Why Do So Few Admit To Being Liberals?

[Dick Tuck]

I'm proud of my LIBERALISM.

There is medication you can take for that...

see your doctor to see if it is right for you.

I read the book, and no thank you for the Soma. I don't want to be dumbed down.

 

[Londoner]

Not only do people not admit to being liberal, but it's a dirty word. Both Dukakis and Kerry literally had to run from the label.

If you want to understand what happened to postwar New Deal Liberalism, follow the money.

First some history. During the postwar years, men like Ronald Reagan proudly identified themselves as New Deal Democrats. Indeed, Reagan's family received New Deal aid. His father was given a government job. Read Reagan's first autobiography to see how passionately he supported FDR.

BUT In the 50s Reagan entered the top tax bracket and decided he no longer wanted to pay for the economic ladder his family had just climbed. Reagan was not alone. The postwar years created a lot of wealth, and that wealth was ready to overturn the liberal order and its crown jewel: the big entitlement fed high wage middle class.

By the 70s corporations had finally taken over the Republican party: the foundation for movement conservatism was in place. Big oil and Wall Street lead the way, funding the Reagan ascendancy. The goal was tax cuts, subsidies, deregulation, and cheap labor, i.e., no more expensive middle class wages and benfits; corporations wanted cheap 3rd world labor markets in order to increase their bottom line. Money poured into PACs, think tanks, publishing companies, collegiate organizations, television, and radio in order to change populism from class-based resentment against concentrated wealth-&-corporate power to hatred of government, which, Reagan told us, was strangling the economy and destroying the American dream. Meaning: the wealthy wanted to destroy the thing that taxed and regulated them. In order to do this, they needed to win elections. However, it's hard to win elections by convincing poor people to vote against their economic interests. Enter the moral majority and national security. The Republicans would win elections by focusing on demons: Russians, terrorists, illegals, gays, baby killers, drugs, sin, and government bureaucrats. Everything but the concentrated power of business would be blamed for America's ills. The slight of hand worked. Liberalism became one of the demons.

But let's face facts. By the 90s, 10 corporations owned over 90% of the dominant media in the country. And what do big corporations want: tax breaks and deregulation. That is to say: given the financial interests which control the media, liberalism doesn't stand a chance.

Movement Conservatism has won. The goal was to stop everything the government was doing for the middle class so they could give tax breaks to the wealthy. Consequently, the middle class died. We tried to keep them alive with credit. We broke the bank. The rest you may ignore.

 

[mudwhistle]

Not only do people not admit to being liberal, but it's a dirty word. Both Dukakis and Kerry literally had to run from the label.

If you want to understand what happened to postwar New Deal Liberalism, follow the money.

First some history. During the postwar years, men like Ronald Reagan proudly identified themselves as New Deal Democrats. Indeed, Reagan's family received New Deal aid. His father was given a government job. Read Reagan's first autobiography to see how passionately he supported FDR.

BUT In the 50s Reagan entered the top tax bracket and decided he no longer wanted to pay for the economic ladder his family had just climbed. Reagan was not alone. The postwar years created a lot of wealth, and that wealth was ready to overturn the liberal order and its crown jewel: the big entitlement fed high wage middle class.

By the 70s corporations had finally taken over the Republican party: the foundation for movement conservatism was in place. Big oil and Wall Street lead the way, funding the Reagan ascendancy. The goal was tax cuts, subsidies, deregulation, and cheap labor, i.e., no more expensive middle class wages and benfits; corporations wanted cheap 3rd world labor markets in order to increase their bottom line. Money poured into PACs, think tanks, publishing companies, collegiate organizations, television, and radio. Popular opinion about the postwar government that helped grow the most productive middle class in history needed to be changed. Specifically, the movement's goal was to change populism from class based resentment against concentrated wealth-&-corporate power to hatred of government, pure and simple. The wealthy wanted to destroy the thing that taxed and regulated them. In order to do this, they needed to win elections. However, it's hard to win elections by convincing poor people to vote against their economic interests. Enter the moral majority and national security. The Republicans would win elections by focusing on demons: Russians, terrorists, illegals, gays, baby killers, drugs, sin, and government bureaucrats. Everything but the concentrated power of business would be blamed for America's ills. The slight of hand worked. Liberalism became one of the demons.

