What Makes a Liberal? Part II...

007

Charter Member
May 8, 2004
47,724
19,409
2,290
Podunk, WI
What makes a liberal? Part II

August 19, 2003


In the first part of "What Makes a Liberal?" among the points I made -- but could not develop in the space of a column -- was that "liberal" and "left" have become indistinguishable. This is new. And it is a tragedy for the nation and the world.

When I grew up (I became a teenager in the early 1960s), "liberal" was not only not the same as "left," it was often anti-left. My boyhood idol (whose presidency I still admire) was President John F. Kennedy. His liberalism is my liberalism to this day.

Kennedy advocated four major positions -- lower taxes, expanded military, the use of American power to fight evil, and the centrality of God to American life and to morality. Liberals and their political party, the Democrats, have since rejected each of these positions, all of which are now considered conservative.

This is what Kennedy said in a speech to the Economic Club of New York on Dec. 14, 1962:

"This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.

"I'm not talking about a quickie or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent; nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was in good part during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk-taking."

No prominent liberal talks like this today. As the Left has taken over liberalism, liberals have come to advocate more and more taxation. Liberals have also adopted the classic Marxist analysis of society as a class struggle and its emphasis on equality over liberty.

As the Left has taken over liberalism, liberals, increasingly indistinguishable from pacifists, have come to oppose virtually every increase in military spending. By and large the Left holds military life in contempt. One proof is the liberal opposition to allowing ROTC programs or military recruiting on major college campuses.

As the Left has taken over liberalism, the notion that America should use its might to fight on behalf of liberty has been rejected. In his inaugural address, Kennedy said, "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Post-Kennedy leftists/liberals revile such talk, dismissing it as conservative and imperialist. A president who advocates unilateral American action against tyranny is no longer considered a moral liberal, but a reactionary cowboy.

As the Left has taken over liberalism, God and religion have been rejected as the source of America's moral values. In his inaugural address, President Kennedy said,

" . . . the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God." Such words today come from George W. Bush and conservatives, not from a single prominent liberal.

That "left" and "liberal" have become indistinguishable is further demonstrated by the fact that The New York Times, the leading media voice of liberalism, identifies The Nation -- by its own definition a leftist journal, indeed, a radical one -- as "liberal." Likewise, the left wing of the Democratic Party is regularly referred to as the liberal wing of the party.

Want more proof of the leftist takeover of liberalism? Ask a liberal to name some major issues on which liberalism and the Left differ. Be prepared for silence.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030819.shtml
 
Great post, PR. I can't wait to whip some of those quotes on my liberal friends - not citing their source right away, of course. I'll let them sputter about how it's "hate speech" for a while. Then I'll hit them with the punchline, and watch their jaws drop.
 
musicman said:
Great post, PR. I can't wait to whip some of those quotes on my liberal friends - not citing their source right away, of course. I'll let them sputter about how it's "hate speech" for a while. Then I'll hit them with the punchline, and watch their jaws drop.

Isn't that fun? :teeth:
 
What makes a liberal??? Figure it out yourself. :D Keep in mind, though, if you're a liberal, just know that I do feel sympathetic ...for all six of you. :D :D
 
TheEnemyWithin said:
What makes a liberal??? Figure it out yourself. :D Keep in mind, though, if you're a liberal, just know that I do feel sympathetic ...all six of you.

careful now--some of the wiser libs here may just chew you up and spit you out. Hating for hate's sake is a little overboard don't ya think?
 
dilloduck said:
careful now--some of the wiser libs here may just chew you up and spit you out. Hating for hate's sake is a little overboard don't ya think?

Well if they were really wise they'd recognize sarcasm I hope, since they hand so much out themselves....:D
 
TheEnemyWithin said:
Well if they were really wise they'd recognize sarcasm I hope, since they hand so much out themselves....:D

You can call it sarcasm all you want, but given the tone of your other posts on the board so far, you seem like an extremely spiteful and shallow "conservative." Frankly, if your posts had more substance and fewer I-hate-liberal sound bites, people around here would actually care about what you thought.
 
gop_jeff said:
You can call it sarcasm all you want, but given the tone of your other posts on the board so far, you seem like an extremely spiteful and shallow "conservative." Frankly, if your posts had more substance and fewer I-hate-liberal sound bites, people around here would actually care about what you thought.

