The Rise of Social Liberalism

[Brian_1349]

After a Pew Research Center report earlier this month found that “the Christian share of the U.S. population is declining, while the number of U.S. adults who do not identify with any organized religion is growing,” this week Gallup released a report that found that “more Americans now rate themselves as socially liberal than at any point in Gallup’s 16-year trend, and for the first time, as many say they are liberal on social issues as say they are conservative.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/o...p-resistance.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

While religion is losing its positions, social liberalism is taking hold on American soil. I don't care about others' religious affiliations but I do care a lot about their political views. Social liberalism is destructive and dangerous, especially for nations brought up on free market, individualism and liberties. What is social liberalism? A form of circumcised communism. Suddenly you owe a lot to a bunch of people you don't even know. Their education, medical care, even illegal immigrants - you will have to pay for everything and everyone in this country. Of course, we will need a big government to control expenses and collect more taxes.
Do you really want to see the US a socialist state?

 

[there4eyeM]

Is the world and living in it the same as in 1776? Does society function in the same way? Do small communities take care of each other and their services as they did? Did gigantic, hyper-rich 'persons' have as much control over economics as they do today?
What applied in the past does not apply today. New solutions must be found or old solutions will destroy us. That implies openness to systems that work for humans, not humans that work for systems. We have ideas; it is unjust for ideologies to 'have' us.
All modern countries have integrated aspects of what could be called socialist, despite the insistence of ideologues who reject the word.
Personally, I promote no single '-ism' except 'eclecticism'. My criterion: does it work?

 

[rdean]

Republicans always say they hate liberalism and then describe something strange and unrecognizable. But when you say "hate minorities, hate gays, fight against women's rights, keep people from health care and good wages and suddenly, everyone knows who you are talking about.

 

[midcan5]

If only people were social liberals, if only. Imagine how many lawyers would need another occupation. LOL Personally I can't take these 'the sky is falling' narratives as it seems more a trait of the person than a reality. But I think Christianity is less important to people today because it appears to many as a show rather than an act. You used to see lots of religious fighting for civil rights, equal rights, fair pay, minorities, unions, etc now they are about glass cathedrals and money. Add the hypocrisy when so many get caught doing what they condemn others for. An additional step towards irrelevance was the marriage to corporate power that started in earnest long ago. Christianity will die if it serves no greater good than sermonizing.

"[The Great Depression, Pat] Robertson wrote, did "more to shape the existing framework of U.S. government policy than any other single event in recent history." The legacy of the Great Depression included "a powerful central government ... an anti-business bias in the country ... powerful unions," and, most important of all, "the belief in the economic policy of British scholar John Maynard Keynes, to the end that government spending and government 'fine tuning' would guarantee perpetual prosperity." Robertson conceded that such measures might have played a role in ending the Great Depression. But fifty years later they were responsible for the "sickness of the 70s" - the devaluation of the dollar, inflation, the decline in productivity. Robertson called for a "profound moral revival" to combat the economic weaknesses plaguing the United States. "Those who love God must get involved in the election of strong leaders," he insisted, and they should choose men and women who were "pledged to reduce the size of government, eliminate federal deficits, free our productive capacity, ensure sound currency." Kim Phillips-Fein (p225 'Invisible Hands')

"Early issues of the 'Journal-Champion' carried numerous articles calling the faithful to the fight to cleanse America of sexual sin: homosexuality, pornography, and abortion. But interwoven with this campaign were descriptions of the economic and political crisis facing the United States. 'The greatest threat to the average American's liberty does not come From Communistic aggression, crime in the decaying cities or any other external cause," read an article in the June 1978 issue. "It comes from the growing internal encroachments of government bureaucrats as they limit the freedom of Americans through distribution of rules and regulations, many times called guidelines." The newspaper criticized OSHA's "insulting or silly" regulations, and published an open letter to Congress denouncing the "faceless bureaucrats who sit in strategy meetings and formulate federal guidelines," saying that they "pinch our pocket books, restrict our work privileges, govern our spending habits, determine the 'safety' restrictions of our businesses and influence the type of homes we live in."" Kim Phillips-Fein (p229 'Invisible Hands')

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Republicans always say they hate liberalism and then describe something strange and unrecognizable. But when you say "hate minorities, hate gays, fight against women's rights, keep people from health care and good wages and suddenly, everyone knows who you are talking about.

