The Liberal Philosophy Made Clear

[Sinatra]

Sir, a list of government created agencies stemming from the Great Society era is hardly evidence of its success, and in fact, quite the contrary.

Of the TRILLIONS spent on the Great Society - namely the War on Poverty, which in great part created the entitlement institutions that have since been expanded to this day, point to evidence of success. Perhaps start by defining success for us - then point to specific examples of success to show how government expansion, as modeled by LBJ's Great Society and War on Poverty, resulted in "success".

 

[DiamondDave]

Just as the conservative thread was chock full of snarky interjections based on an agenda.. this one is chock full of under-the-table praises for your obvious agenda

Not to mention being chock full of slogans and common liberal misconceptions, with obvious jabs at conservatism

I don't want to get angry, but Dave, you're wrong. Shut the fuck up unless you have something constructive to say. I'm not some propaganda agent working for the Democrats. Alright? Your conspiracy doesn't exist. Your so blinded by your bias and anger toward liberals...have you considered that at all? I did. That's why I started these threads: to remove the blinders and try to see things from outside liberal or conservative. And you know what? Its working. But people with useless comments that judge instead of adding to the conversation aren't really doing anything worthwhile and are really just hindering the whole process. So if you aren't gonna help, get the hell out of the way.

Pardon me? I would be all for an OBJECTIVE attempt at understanding conservatism or a FACTUAL listing of what liberalism and conservatism are... but that is not what you are doing, and it certainly does not appear to be your goal...

You are INDEED interjecting slogans and misconceptions

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Liberalism is focused on the humane, on evidenced-based policy making, liberty to the extent that is doesn't infringe on others' rights, and environmental stewardship, among many other things.

Are you not infringing on my rights whenever you use a utencil of power, the federal government, to take from me money that I rightfully earned through my own labor in order to fascilitate what you deem in your own opinion to be good moral cause?

There were so many touchy-feely contradictions contained in that post I was taken back to Lit 101 where newly minted freshmen would write odes to emotion devoid of fact and exclaim it to be verse worthy of the highest praise.

Oh the wailings of the liberal heart when reality is brought crashing down upon their soft heads!

Very constructive comments. Thanks for your opinion. Geez, thanks to your judgement and insults I've converted to conservatism just so I can feel that you and I are associated. Why haven't I joined the GOP before?!

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Pardon me? I would be all for an OBJECTIVE attempt at understanding conservatism or a FACTUAL listing of what liberalism and conservatism are... but that is not what you are doing, and it certainly does not appear to be your goal...

You are INDEED interjecting slogans and misconceptions

Okay, Dave. Whatever you want to believe. I'm done trying to be civil with you. Put me on your ignore list.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

No offense, C-man, but your views are more in line with Progressivism.

For instance liberals don't agree that guns should be abolished outside of the military.

Also, this statement: I would say to liberals, no matter what the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, or any laws might say, treating people fairly and humanely trumps all.

The DofI and the constitution...if followed, everyone is treated fairly.

I don't have time to go point by point, and while I don't disagree with everything you attribute to Liberalism...you are describing a Progressive outlook.

You're probablty right, but I was doing my best to "capture" the liberal philosophy. Edit the OP as you see fit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Liberal Philosophy Made Clear

Good GOD! Every freedom-loving person on the planet should reject liberalism. No wonder people say Liberalism is a religion. It is!

Kind of reminded me of a book by Queen Ann:
"Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)."-

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Liberal Philosophy Made Clear

Good GOD! Every freedom-loving person on the planet should reject liberalism. No wonder people say Liberalism is a religion. It is!

because so called "liberals" today are actually collectivists and not liberals in the classical sense.

 

[DiamondDave]

Lets just start with the first few... and point out the propaganda and misconceptions

1. The Federal Government is ruled by we the people and therefore answerable to us. Although it isn't entirely trustworthy because of the people who have been elected in office previously, it is more trustworthy than private business whose bottom line is profit and not public interests. We have hope of reforming the Federal Government into a far better bastion of freedom, equality, and an institution of humane actions and policies.

2. The government is a tool of the people to enforce laws which keep people reasonably safe, to ensure humane treatment and equality, and to protect us from aggressive regimes. It is also the hub of state governments to maintain the union, and to provide a centralized institution of governance for the entire country.

3. Small business is extremely important and should be the focus of national support and economic encouragement. Large corporations put small business out of business. Large corporations are more likely to pollute, lobby for unfair regulation, and treat people inhumanely than small businesses.