But let's face facts. By the 90s, 10 corporations owned over 90% of the dominant media in the country. And what do big corporations want: tax breaks and deregulation. That is to say: given the financial interests which control the media, liberalism doesn't stand a chance.

Movement Conservatism has won. The goal was to stop everything the government was doing for the middle class so they could give tax breaks to the wealthy. Consequently, the middle class died. We tried to keep them alive with credit. We broke the bank. The rest you may ignore.

Did you learn that in school or discover that on your own?

Explain why most of the media supports Democrats.

 

[Trajan]

I'm proud of my LIBERALISM.

There is medication you can take for that...

see your doctor to see if it is right for you.

and contact your doctor if you have a conscience after 4 hours...

 

[Trajan]

I'm proud of my LIBERALISM.

There is medication you can take for that...

see your doctor to see if it is right for you.

I read the book, and no thank you for the Soma. I don't want to be dumbed down.

sorry but......perhaps....it ..may ...be....to...

 

[shintao]

Grandiose narcissism, pathologically so. In their minds they alone always shoot from the moral high ground, that and that the media never has and never will hold them to account,supports their visions of/and self fulfilling prophesy(s).

I have some cheese, lets sit down and enjoy the music and have some of your whine.

 

[Londoner]

Did you learn that in school or discover that on your own?

Explain why most of the media supports Democrats.

Fair question mudwhistle. Fair question.

I certainly did not learn it in school. I grew up hearing about how fiscally responsible Reagan was, and how liberals secretly controlled all American institutions, including the media and government. I was a dues paying card carrying rabid Republican. Then, slowly, the old building started to show some cracks. The liberal media conspiracy I believed so deeply was, I later learned, a more hygienic offshoot of Nixonian paranoia - hygienic because for Nixon you have to add the word Jewish. [Of course, Nixon's precursor was McCarthy] Regardless of when this began, the concept of liberal media bias is and always has been a way of "working the ref" and intimidating the liberal view point. FYI: It was wildly successful. For so long I never thought to ask: why doesn't the mass media support organized labor or the welfare state? Why is it so monolithically in favor of Reaganomics and the Cold War? Why is Noam Chomsky literally not allowed to go near the major networks, but Glen Beck has a massive forum? What happened to the days when Cronkite turned against Vietnam? Where did the Left go? Why do all media outlets chant the market mantra (which they did so fervently in the 90s when America's most loyal Reaganite, Bill Clinton, was in office). Why did they roll over for Bush on the eve of the Iraq War? Even the NYT supported the Iraq Invasion? Where was the Left?

As I grew older, I started to investigate the myths I grew up with. I discovered that Reagan spent more than 3x Carter and left the nation with greater debt and deficits than it had ever had to that date. I also wondered why the media kept telling me that it (the media) was controlled by liberals. I figured that if Liberals really controlled the media, they would not admit this over and over. Then I realized that this convenient factoid was part of an agenda by the very corporations who owned mass media -- the agenda was to discredit liberalism in order to lower taxes and destroy regulations. As I said, it was wildly successful. I believed it for many many years.

When I started to poke behind the things I learned in school, I discovered some scary $hit. From the 80s-00's, the Right had a major funding advantage. It's called: Smith Richardson, John Olin, Sarah Scaife, & Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundations. This concentrated bloc of wealthy foundations worked with movement conservatism to pour billions into think tanks, magazines, publishing grants, media programming, and paid-for-conclusions > "academic" research. I learned that the Right had 3 major organizations producing media criticism (i.e., organizations paid to "work the refs" and produce GOP-friendly "data"), while the left only had one. (Again, I had to discover this for myself because nobody ever talks about it. Why? Because money makes the world go 'round, and money wants tax cuts and deregulation)

My friend, I urge you, poke behind the things you learned in school. Research the following:

Accuracy in Media, controlled by Reed Irvine.
Media Research Center, chaired by Brent Bozell,
Center for Media and Public Affairs, founded by Robert Lichter.

If you want to know where the term "media elite" comes from, study the groups above (who invented this little gem in order to prejudice people against liberal viewpoints. It's called self-interest. They were and are being paid by corporations to tilt the playing field). The left is not merely playing catch up, they don't exist. The shadowy Leftist Marxists Liberals who control the government and the media are mythic Emmanuel Goldsteins. Everybody knows the government and the media are run by big business (which business has a massive interest in your opinion about the media. Follow the money).

[Air America went bankrupt because corporations will not advertise for political programming that calls for higher taxes and more regulations. Follow the money]

 

[shintao]

Explain why most of the media supports Democrats.

You would have to explain what your definition of "media and most" is. This site has an interesting view on radio outlets that can be found or used anywhere. However TV overall gets a smaller audience due to limitations. Since republicans are regressives, it would make sense they would cling to the radio and smoke signals.

I really don't see how you would defined "support" either, unless there are data to back up who listens to who. I know many liberals listen to Rush, so at least part of his audience is democrats interested in the comic value. Mayeb a good question is why is media afraid to tell us the data?

 

[California Girl]

Hey, PC. Did you know that certain 'liberals' (ok, WhineCrapper to be exact) can't tell us apart. How funny is that? I guess all right wingers must look alike.

No prob!

I take that as a compliment!

Me too!

 

[Dick Tuck]

The greatest revolutionary changes of the 20th century were all the result of liberals.

Gandhi, Mandela, Walesa, Martin Luther King, Jr, and Havel just to name a few.

 

[wyomingpatriot]

Londoner, whoever you are, you're awesome. i notice that no other "conservative" can come forth and argue what you wrote, just write a sentence about liberals being morons.

 

[Avorysuds]

What agenda would liberals be ashambed to admit to? And what agenda would the republicans be ashambed to admit to (for another thread)? Judging the 8 year blitz & 2 year Obama records, who should be ashambed for not helping the American taxpayer?? When you put into the light, I see nothing a liberal should be ashambed of.

Very pretty cat. Very ugly logic.

My thinking is, I watched 8 years of Con. corporate handouts ranging from millions to billions to trillions, and I just don't give a damn, it is the peoples turn to have more than table scraps, and I don't care if it bankrupts American doing it. I can guarantee the republican return to power will be a repeat of the Bush blitz to screw Americans for the corporate cause. At least Americans got some relief out of this.

I think the reason they are saying your logic is wrong is because Bush is only the president. Congress figures it all out and the president signs it in or vetos it or whatever... Bush had a Republican congress for 6 years, not 8 and while yes they were horrible many of the really bad things were done with a full democrat congress...

Really, you have 6 years of a republican congress and 4 years of a democrat congress. Congress are the people making the laws and rules, the president simply gives the law the OK or veto... So in 10 horrible years 40% of that "shittty congress' has been Dems.

 

[uscitizen]

Easy question to answer for this thread.

Most do not like to be called liberal becuase of a 20 year program by the right to demonize the term.

Kinda like after Bush we got lots of embaressed republicans as Tea Party and Independents.

 

[Ozmar]

Considering some of the nutters I've met who are self-described liberals, I don't blame the majority of liberals for not readily describing themselves as such. When you've got self-described liberals shouting out that all the world's ills are somehow America's fault, or the wests fault, and spewing the defeatist attitude that "we've got what is coming to us," there aren't a lot of people who will want to associate with you, even if their political attitudes are similar in some ways.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
John F Kennedy September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But 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."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. 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.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

...

 

[topspin]

wow facist are around today
not many admit to being republican
fuck these assholes warmongers crackigng liberals.
Any one of you sofa generals who love sending other peoples kids can suck it.
Oh wait you do.

 

[Ozmar]

Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
John F Kennedy September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But 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."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. 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.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

...

The meanings of words change. Evidently liberal doesn't mean today what it meant 50 years ago.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I think the funnier question is why so many right wingers deny being Republicans after Bush.

 

[Care4all]

I am a Liberal, have been, and always will be a Liberal. (now what are the other 9 steps again?)

 

[Dick Tuck]

Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
John F Kennedy September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But 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."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. 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.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

...

The meanings of words change. Evidently liberal doesn't mean today what it meant 50 years ago.

Sure it does. I go through the values and ideals expressed by JFK, and they're as true today as they were then. The problem is the echo chamber of Hate Radio has been spreading the big lie over and over. Too bad they don't get to define what liberalism is.