You watch too much MSNBC, tool

 

[Skylar]

After a Pew Research Center report earlier this month found that “the Christian share of the U.S. population is declining, while the number of U.S. adults who do not identify with any organized religion is growing,” this week Gallup released a report that found that “more Americans now rate themselves as socially liberal than at any point in Gallup’s 16-year trend, and for the first time, as many say they are liberal on social issues as say they are conservative.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/o...p-resistance.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

While religion is losing its positions, social liberalism is taking hold on American soil. I don't care about others' religious affiliations but I do care a lot about their political views. Social liberalism is destructive and dangerous, especially for nations brought up on free market, individualism and liberties. What is social liberalism? A form of circumcised communism. Suddenly you owe a lot to a bunch of people you don't even know. Their education, medical care, even illegal immigrants - you will have to pay for everything and everyone in this country. Of course, we will need a big government to control expenses and collect more taxes.
Do you really want to see the US a socialist state?

Perhaps the left is doing a better job on Christian values than the Christian are.

 

[Disir]

After a Pew Research Center report earlier this month found that “the Christian share of the U.S. population is declining, while the number of U.S. adults who do not identify with any organized religion is growing,” this week Gallup released a report that found that “more Americans now rate themselves as socially liberal than at any point in Gallup’s 16-year trend, and for the first time, as many say they are liberal on social issues as say they are conservative.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/o...p-resistance.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

While religion is losing its positions, social liberalism is taking hold on American soil. I don't care about others' religious affiliations but I do care a lot about their political views. Social liberalism is destructive and dangerous, especially for nations brought up on free market, individualism and liberties. What is social liberalism? A form of circumcised communism. Suddenly you owe a lot to a bunch of people you don't even know. Their education, medical care, even illegal immigrants - you will have to pay for everything and everyone in this country. Of course, we will need a big government to control expenses and collect more taxes.
Do you really want to see the US a socialist state?

You sound scared, hoss. You scared?

 

[jwoodie]

Is the world and living in it the same as in 1776? Does society function in the same way? Do small communities take care of each other and their services as they did? Did gigantic, hyper-rich 'persons' have as much control over economics as they do today?
What applied in the past does not apply today. New solutions must be found or old solutions will destroy us.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Elegant display of profound ignorance.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -G. Santayana

 

[Skylar]

Is the world and living in it the same as in 1776? Does society function in the same way? Do small communities take care of each other and their services as they did? Did gigantic, hyper-rich 'persons' have as much control over economics as they do today?
What applied in the past does not apply today. New solutions must be found or old solutions will destroy us.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Elegant display of profound ignorance.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -G. Santayana

And how is that an 'elegant display of profound ignorance'? Specifically.

 

[Brian_1349]

Is the world and living in it the same as in 1776? Does society function in the same way? Do small communities take care of each other and their services as they did? Did gigantic, hyper-rich 'persons' have as much control over economics as they do today?
What applied in the past does not apply today. New solutions must be found or old solutions will destroy us. That implies openness to systems that work for humans, not humans that work for systems. We have ideas; it is unjust for ideologies to 'have' us.
All modern countries have integrated aspects of what could be called socialist, despite the insistence of ideologues who reject the word.
Personally, I promote no single '-ism' except 'eclecticism'. My criterion: does it work?

The only problem with social liberalism is that it doesn't actually work. Sweden can be the best - almost iconic - example of my words. Being the stronghold of social liberalism for a few decades, Sweden decided to transform its economy in the mid-90's, believing the system doesn't work for them anymore. Internal competition was not a problem for them as long as customs duty applied. International competitiveness in turn was damaged severely by unreasonable taxes and social burden.

 

[Eaglewings]

Cracks me up that the Righties think that they are the better christians... and the left is destroying it... This is so damaging to see all of these judging extremists stand up on the podium claiming to be a better christian than anyone, and then we find that secretly they are a closest something or makes a horrible comment.
This is so damaging to the people looking for a relationship with God.

 

[Brian_1349]

Republicans always say they hate liberalism and then describe something strange and unrecognizable. But when you say "hate minorities, hate gays, fight against women's rights, keep people from health care and good wages and suddenly, everyone knows who you are talking about.

You don't have to be a conservative in order to oppose a socialist pit this country is going by leaps and bounds. Liberalism in turn doesn't have to be 'socialist'. In fact, everything becomes less liberal and freedom-oriented when mixed with socialism.
By the way, what exactly are you talking about when mentioning liberalism? I bet it has nothing to do with Locke's doctrine.