1. In a typical tactic you start out with a legit statement... The government is held accountable by the people it governs... and then you start to twist... There is NOTHING that shows at all that government is "more trustworthy", but you indeed WANT it to be so to promote your agenda, so you try and state it as fact... and lest you not forget that with politicians, the objective is not inherently the country or the district, but the gaining and retention of power in combination of staying elected....

2. Not bad... that one I give you.. but you leave out one of the biggest intentions of our government when it was set up, being the preservation of freedom and liberty, especially on the personal level.. which while ensuring equality and protecting the country as a whole, and ensuring the governance thru law and ensuring law enforcement

3. Small business has ALWAYS been a focus of conservatism... don't think it hasn't... Successful businesses put other businesses out of business.. not just big business... big businesses can sink just as fast... and big business is not some inherent evil... a country and economic system of a high magnitude cannot be run on small business alone.. large businesses are no more likely to "pollute" than small ones.. in fact smaller businesses who have to watch every penny are more likely to do something not by a regulation, and I have seen that first hand... and not every small business is like the store on Little House on the Prarie, and they are no more likely to treat someone with your subjective view of "humanely"... many large businesses are RENOWNED for their incredible treatment of employees.. one of the largest companies I ever worked for treated me better when laying me off, than my small current company has at any time during my employment

You see... when you look closely at your statements... you can see where you have fallacies, and obvious slant.. which shows an agenda and objective... and not a goal of objectivity

 

[Sinatra]

There is a fantastic article on the folly of liberalism and the Great Society by the noted economist Murray Rothbard (who I had the great pleasure of meeting a couple years prior to his passing) that should be available somewhere online, but I have been unable to locate it.

If anyone finds it please post it here as it demonstrates a very cogent response so the utter failings of the Great Society, and by association, liberal statism in general.

If I am able to locate it I shall do so myself.

Thank you!

 

[jillian]

you know the Austrian school is a bunch of nada.... right?

we've already had laissez faire politics and for it's results, I'd direct *your* attention to a well-known book by Upton Sinclair called The Jungle.

 

[Sinatra]

FOUND IT!

Please take the time to read it folks - Rothbard was a very bright man who had sincere concerns over the ever-expanding role of government in thel lives of the individual. While I don't subscribe to him in whole, I find his works to present thoughtful analysis of the complex inter-relationship between individual freedom and governmental power.

And for those of you who are Ron Paul fans - Paul has been a longtime follower of Rothbard.

The Great Society: A Libertarian Critique by Murray N. Rothbard

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Kind of reminded me of a book by Queen Ann:
"Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)."-

But don't you see, that this is Conservatism as well:

The Sacraments: The Poor
The Holy Writ: The Bible
Its Martyrs: Reagan, the Bushes, Nixon
Its Clergy: Evangelicals and the financially successful
Its Churches: Churches and Corporations
Its Infallibility: Past successes of the American system (even though not everyone or everything has succeeded)
Its Cosmology: The Universe was created by God

 

[Sinatra]

Kind of reminded me of a book by Queen Ann:
"Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)."-

But don't you see, that this is Conservatism as well:

The Sacraments: The Poor
The Holy Writ: The Bible
Its Martyrs: Reagan, the Bushes, Nixon
Its Clergy: Evangelicals and the financially successful
Its Churches: Churches and Corporations
Its Infallibility: Past successes of the American system (even though not everyone or everything has succeeded)
Its Cosmology: The Universe was created by God

Bush II and Nixon were liberal Republicans, not conservatives. Bush I was only marginally conservative.

How can you attempt an arguement when you demonstrate such a clear lack of understanding regarding the premise of said arguement?

 

[Bern80]

Just gonna focus on your points

Liberalism is focused on the humane, on evidenced-based policy making, liberty to the extent that is doesn't infringe on others' rights, and environmental stewardship, among many other things.

You have a contradiction in the 'liberty to the extent that it doesn't infringe on other's rights' later on.....

Liberals generally tend to perceive that society and government need change; change based on research, the scientific method, and rational, logical thinking. I would also say that liberals tend to be idealistic, if to varying degrees.

Climate change is the obvious one that jumps out here (and maybe the whole of academia as well). I'm not making a generalization when I say AGW is a belief held primarily by liberals. Yet there is significant peer reveiwed scientific work out there that suggests otherwise. Along with this is the naivete that scientists are above playing politics, after all they generally get their research money from politicians.