Nice try Jeff. :cool: I see no mention of the extremely spiteful shallow "liberals" on this board with no substance to their posts. Like, maybe they should get over their I-hate-Christians garbage first.

P.S. Sound bites are played on radio and TV shows, not this board.
 
TheEnemyWithin said:
Nice try Jeff. :cool: I see no mention of the extremely spiteful shallow "liberals" on this board with no substance to their posts. Like, maybe they should get over their I-hate-Christians garbage first.

P.S. Sound bites are played on radio and TV shows, not this board.

I was talking to you in that post, not to Bullypulpit or Psychoblues. I regularly hold people of all political persuasions to the same standard. But if you had been around longer than a month, you would know that. And I know what a sound bite is, thanks. My point is that you sound like a borken record of Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh dishing out insults - but without the display of intelligence to back up your viewpoints. That gets really old really quick, regardless of the political viewpoint espoused.
 
gop_jeff said:
I was talking to you in that post, not to Bullypulpit or Psychoblues. I regularly hold people of all political persuasions to the same standard. But if you had been around longer than a month, you would know that. And I know what a sound bite is, thanks. My point is that you sound like a borken record of Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh dishing out insults - but without the display of intelligence to back up your viewpoints. That gets really old really quick, regardless of the political viewpoint espoused.

"Borken", huh?? :rotflmao: Hey man, settle down. If you look through some of my other posts I DID diss Savage for being a Iraq grinch...check it out...:D

P.S. I don't care for Rush Limbaugh. It seems like a common tactic to insult one's preference for talk radio, like I have a hose attached to my stereo, getting my daily feed of Bill O'Reilly so I can then crank out arguments. Get over it!!!!!
 
Pale Rider said:
Want more proof of the leftist takeover of liberalism? Ask a liberal to name some major issues on which liberalism and the Left differ. Be prepared for silence.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030819.shtml

If leftist liberal thinking is so wrong and so out of step why do you suppose that it has such a strong presence in our political arena?
Major issue that left and liberals differ on might be gun control/the right to bear arms, censorship, and aspects of the criminal justice system .
 
sagegirl said:
If leftist liberal thinking is so wrong and so out of step why do you suppose that it has such a strong presence in our political arena?
Major issue that left and liberals differ on might be gun control/the right to bear arms, censorship, and aspects of the criminal justice system .

So strong you're being decimated in the realm of public debate, which is why you want to shut down talk radio, and in the arena of actually winning elections. The era of leftist brainwash is over. The truth is out.
 
TheEnemyWithin said:
"Borken", huh?? :rotflmao: Hey man, settle down. If you look through some of my other posts I DID diss Savage for being a Iraq grinch...check it out...:D

P.S. I don't care for Rush Limbaugh. It seems like a common tactic to insult one's preference for talk radio, like I have a hose attached to my stereo, getting my daily feed of Bill O'Reilly so I can then crank out arguments. Get over it!!!!!

He didn't say you like them, he said you are like them.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
So strong you're being decimated in the realm of public debate, which is why you want to shut down talk radio, and in the arena of actually winning elections. The era of leftist brainwash is over. The truth is out.

I dont think you really answered my question.....you guys keep bashing the liberal press, the libs in congress, anywhere and everywhere.....my question is why do the libs still have such a strong foothold when they are so wrong and so outnumbered.????? I suspect that your constant complaining about libs hides your inability to get on with your agenda. If the liberal affect on public debate is being so decimated why keep beating this dead horse. I suggest you get on with your positive ideas and let the libs rest in peace. Lets hear your truth.
 
sagegirl said:
I dont think you really answered my question.....you guys keep bashing the liberal press, the libs in congress, anywhere and everywhere.....my question is why do the libs still have such a strong foothold when they are so wrong and so outnumbered.????? I suspect that your constant complaining about libs hides your inability to get on with your agenda. If the liberal affect on public debate is being so decimated why keep beating this dead horse. I suggest you get on with your positive ideas and let the libs rest in peace. Lets hear your truth.

I'm denying your premise. Your party is, in fact, weak.
 
TheEnemyWithin said:
Nice try Jeff. :cool: I see no mention of the extremely spiteful shallow "liberals" on this board with no substance to their posts. Like, maybe they should get over their I-hate-Christians garbage first.

P.S. Sound bites are played on radio and TV shows, not this board.

