revolution, one and all.

6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong!

I always submit too soon... so, EDIT.

Exactly. But that is because of two things. It denies the advances of technology in it's ability to improve the lives of people everywhere by making the ability to meet needs as well as luxuries easier to attain. Secondly it assumes all capitalists is without ethics, morals or desires to improve the lives of their fellow man. Capitalism is separate from morality and ethics, for it is an economic system.

This is why I can say I am an "Ethical Capitalist".

That being said, until we had gone through many years of improvement, experience taught Marx and other socialists that what they HAD experienced under the Robber Barons and caprice of old world Elitism (both nobility and new industrialist) this was nothing more than a continuation of the same systems borne out in Feudalist society.

Ah, Biggie, you're being far too rational and measured.

How do you expect to bring out the bile in the lefties?

Debate, plus a bit of bile is what makes it fun.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The liberal causes of the past are the status quo of the present. The conservative causes of the past are the contents of history's dustbins.

If this were 50 years ago and the internet magically existed, the conservatives on this forum would be railing against big central government trying to end segregation in the southern states.

Time to put on my analysis hat.

First off, historical context. The social conservatives of the Civil War era often were FOR the emancipation of the slaves thanks to the Biblical roots of the anti-slavery movement. The Abolitionists were mostly found in the Whig and Republican parties. Post Civil War it was the democrats of the era, combined with ex confederate soldiers who created the Ku Klux Clan. There are still members to this day in the DNC who are/were members of that party.

You can name names in the DNC who are today in the Klan?

Let's straighten something out. Civil rights legislation in the 50's and 60's was largely opposed in Congress by a bi-partisan group of legislators who called themselves the CONSERVATIVE COALITION (look it up)

Now why do you suppose they called themselves (Democrat and Republican alike) CONSERVATIVES?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, was asked earlier "[I}nan interview with FrontPageMag's Bill Steigerwald, . . .. whether capitalism and Christianity were natural enemies. Sirico responded that, 'I don’t think capitalism is a natural enemy of Christianity. Capitalism is really an inadequate word; it only describes one dimension of what is really human freedom and choice in the economic sphere. Choice is morally neutral. It’s the chooser who can be moral or immoral, not the ability to make the choice'". Steigerwald, Bill. "Christ, Christmas, and Capitalism." FrontPageMagazine.com. 26 December 2006.

Whether choice is a neutral behavior or not, it has moral consequences. Sirico failed to nuance that capitalism is also a dimension in which corporatists can destroy human freedom and choice of others, to destroy the opportunity for a quality of life.

That is why government, elected by the We the People, has the moral and ethical obligation to regulate corporatism and business in the modern world.

 

[midcan5]

Imagine the first conservative: in his cave staring out at the first liberal who tells the conservative we can do better, we can raise crops and animals, we can built shelters and live outside in the sun&#8230;.Is Conservatism finally dead? &#8211; Political Pass

Today we have reactionaries and progressives only, the far left died with communism and the religious right has made the far right untenable in modern society. The libertarians still cling to a modern version of Marxism, but that is why they occupy the margins.

So where are we, let's look. This view is from a good mile up. Prior to FDR we progressed up and down and life had its farm and its fluctuations. Then nationalism created a 15th century world of nation v nation. And bloody war gave way to even deeper nationalism and a great depression allowed majestic finger pointing. Horrible bombs ended the horror. But somehow even with a cold war, the majority of powers, lived peacefully and America progressed through civil rights and equal rights and hippiedom. Then what happened? Reagan brought back idealistic soup and many drank, Russia collapsed and then there was one. Along with the collapse came the rise to power of another ideological force. You can fill in the rest.

Civilizations

* From bondage to spiritual faith
* From spiritual faith to great courage
* From great courage to liberty
* From liberty to abundance
* From abundance to selfishness
* From selfishness to complacency
* From complacency to apathy
* From apathy to dependence
* From dependence back to bondage

Source: In the early 1700s, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote this about the fall of the Athenian republic over a thousand years ago.