1. The Federal Government is ruled by we the people and therefore answerable to us. Although it isn't entirely trustworthy because of the people who have been elected in office previously, it is more trustworthy than private business whose bottom line is profit and not public interests. We have hope of reforming the Federal Government into a far better bastion of freedom, equality, and an institution of humane actions and policies.

Contradicts the 'need change' paragraph. Based on historical research rarely has goverment shown that it can be trusted with your tax dollars.

3. Small business is extremely important and should be the focus of national support and economic encouragement. Large corporations put small business out of business. Large corporations are more likely to pollute, lobby for unfair regulation, and treat people inhumanely than small businesses.

Large corporations are in a better position to provide better compensation to their employees.

4. Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, and a national health care are vitally important to maintaining a lowered crime rate, lower poverty, equality, and humane treatment of the unlucky, the disabled, the impoverished, uneducated, and elderly and are part of what makes a nation a beacon of humanity.

'Beacon of humanity' is too often confused with coddling, which is ultimately detrimental to society, where liberals are concerned.

5. The private sector can not sufficiently take care of the needy on their own, which is why there are government programs.

Not demonstrably true.

6. The western European and Canadian models of centralized government and somewhat soclialized economies are great examples of the direction the US should go.

This is simply not looking at the whole. Only recently have we seen that things in France aren't exactley hunky dory for a lot of people. Have you seen their unemployment rate?

7. All people need help at some point in their lives, for some for all their lives.

Which should never be an excuse to not do all you can to help yourself first.

Social Liberalism

Society needs reform to better reflect an intentional direction instead of the status quo.

1. Human rights are more important than anything else, including national security.

Rights tend to take on the role entitlements that people don't really have under liberalism. Best example: You are entitled to PURSUE happiness. You are not entitled to happiness.

2. Everyone's rights and freedom should extend to the point until they infringe on others' rights and freedoms. This includes Roe v. Wade, homosexual marriages (because homosexuality is not a choice), and the social support for previously disenfranchised peoples like women and african-americans, etc. (i.e. affirmative action).

Contradicts #2 in 'other' section. Also contradicts human rights trumping everything where abortion is concerned unless you are operate under the ridiculous beleif that any child not expelled from the womb is not human.

3. We believe in freedom of religion but also freedom FROM religion. The government should be secular so that peoples of all faith and creeds can coexist peacefully. That means laws which are based in evidence-based methods and not on faith-based morality. This also means religious symbols or messages have no place in public places or public schools.

The perspective of historical accuracy I would say in many cases they do. If that's the position then a hell of a lot of cities need a name change ( i.e. San(St.)Francisco).

4. The prison-industrial system is in need of sweeping and fundamental reforms. Punishment doesn't deter, and we should do more to rehabilitate and welcome offenders back into society, among other things to lower crime.

Most people are go to have an understandable problem welcoming with open arms strangers that have shown to be dangerous to society. But we do have a prision overcrowding problem. If Obama wants to stimulate the ecomomy he could create an awful lot of jobs by building a suffcient number of prisons.

5. The police are a somewhat-corrupt organization which has the opportunity to abuse their powers and victimize average citizens. Reforms are necessary.

A group not very different from government whom you claim we should trust.

8. Education is the cornerstone of any healthy society.

This is a cowardly vailed way of saying we should spare no expense on education. Educated people know however that throwing money at people doesn't make them smarter.

2. The right to bear arms is the leading cause of murder in this country. No matter how many weapons US citizens have, they are no match for the US military. Hunting isn't necessary. At least, automatic weapons should be banned, if not all firearms outside of the military.

Need to address the contradictions above. The argument itself is horribly flawed. The right to have a gun is not what CAUSES guns death. If that were true there should be A LOT more deaths. The need argument is flawed as well, unless of course you are willing to give up something else that you someone arbitrarily decided you dont need. It is similar to arguing that cell phone use while driving causes deaths and the ridicuous solution would be banning all cell phones. It is mispriortized argument as well. Cars are involved in far more deaths. It is an unfair argument (you say liberals are all about fairness). Compared to the number of guns that exist in the U.S. and responsible owners that use them, gun deaths and violence is but a fraction of that. How is it fair to punish many for the sake of a very few (who are criminals and thus probably aren't goint to adhere to a gun ban anyway). There simply is not one logical argument for banning guns. NONE. PERIOD.