Never the less I would advise against dinging my rep again, enemy. It's a silly little way of avoiding responding to my post and listening to suggestions from others on this board who are only to try to help you. This isn't a hate fest for you to just leap into and attempt to be the head "hater". Try to impress us with some perceptions and depth instead of trying to convice us you are some sort of bad ass. ( Do you really want a rep war ? Think about it )
 
sagegirl said:
my question is why do the libs still have such a strong foothold when they are so wrong and so outnumbered?

Because demagoguery has always been an effective tool for mob manipulation.

sagegirl said:
If the liberal affect on public debate is being so decimated why keep beating this dead horse.

Because it upsets us to see people being lied to. It upsets us even more when people believe the lies when the lies go unconfronted.
 
sagegirl said:
If leftist liberal thinking is so wrong and so out of step why do you suppose that it has such a strong presence in our political arena?
Major issue that left and liberals differ on might be gun control/the right to bear arms, censorship, and aspects of the criminal justice system .

The fact is, that leftist liberalism does not have nearly the presence with which you credit it. Let's look objectively at the collection of Americans who voted for kerry in the last election and see if they are really the leftists you seem to think.

According to most polls, kerry garnered the most votes from among the following categories:

1. Black voters. Blacks have historically voted Democrat no matter what. The NAACP, the SCLC and other black groups have beaten the drums for the Democratic party for many years. But as individual black people become financially successful and better educated, they will become more conservative. The black voting block will begin to fracture.

2. Labor Unions. Labor, including the Teacher's union support Democrats - or at least their leadership does. The membership tends to be far less cohesive and often votes Republican. Labor unions are in decline. Their leadership is losing power. This voting block is also gradually moving to a more conservative philosophy.

3. Hollywood and the left coast wackos. The Democratic party can count on these folks till hell freezes over. They are a bunch of egomaniacal narcissists who would spend their day kissing their own butts if they were that flexible. They will NEVER wise up.

4. Various radical groups. Radical environmentalists, radical feminists, homosexuals, anarchists and the ACLU. Like Hollywood, these groups will be devoted to Democrats until a more radical and even more leftist party emerges.

5. The east coast blue staters - Specifically the NYC area, these folks aren't really hard core libs. They are more middle of the road. Given a candidate like Gulliani running as a Republican, you will lose this group as well.

6. And your biggest support group - the "Anybody but Bush" crowd. Al Gore, kennedy, kerry and the DNC did an excellent job convincing a huge portion of not too bright Americans that George Bush, his brother Jeb and the Supreme Court conspired to steal the 2000 election. They whipped the ABB crowd into a total frenzy. Only problem is - what will they do for an encore in 2008? This entire block of dummies will have lost its motivation and they will probably stay home on election day just like they have in years past.

Oh, and let me add a P.S. - a lot of left coast libbies won't be voting in 2008. They'll be Canadian citizens by then, enjoying their socialist utopia.
 
Merlin, congratulations. You've just comprehensively listed every special interest group in the Democrat party. Blacks, unions, wackos, radicals, ABBs, New Yorkers... damn those people! :bangheads So I guess "people who genuinely believe in liberalism" doesn't count?

You guys aren't doing credit to the original article here. The author is right-- liberalism and the left are NOT the same things. The left represents a pole in the "political spectrum" of left to right characterized by belief in class warfare as the overriding characteristic of politics in society. Marx believed in the dichotomy between the conservative establishment and the worker's revolution of communism.

But this was his failure... liberalism was grasped as an alternative to both leftism and conservatism by governments in England, Germany and later the United States. Marx said the workers would rise up because they were oppressed and had nothing to lose. So liberalism gave them something to lose: In Germany, there was social security and disability insurance. In England, there was the Reform bills and the expanding franchise. In America, there was the progressive movement and the new Deal. Anyone notice how after the New Deal the socialists in America disappeared? That was liberalism's gift to the West: an industrial revolution without a socialist/communist one. However liberalism did not win everywhere because World War I and World War II disrupted the natural gradual transitions in Russia and China and led to communism.

During the Cold War, social democracies were built in Western Europe. In Japan, South Korea and Taiwan government and industry cooperated. Clement Atlee introduced the welfare state to Britain. The Democrats controlled Congress throughout the Cold War for all but two years between 1949-94. The Cold War was a conflict between liberalism and communism. As in the 19th and early 20th centuries, liberalism triumphed.