 

[Skylar]

Is the world and living in it the same as in 1776? Does society function in the same way? Do small communities take care of each other and their services as they did? Did gigantic, hyper-rich 'persons' have as much control over economics as they do today?
What applied in the past does not apply today. New solutions must be found or old solutions will destroy us. That implies openness to systems that work for humans, not humans that work for systems. We have ideas; it is unjust for ideologies to 'have' us.
All modern countries have integrated aspects of what could be called socialist, despite the insistence of ideologues who reject the word.
Personally, I promote no single '-ism' except 'eclecticism'. My criterion: does it work?

The only problem with social liberalism is that it doesn't actually work. Sweden can be the best - almost iconic - example of my words. Being the stronghold of social liberalism for a few decades, Sweden decided to transform its economy in the mid-90's, believing the system doesn't work for them anymore. Internal competition was not a problem for them as long as customs duty applied. International competitiveness in turn was damaged severely by unreasonable taxes and social burden.

Depends on what you mean by 'work'. If by 'work' you mean social mobility, health, education, standard of living, safety, and longevity.....then it works very well. If by 'work' you mean the number of billionaries, then not as much.

Take.....Canada. Their middle class makes more money than ours. This with universal healthcare and far more 'socially liberal' social policy than our nation has. Their nation is safer, they live longer, they have comparable education levels, greater social mobility, and better public health.

And a far more stable financial system.

 

[Nyvin]

The entire rest of the developed world is socially liberal compared to us.....it's about time we caught up to the modern world.

 

[Brian_1349]

Cracks me up that the Righties think that they are the better christians... and the left is destroying it... This is so damaging to see all of these judging extremists stand up on the podium claiming to be a better christian than anyone, and then we find that secretly they are a closest something or makes a horrible comment.
This is so damaging to the people looking for a relationship with God.

I admit that liberals are better Christians than conservatives. Conservatives are too pragmatic and long-sighted to follow all of God's commands. Unfortunately, true Christians don't live long in our cruel and brutal world, obsessed with power and domination. Nobody can be both Christian and a patriot of his country (especially when it is the United States of America). How much Christianity does it take to destroy Syrian villages with drones, huh?

 

[jwoodie]

And how is that an 'elegant display of profound ignorance'? Specifically.

Compare "What applied in the past does not apply today" with "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Which is the more ignorant statement?

 

[Disir]

Is the world and living in it the same as in 1776? Does society function in the same way? Do small communities take care of each other and their services as they did? Did gigantic, hyper-rich 'persons' have as much control over economics as they do today?
What applied in the past does not apply today. New solutions must be found or old solutions will destroy us. That implies openness to systems that work for humans, not humans that work for systems. We have ideas; it is unjust for ideologies to 'have' us.
All modern countries have integrated aspects of what could be called socialist, despite the insistence of ideologues who reject the word.
Personally, I promote no single '-ism' except 'eclecticism'. My criterion: does it work?

The only problem with social liberalism is that it doesn't actually work. Sweden can be the best - almost iconic - example of my words. Being the stronghold of social liberalism for a few decades, Sweden decided to transform its economy in the mid-90's, believing the system doesn't work for them anymore. Internal competition was not a problem for them as long as customs duty applied. International competitiveness in turn was damaged severely by unreasonable taxes and social burden.

Sweden has had massive problems since the free market was introduced into their country for the last couple of decades. The privatization of welfare has produced horrific results.
Carema comes to mind:
Healthcare firm denies letting old man die alone - The Local

Insight - Sweden rethinks pioneering school reforms private equity under fire
Sweden s Education System Failures - Business Insider

And you may not want to look at other countries where it has also been introduced. Might scare you.

 

[Skylar]

And how is that an 'elegant display of profound ignorance'? Specifically.

Compare "What applied in the past does not apply today" with "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Which is the more ignorant statement?

Not every thing that worked in the past does work today. Some does. What about that would you consider invalid?

 

[Nyvin]

And how is that an 'elegant display of profound ignorance'? Specifically.

Compare "What applied in the past does not apply today" with "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Which is the more ignorant statement?

They're actually both pretty intelligent. Why would you consider them mutually exclusive?

 

[Skylar]

And how is that an 'elegant display of profound ignorance'? Specifically.

Compare "What applied in the past does not apply today" with "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Which is the more ignorant statement?

They're actually both pretty intelligent. Why would you consider them mutually exclusive?

Well, I think either argument would fail if taken in totality. Meaning that ALL of history either doesn't apply or ALL of history does.

There are lessons from history that can be useful today. But many elements of history that just don't work now or don't work in the same form as they did in the past. Religion for example used to be pretty much holistic. Today its much more supplementary. The efficacy of slavery, in comparison, doesn't work at all.