3. Liberals would mostly agree: The way things are in American government are mostly bad, because of institutionalized racism, conservativism thwarting reform, tax evasion of the wealthy and of business, and the influence of special interest groups and faith-based organizations.

Thwarting reform has been blocked by both right and left. The right tried to reform Fannie and Freddie under Bush for example. It was blocked by the left controlled congress.

5. Liberals believe that even with hard work the American dream is elusive for most middle class people and that more needs to be done to restrain the influence of the wealthy and of large corporations so that more middle class Americans can live a decent life.

I have had LLLOOOOOONNNNGG discussions about this one. For most able bodied people there is simply very little that is IMpossible. Some will have to work harder than others yes, but the only true limitation is one's level of motivation. What you don't acknowledge won't change and if you dont' indentify the things you have control over or are accountable that are keeping you from reaching your goals then you wont' reach your goals. That unfortunately works against human nature. Human nature is blame outside sources for our failures.

7. Human beings are essentially capable of good but are often led astray by the hypocrocies of faith-based morality, greed, and ignorance. Regulations should exist to provide everyone with an equal playing field, to restrain the influence of religion in public life, to oppose greed, and to reduce ignorance.

It has been my experience that liberals aren't happy with a level playing field, what they really want are equal outcomes.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Bush II and Nixon were liberal Republicans, not conservatives. Bush I was only marginally conservative.

How can you attempt an arguement when you demonstrate such a clear lack of understanding regarding the premise of said arguement?

I'm sure you have a full comprehension of the liberal perspective though, right? You can't see the point I made because instead you look for the flaws in its delivery. So what? Do you get the point or not? If yes, good. If not, make a valid statement instead of a judgement call and nit picking the details to invalidate my statement. Isn't that part of the problem you have with liberalism: that we are self-righteous?

 

[Sinatra]

Bush II and Nixon were liberal Republicans, not conservatives. Bush I was only marginally conservative.

How can you attempt an arguement when you demonstrate such a clear lack of understanding regarding the premise of said arguement?

I'm sure you have a full comprehension of the liberal perspective though, right? You can't see the point I made because instead you look for the flaws in its delivery. So what? Do you get the point or not? If yes, good. If not, make a valid statement instead of a judgement call and nit picking the details to invalidate my statement. Isn't that part of the problem you have with liberalism: that we are self-righteous?

I worked alongside some rather noted liberals for nearly a decade, so yes, my perspective is perhaps better than most.

Modern liberalism is the abstract result of accepted and programmed human failing, and as such, I will not support it.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Conservatism and liberalism are opposite sides of the same coin. Depending on how flat you lie on your side of the coin limits your ability to see any value in the other side.

Is there such a thing as an intuitive conservative, or do conservatives run toward the sensing side?

Just wondering out loud that there will never be a resolution between these political philosophies or that one is more correct than the other.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Thanks. For the most part you didn't get personal or judgemental about what I wrote. I also didn't put this out there as I believe this but as This is the liberal perspective. I should've written that but it didn't occur to me.

Just gonna focus on your points

Climate change is the obvious one that jumps out here (and maybe the whole of academia as well). I'm not making a generalization when I say AGW is a belief held primarily by liberals. Yet there is significant peer reveiwed scientific work out there that suggests otherwise. Along with this is the naivete that scientists are above playing politics, after all they generally get their research money from politicians.

But you see, that's arguable. There is significant peer reviewed scientific work that suggests that global warming has been accerlerating in the last 100 years. And scientists generally get their research money from many different places that are outside political influence: the NSF, state universities and colleges, etc. Not that scientists aren't fallible. But the logic is, what if global warming is accelerating? Whether we cause it or not, shouldn't we, based on the current models, attempt to slow if not halt it to avoid a lowered-quality of life?

Contradicts the 'need change' paragraph. Based on historical research rarely has goverment shown that it can be trusted with your tax dollars.

Sure, that's why we want REFORM.

Large corporations are in a better position to provide better compensation to their employees.

Then why don't they. Yes, I know some do. But I can think of lots of examples where they don't.

'Beacon of humanity' is too often confused with coddling, which is ultimately detrimental to society, where liberals are concerned.

Isn't there some kind of middle ground?

Not demonstrably true.

Neither is the opposite.

This is simply not looking at the whole. Only recently have we seen that things in France aren't exactley hunky dory for a lot of people. Have you seen their unemployment rate?

No system is perfect. Look at ours! I would say the liberals see more of the good in those systems and assume that conservatives have been propagandized into fearing anything associated with communism, such as socialism even though those countries' economies are hardly socialist.

