Who said this about liberals?

[Billo_Really]

What famous person in US history said the following?

“What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label ‘Liberal’? If by a ‘Liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal,’ then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘Liberal.’”

 

[Shrimpbox]

Hubert Humphrey or George McGovern

 

[Pogo]

Ah bleev dat's JFK.

By then Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare Goons had perverted the term into some kind of synonym for "communist" as a political football. It only worked on the unwashed who really didn't understand the definition of either, but did understand visceral emotion.

 

[Bfgrn]

What famous person in US history said the following?

“What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label ‘Liberal’? If by a ‘Liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal,’ then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘Liberal.’”

The same man who followed those words with these...

This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

"Liberal"? In the modern American lexicon, I think it's a word highjacked by gays for the most part. Thus many who profess to be liberal are the exact polar opposite.

 

[S.J.]

Sounds good but it's bullshit, whoever said it. Liberals don't want anything for anybody unless they get something out of it.

 

[emilynghiem]

The best explanation I've read so far about the difference between today's Liberals and Conservatives
was Allen West in his book on defending the Republic.

He explains that the current liberals follow the Radical Liberal views of Rousseau who believed that the govt imposed the will of the people to force everyone to adhere; while the current conservatives came from the Classic Liberal views of Locke on using the Constitutional laws to limit govt with checks and balances to prevent overreaching and abuse [of collective authority].

the split between black conservative and black liberals began way back with Booker T. Washington pushing for economic independence [to create equality by freedom] while the other crowd pushed to depend on govt and political power to force policy on people [to force equality by taking away freedom, and not trusting people].

He also adds in there about Marxism and other influences from the Progressive push to use govt for support and social programs in the recovery efforts after the war and depression.

so it seems it's always been one group that trusts that freedom comes from God, and govt that limits freedom should itself be kept to a minimum; while the other believes freedom is protected by govt and doesn't trust this business of churches teaching it comes from God which puts church authority in control instead of keeping control by govt to represent the people

One group trusts people to act as the church body to act freely, and does not trust govt which takes freedom away unless you check it by Constitutional limits. while the other doesn't trust the people to manage their own business and especially not the church leadership seen as corrupt and abusive, and trusts govt to represent and enforce the will of the people, so it isn't seen as taking freedom away which is blamed on the church and conservative crowd instead.

 

[Billo_Really]

Ah bleev dat's JFK.

By then Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare Goons had perverted the term into some kind of synonym for "communist" as a political football. It only worked on the unwashed who really didn't understand the definition of either, but did understand visceral emotion.

You win the cookie!

Hopefully, it's not a Verizon cookie that follows you everywhere like the herpes virus?

 

[Billo_Really]

Sounds good but it's bullshit, whoever said it. Liberals don't want anything for anybody unless they get something out of it.

It was John F Kennedy, whom some people claim was a neocon.

 

[Billo_Really]

"Liberal"? In the modern American lexicon, I think it's a word highjacked by gays for the most part. Thus many who profess to be liberal are the exact polar opposite.

Just like many people who claim to be Christian's, don't have the slightest clue what God is all about.

 

[gipper]

Liberalism is the most damaging force facing America and the world. It will lead down the rat hole to tyranny, suffering, and mass murder.

 

[regent]

And who said,
"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."

 

[Pogo]

Liberalism is the most damaging force facing America and the world. It will lead down the rat hole to tyranny, suffering, and mass murder.

It's already led to the founding of this country.
How'd that work out? I mean, just based on how many other countries followed suit?

 

[S.J.]

Sounds good but it's bullshit, whoever said it. Liberals don't want anything for anybody unless they get something out of it.

It was John F Kennedy, whom some people claim was a neocon.

The operative word in the OP is "IF". The truth is that liberalism does NOT look ahead, they want us to think we're still living in the Jim Crowe era. They don't welcome new ideas, and they don't care about the welfare of the people, their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties. They care about votes and winning elections to empower themselves and their financial backers. They claim to be the party that cares about the poor but they have perpetuated poverty for an entire race of Americans through welfare (in the name of "compassion"). Liberalism is a cancer that needs to be cut out disposed of.