Beginning after 1967 as momentum shifted away from the left there was also a corresponding rise in the right. This was first evident in the resurgence of Islam in the Arab world. By 1979, the Islamic revolution came to Iran, rolling back womens rights and brining down then-President Carter. Meanwhile in China, the Communist Party began to move away from communist ideology in 1978 and now rests its legitimacy entirely on nationalism. In 1991 communism fell in Russia, after which there was but a brief period of liberalism, then in 2000 Vladimir Putin was elected on a platform of nationalism. In 1998 the BJP party came to power in India based on nationalism, which was adopted by the Congress party by this year. In the U.S., there was the rise of Southern conservatism through the GOP. Europe was not immune as right-wing parties have come to power in Italy, Austria, and France (yes Chirac is a right-winger) and made inroads elsewhere.

The intellectual underpinnings of the new right could not have come at a more momentous time. Just three years after Fukuyama's End of History came The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel L. Huntington.

The civilizational view of the world predicated on Huntington's work, or civilizationalism, is the "ism" that has seen meteoric rise replacing first nationalism, then communism, then liberal democracy in many parts of the world. It is based on idea that the 21st century will see an inevitable, devastating war between the major "civilizations" of the world, and furthermore, that the main goal of national policies should not be to try and avoid this war, but to prepare for it. The civilizationalists' most fundamental idea is that this civilizational clash is to be embraced as an element giving meaning to life or to the world through some medium.

This phenomenon is so new it relies on proto-terminology, such as "islamofascist" (then again "industrial revolution" wasn't coined until the 1870s). For Islamic civilizationalists such as Osama bin Laden, their struggle is not just about Islam but the Arab people; not just about the Arab people but Islam. It is intermixed between religion, race, philosophy, history, language, and nationality. Thus, it cannot be called fascism, which is based on the national state, nor exactly religious fundamentalism, because it emphasizes certain kinds and types of interpretations of religion that fit certain cultural, political, and psychological goals. It is a complex mixture that gives meaning for people living in a post-communist, post-liberal, post-theological world, though it may draw strands from either traditional leftism or rightism or extreme religion.

For American civilizationalists, their struggle is to define, create, and prepare their civilization, "the West", a brand new mixture of ancient and modern elements with connections to nationality, ideology, race, religion, and history, but not entirely composed of any of these.

*********

My arguments thus have been threefold:

1. Liberalism as separate from the left does not refer solely to classical liberalism. FDR, JFK and LBJ were liberals because they sought to provide solutions to leftist problems without creating a communist or socialist (state control of industries) economy. Even today it lives separately from the left and adapts to changing economic realities. It is not associated solely with one party and has strands of both 60s leftism and Goldwaterite libertarianism in it, yes. America is fundamentally at heart a liberal nation.

2. However the greatest threat to liberalism today comes not from the left but from the right--- from "civilizationalism". So far it has reached full blossom only in the near East, but is in half-bloom across Asia and in America.

When I say "threat" I mean that in a genuine sense, not necessarily a negative or disparaging one. Since civilizationalism has not been intellectually discredited on a broad scale, it is possible for good and rational people to have a deep and sincere debate about its merits.

3. Within the United States, which of the two main political parties today is closer to that of traditional ("JFK") liberalism, as separate from both leftism and civilizationalism? In disagreement with the author of the original article, I would have to say the Democrats still are. They are the less ideological party. Fewer Democrats identify as "liberals" (political meaning) than Republicans identify as "conservatives". The fact that the Democrats are lost for a visionary message while the GOP... drew on both pre-2001 paleoconservative (civilizational) and post-2001 neoconservative bases means that it ...is closer to ideology and the vanguard of the rightist momentum that has built since 1967, while Democrats are closer to the original liberalism that was vindicated in the Cold War.

Most Americans today probably wouldn't be considered paleo or neo-conservatives. But the possibility of a society built around the ideology of paleocons in particular (since the neocons' stock goes down with fortunes in Iraq, where Fukyaman democracy-spreading is running into civilizational resistance) is certainly a pregnant possibility.
 
The classical liberalism which defeated communism is the classical liberalism of ronald reagan. Democrats who agree with reagan are now called Republicans.
 

Forum List

Back
Top