Which should never be an excuse to do all you can to help yourself first.

And a liberal would contend that we should empower people TO help themselves first.

Rights tend to take on the role entitlements that people don't really have under liberalism. Best example: You are entitled to PURSUE happiness. You are not entitled to happiness.

I guess I don't understand your point in context to mine. Feel free to expound and, I hate to say, spell it out for me. My liberal bias might be clouding the view of the picture your painting.

Contradicts #2 in 'other' section. Also contradicts human rights trumping everything where abortion is concerned unless you are operate under the ridiculous beleif that any child not expelled from the womb is not human.

It is subjective that the belief that unborn fetuses are not human is ridiculous. That smacks of the same kind of self-righteousness that conservatives find so abhorrent in liberals.

The perspective of historical accuracy I would say in many cases they do. If that's the position then a hell of a lot of cities need a name change ( i.e. San(St.)Francisco).

I'm sure REASONABLE exceptions can be made.

Most people are go to have an understandable problem welcoming with open arms strangers that have shown to be dangerous to society. But we do have a prision overcrowding problem. If Obama wants to stimulate the ecomomy he could create an awful lot of jobs by building a suffcient number of prisons.

Agreed for the most part, but I don't think building more prisons is going to help with crime and the extremely high rate of repeat offenders.

A group not very different from government whom you claim we should trust.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. Liberals DON'T trust the government, but we think it CAN be made to be trustworthy, but not without vigilance.

This is a cowardly vailed way of saying we should spare no expense on education. Educated people know however that throwing money at people doesn't make them smarter.

Well, you didn't need to get personal. That wasn't what I was saying, however, spending money on education never hurt.

Need to address the contradictions above. The argument itself is horribly flawed. The right to have a gun is not what CAUSES guns death. If that were true there should be A LOT more deaths. The need argument is flawed as well, unless of course you are willing to give up something else that you someone arbitrarily decided you dont need. It is similar to arguing that cell phone use while driving causes deaths and the ridicuous solution would be banning all cell phones. It is mispriortized argument as well. Cars are involved in far more deaths. It is an unfair argument (you say liberals are all about fairness). Compared to the number of guns that exist in the U.S. and responsible owners that use them, gun deaths and violence is but a fraction of that. How is it fair to punish many for the sake of a very few (who are criminals and thus probably aren't goint to adhere to a gun ban anyway). There simply is not one logical argument for banning guns. NONE. PERIOD.

I personally don't know how I feel about gun control. I was an expert rifleman in the Corps, and I like venison and elk A LOT! But we do have one of the highest murder rates in the world. What do you think is the cause?

Thwarting reform has been blocked by both right and left. The right tried to reform Fannie and Freddie under Bush for example. It was blocked by the left controlled congress.

Conceded.

I have had LLLOOOOOONNNNGG discussions about this one. For most able bodied people there is simply very little that is IMpossible. Some will have to work harder than others yes, but the only true limitation is one's level of motivation. What you don't acknowledge won't change and if you dont' indentify the things you have control over or are accountable that are keeping you from reaching your goals then you wont' reach your goals. That unfortunately works against human nature. Human nature is blame outside sources for our failures.

I agree with you but I don't think this takes into account the whole picture. What about the specific reasons I gave in my OP? Do you agree that large corporations and wealthy people reduce opportunity of the middle class?

It has been my experience that liberals aren't happy with a level playing field, what they really want are equal outcomes.

I think that is a biased opinion and one based on the surface of the liberal movement. I, for one, don't think that.

Thanks again for the thoughtful responses, and I would appreciate if you left judgements like "cowardly" out of your responses since I haven't insulted you... The golden rule and all, you know.

 

[editec]

I define liberalism as that resigned realization that government is a necessary evil.

The underpinning value of my version of liberalism is that the government can legitimately only rule only those things which it must because it can be proven that failure to do so threatens the commonweal.

My version of liberalism is that liberalism is NOT a suicide pact, therefore neither is it a set of defined rules or philosophies which must be adhered to come hell or high water.

My version of Liberalism believes that the world belongs to the living, not to an inappropriate devotion to anyone's myths about our floundering fathers, and certainly not to anyone's personal interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, either.

My concept of liberalism is that it is a modus operandi -- a way of thinking about the individual in regards to the society as a whole -- rather than a set of simple commandments.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Sounds reasonable to me.