 

[Billo_Really]

The operative word in the OP is "IF". The truth is that liberalism does NOT look ahead, they want us to think we're still living in the Jim Crowe era.

Then why was it a conservative (Tom Tancredo), who tried to bring back Jim Crow laws?

They don't welcome new ideas, and they don't care about the welfare of the people, their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties.

And you base this on what?

They care about votes and winning elections to empower themselves and their financial backers.

It sounds like you're talking about Republicans?

They claim to be the party that cares about the poor but they have perpetuated poverty for an entire race of Americans through welfare (in the name of "compassion").

It's a lot better than the corporate welfare the right perpetuates.

Liberalism is a cancer that needs to be cut out disposed of.

I don't think the same way about conservatism.

 

[S.J.]

The operative word in the OP is "IF". The truth is that liberalism does NOT look ahead, they want us to think we're still living in the Jim Crowe era.

Then why was it a conservative (Tom Tancredo), who tried to bring back Jim Crow laws?

They don't welcome new ideas, and they don't care about the welfare of the people, their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties.

And you base this on what?

They care about votes and winning elections to empower themselves and their financial backers.

It sounds like you're talking about Republicans?

They claim to be the party that cares about the poor but they have perpetuated poverty for an entire race of Americans through welfare (in the name of "compassion").

It's a lot better than the corporate welfare the right perpetuates.

Liberalism is a cancer that needs to be cut out disposed of.

I don't think the same way about conservatism.

Look at any city where Democrats govern with no opposition. Start with Detroit and tell me how concerned Democrats are with the welfare of the people.

 

[S.J.]

AND socialism is not a new concept. How do you see the constant effort to implement it as "looking ahead"?

 

[Shrimpbox]

As this is history I will spare the politics and thank billo and bf for introducing a piece of eloquence seldom found on USMB. It is a very layered piece even in today's context. Kennedy still holds the award, by a country mile, for the best piece of oratory in any inauguration speech in my lifetime, a statement that resonates today even more so than in 1961.

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

 

[Bfgrn]

Sounds good but it's bullshit, whoever said it. Liberals don't want anything for anybody unless they get something out of it.

It was John F Kennedy, whom some people claim was a neocon.

The operative word in the OP is "IF". The truth is that liberalism does NOT look ahead, they want us to think we're still living in the Jim Crowe era. They don't welcome new ideas, and they don't care about the welfare of the people, their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties. They care about votes and winning elections to empower themselves and their financial backers. They claim to be the party that cares about the poor but they have perpetuated poverty for an entire race of Americans through welfare (in the name of "compassion"). Liberalism is a cancer that needs to be cut out disposed of.

Exactly what mindless parrots like you mimic from your propaganda machines.

 

[Bfgrn]

The best explanation I've read so far about the difference between today's Liberals and Conservatives
was Allen West in his book on defending the Republic.

He explains that the current liberals follow the Radical Liberal views of Rousseau who believed that the govt imposed the will of the people to force everyone to adhere; while the current conservatives came from the Classic Liberal views of Locke on using the Constitutional laws to limit govt with checks and balances to prevent overreaching and abuse [of collective authority].

the split between black conservative and black liberals began way back with Booker T. Washington pushing for economic independence [to create equality by freedom] while the other crowd pushed to depend on govt and political power to force policy on people [to force equality by taking away freedom, and not trusting people].

He also adds in there about Marxism and other influences from the Progressive push to use govt for support and social programs in the recovery efforts after the war and depression.

so it seems it's always been one group that trusts that freedom comes from God, and govt that limits freedom should itself be kept to a minimum; while the other believes freedom is protected by govt and doesn't trust this business of churches teaching it comes from God which puts church authority in control instead of keeping control by govt to represent the people

One group trusts people to act as the church body to act freely, and does not trust govt which takes freedom away unless you check it by Constitutional limits. while the other doesn't trust the people to manage their own business and especially not the church leadership seen as corrupt and abusive, and trusts govt to represent and enforce the will of the people, so it isn't seen as taking freedom away which is blamed on the church and conservative crowd instead.

The best explanation I've seen so far is from Nobel Prize winner Friedrich August von Hayek...

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative