Would you vote for a liberal?

[Dragon]

The SDS/Weather Underground created the term "New Left" and progressives refer to themselves as "progressive."

SDS and the Weather Underground were not the same organization, and neither of them invented the term "New Left." In fact, it emerged from French politics (as "nouvelle gauche") used by Claude Bourdet, the editor of France Observateur, in an attempt to define a third leftist position distinct from the Stalinists and the Social Democrats who dominated the left at that time (the 1950s). The term was adopted by dissident British and American Communists after the confused response of the Communist Parties in those countries to the Hungarian revolution of 1956. The new left was basically a revolt against the old left.

SDS was a large and influential left-wing organization in the 1960s and 1970s (which was reincarnated in 2006, incidentally) and is considered part of the new left, but certainly did not invent the name. The Weather Underground splintered away from SDS and formed a very small group that engaged in bombings. It's also considered part of the new left, but was not nearly as important or influential although it made lots of headlines. Its political agenda was much more radical than that of SDS, as well as its methods.

"Progressive" is a very broad term that basically means the same as "liberal." The new left was all progressive, but not all progressives were new leftists (or old leftists, or whatever).

 

[Zander]

Anything is possible, but I doubt it. I already went through puberty.....

 

[Mr.Nick]

The SDS/Weather Underground created the term "New Left" and progressives refer to themselves as "progressive."

SDS and the Weather Underground were not the same organization, and neither of them invented the term "New Left." In fact, it emerged from French politics (as "nouvelle gauche") used by Claude Bourdet, the editor of France Observateur, in an attempt to define a third leftist position distinct from the Stalinists and the Social Democrats who dominated the left at that time (the 1950s). The term was adopted by dissident British and American Communists after the confused response of the Communist Parties in those countries to the Hungarian revolution of 1956. The new left was basically a revolt against the old left.

SDS was a large and influential left-wing organization in the 1960s and 1970s (which was reincarnated in 2006, incidentally) and is considered part of the new left, but certainly did not invent the name. The Weather Underground splintered away from SDS and formed a very small group that engaged in bombings. It's also considered part of the new left, but was not nearly as important or influential although it made lots of headlines. Its political agenda was much more radical than that of SDS, as well as its methods.

"Progressive" is a very broad term that basically means the same as "liberal." The new left was all progressive, but not all progressives were new leftists (or old leftists, or whatever).

I've only been studying the "Students for a Democratic Society" and the "Weather Underground" for a fucking decade...

Yes the "New Left" created the term "The New Left" you ignorant person...

Ever read "Prairie Fire?"

I don't even know where to begin with the SDS and its transition into the Weathermen...

I suppose we can start with Mark Rudd..

 

[Avorysuds]

The question needed more depth... I mean, you can still be liberal and follow the constitution... You can still be a liberal and balance the budget, ends wars and so on... Obama is a liberal and none of that seems to be part of his liberal ideology. So yes, I could vote for a liberal but they would have to be something most liberals and conservatives are not.

 

[Dragon]

I've only been studying the "Students for a Democratic Society" and the "Weather Underground" for a fucking decade...

Well, since I was a MEMBER of the SDS, I do think that gives me a LITTLE more first-hand knowledge than YOU could have obtained after a mere decade, and everything I said was true. And when you call me ignorant, you reveal yourself as a total cretin.

Ever read "Prairie Fire?"

Uh -- make that a yes. Also the Port Huron Statement. Also Das Kapital in translation (my German wasn't up to the original.) Also lots of other literature of the period and of left-wing political and economic thought generally. Prairie Fire was a Weather Underground tract. The Port Huron Statement was the original founding document of SDS. A reading of the two documents presents a nice contrast and shows your attempt to conflate the two for nonsense.

I don't even know where to begin with the SDS and its transition into the Weathermen...

I suppose we can start with Mark Rudd..

Good grief. Just give up, Nick. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

All members of the Weather Underground had first belonged to the SDS, specifically to SDS-RYM, which was one side of a split in the organization that occurred in 1968-69. That includes Mark Rudd. But the SDS did NOT transition into the Weathermen. The Weathermen spun off from SDS-RYM when the latter dissolved in 1970. The other side of SDS, SDS-WSA (Students for a Democratic Society - Worker-Student Alliance) continued through the 1970s, true to the original ideals of the SDS, which centered on nonviolent protest. I stopped being an active member in the late 1970s. Apparently a new SDS was begun in 2006 and is now nationwide; I didn't know that had happened. I may look into whether I want to get involved in the new one.

The Weathermen or Weather Underground was formed in 1970. The name was tossed around to describe a hard-line faction within SDS, but the group that planted the bombs by the same name didn't get going until 1970. Hardly any of the thousands and thousands of members of SDS ever had anything to do with it. (I did not.) There were never more than a few dozen active members of the WU as far as I can see (by contrast, SDS membership was in the tens of thousands). In all respects, Weather Underground was more radical by far than SDS. That includes its goals and program as well as its methods. The WU was a terrorist organization by some definitions, although insofar as it engaged only in property damage rather than hurting people, it's not certain the label applies; what is certain is that it was a violent, radical-leftist extremist group, which does not describe SDS.

And as I said, the term "new left" is older than either group. They did belong to it, but did not invent it.

 

[Dr.House]

I mean modern, as in Nancy Pelosi Liberal.

Hell no...

 

[Ropey]

having said that, the republicans are ultimately correct about the economic issues going forward. A large portion of the republican base has been lobotomized by "voodoo economics," and that every single tax cut pays for itself and is always good. But they are ultimately correct in that generally less government involvement is better for economic growth. Generally, lower taxes and lower government spending, and less regulation leads to higher growth. The current administration is generally clueless about business and what is needed for business to grow. this recession is not obama's fault, but the administration's policies have been weak and it is out of touch, and they are hurting the economy. And they don't seem to have any credible plan on dealing with the ticking time bombs of ss and, especially medicare and medicaid, which will eventually eat the budget. Whatever one might think of the tea party - the old people complaining about too much government, but don't touch their medicare and ss because they've "paid" for it which they patently have not is rank hypocrisy - the general thrust that these entitlement programs must be brought under control is completely correct. And solely raising taxes on the rich is not the answer. at least the republicans are trying to answer these issues. The democrats are not. They are in denial.

^ +1

 

[Dragon]

"Generally, lower taxes and lower government spending, and less regulation leads to higher growth."

1940-1980: top marginal tax rate ranged from 70% to 93%. Government spending as a ratio to GDP was higher than now, and regulation was more strict.

Growth in per capita GDP outperformed the years from 1980 to present by more than two to one.

The statement in quotes above, although conventional wisdom on the right, is provably, demonstrably false.

 

[ScienceRocks]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

not knowingly

 

[Sallow]

There's no such thing as a "Classical" liberal. That's a conservative made up term.

 

[Sallow]

I think they refer to themselves as the "new left" or "progressives" - er socialist...

no. rightwingnuts do.

What the fuck are you talking about??

The SDS/Weather Underground created the term "New Left" and progressives refer to themselves as "progressive."

You fucking dumb?

The Weathermen are one of the more conflated terrorist groups in history. They weren't very successful, didn't do much and had almost no impact politically.

But do go on..like they still exist.

 

[Rozman]

I would choose a severe bowel disorder over voting for a Lib....

 

[The T]

The term "liberal" comes from the word "liberty." The original liberals were those who argued against the absolutism of government power, and that man had natural rights which absolved him (and her) from being ruled by kings. Liberal philosophers such as Locke and liberal political economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo championed ideas of individual liberty and limited government power over people's lives. That's why people call themselves "classical liberal."

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been co-opted over time. "Conservatives" were not liberals in the classical sense. Conservatives as understood in the past were those who wanted to "conserve" society, and often the power structures of the monarchy or ruling classes. This is why in Europe, conservative parties and movements are often associated with the monarchy.

In America, the term "conservative" can mean conserving the original intent of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, which was a fairly liberal document in the classical sense in that it imbues rights and makes the individual sovereign. But "conservative" in America also means those wishing to conserve society, as it does in older societies. This is especially true in the South, where conservation of the white power structure and the suppression of blacks by government force was seen as necessary to keep the social order. This is why there is relatively greater emphasis on law and order issues in the South than in other parts of the country.

Modern liberals also believe in liberty, but in other ways from the intent originally articulated by Locke, Smith, et. al., i.e. liberty from hunger or discrimination, etc., whereby government power is used to "liberate" the individual from the hardships of life. This is why modern liberals espouse issues such as government involvement in health care and affirmative action laws.

in terms of the study of philosophy, i certainly agree with you. but i think liberalism as it exists in this country, which is what the right bemoans grows out of the idea that there is a social contract. that we, as children of the enlightenment, have an obligation not only to ourselves, but to the world we live in.

people on the right like to say the founders believed in "small government". but that simply isn't the case. they believed in a strong centralized government. were that not the case, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation. there would be no constitutional clauses to allow government to do things that are necessary to benefit the welfare of society or regulate commerce between the states.

what is interesting to me is that the party representing liberal thought used to be the republican party. the party of lincoln. then the republican party became the party of intellectuals who had a sense of noblesse oblige and wanted to act for the benefit of society. that started to change after the new deal and absolutely changed after the civil rights laws were enacted.

so when i see the phrase 'classical liberal" used by people who don't believe in government, i know that is a way to discredit liberal accomplishment. i think you'll also find the phrase used by people who would have voted against the civil rights act and would have required a constitutional amendment to do away with jim crow laws.

so, while i see your point from an intellectual/philosophical standpoint. from a realistic standpoint, well.. i've said my piece.

the thing i don't understand... and perhaps you can explain it to me. is how you can consider voting for a party that thinks someone like christie is too liberal? i don't see you as being represnted by the party of michelle bachmann and eric cantor.

Since when were the federalists never opposed?

Or were you just brainwashed with progressive bullshit?

Perhaps she never read the Federalists/Anti-Federalists...Maybe she is better suited to the Articles Of Confederation that was replaced by the Constitution...