Disgusted With Conservatism, America Was Born Liberal.

[AVG-JOE]

Disgusted with conservatism, America was born liberal.

Amazing what one can learn from a history book... check out what it was to be 'liberal' in the worlds power base, Europe, during our first 75 years as a nation.

Sign me up...

1. GENERAL NATURE OF NINETEENTH-CENTURY LIBERALISM (19th century = 1800's)

Liberalism is a difficult term to define. It has various shades and from time to time changes its complexion. During the nineteenth century, liberalism had developed into an ideology, a loose set of beliefs about the world and how it should be.

The roots of liberalism stretch back through the French Revolution and the Enlightenment to the seventeenth century political thoughts of John Locke and others. At the base of liberalism was a belief in individualism. Liberals optimistically believed that individuals, unaided and free from outside forces or institutions, should pursue their own interests. Individuals deserved equality before the law and the right to embark on careers open to talent. Government should be constitutional and based on popular sovereignty. The people should be represented by an elected legislature, to whom government ministers were responsible. Government should be limited in its powers, with individual freedoms as freedom of the press, of speech, and of assembly guaranteed. The role of government should be that of a passive police officer, enforcing laws and contracts. Government should interfere in economic life as little as possible, leaving that realm to private enterprise. Liberals were also anticlerical; that is, they opposed interference in government by organized religion. During the first half of the nineteenth century, liberals were usually nationalists, since nationalism at that time was primarily concerned with freeing peoples from alien rule and uniting them under one flag, and nationalism seemed consistent with popular sovereignty, constitutional government, and people's rights. Liberals, particularly during the first half of the nineteenth century, were not democrats; liberals wanted to limit the right to vote to those holding wealth and the educated. Only later in the nineteenth century did liberals begin to favor universal male suffrage.

Liberals typically came from the middle class, the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, the professionals, and the intellectuals. Their chief opponents were the vested interests of traditional society; the aristocracy, the clergy, and the military, seeking to retain their favored positions. The peasantry was still generally conservative, strongly influenced by the clergy and sometimes by the aristocracy, and not very active in politics. Liberals were sometimes contemptuous of the propertyless masses below, forming alliances with them only so far as necessary. Middle-class liberals contempt for those below them was often a mask for fear; their contempt of the aristocrats above them was tinged with envy.

Liberals stood in contrast to conservatives. Liberals were optimistic about the individual; conservatives were pessimistic. Liberals had great faith in reason; conservatives argued that reason was too abstract. Liberals favored many of the ideas and reforms of the Enlightenment and French Revolution; conservatives attacked them. Liberals valued the individual over society; conservatives felt the individual was secondary. For liberals the state was an agent of the people; for conservatives the state was a growing organism not to be tampered with.

Their chief opponents were the vested interests of traditional society; the aristocracy, the clergy, and the military, seeking to retain their favored positions. The peasantry was still generally conservative, strongly influenced by the clergy and sometimes by the aristocracy, and not very active in politics.

The more things change, the more they remain, eh?

-Joe

 

[midcan5]

Also:

"Liberals and Libertarians: Kissing Cousins or Distant Relatives?"

That question was debated at a January 13 event sponsored by Stanford University's Program in Ethics in Society and the Cato Institute. Boston Review co-editor Joshua Cohen gave these comments.

In his book Political Liberalism, John Rawls offers a general description of a liberal political outlook. He intends the description to cover views ranging from the classical liberalism of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, arguably in the tradition of Locke and Adam Smith, to the more egalitarian liberalism of his own Theory of Justice. Rawls writes, "the content of a liberal political conception of justice is given by three main features:

1. a specification of basic rights, liberties and opportunities (of a kind familiar from constitutional democratic regimes);

2. an assignment of special priority to those rights, liberties and opportunities, especially with respect of claims of the general good and perfectionist values; and

3. measures assuring to all citizens adequate all-purpose means to make effective use of their liberties and opportunities.

These [three] elements can be understood in different ways, so that there are many variant liberalisms."

http://bostonreview.net/BRwebonly/cohen2.php

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I thought liberals were a bunch of pinko commies!!

Get me gun, Ma!! Yargh!!

 

[AVG-JOE]

I thought liberals were a bunch of pinko commies!!

Get me gun, Ma!! Yargh!!

I thought conservatives wanted smaller, restricted government and individual freedom of destiny...

It's amazing the fallacies that can be created in our own minds - (insert your favored Deity here) bless education, eh brother?

-Joe

 

[Skull Pilot]

today's "liberals" are about as far away ideologically from Jefferson as Gandhi was from Hitler.

Classical liberalism is not what is running rampant in Washington right now.

What Is Classical*Liberalism?

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.

On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes.

At the same time, 20th century liberals continued to be influenced by the 19th century liberalism's belief in and respect for civil liberties. In fact, as the last century progressed, liberal support for civil liberties grew and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began to proudly claim the label "civil libertarian." Since liberalism was the dominant twentieth century ideology, public policy tended to reflect its beliefs. By the end of the century, people had far fewer economic rights than they had at the beginning. But they had more civil rights.

In short "liberals" of today believe that they should be able to do anything they want with your money but they will allow you to be free to complain about your diminishing economic freedom. After all freedom of speech is a right but economic freedom is a privilege that you don't deserve.

 

[AVG-JOE]

today's "liberals" are about as far away ideologically from Jefferson as Gandhi was from Hitler.

Classical liberalism is not what is running rampant in Washington right now.

What Is Classical*Liberalism?

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.

On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes.

At the same time, 20th century liberals continued to be influenced by the 19th century liberalism's belief in and respect for civil liberties. In fact, as the last century progressed, liberal support for civil liberties grew and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began to proudly claim the label "civil libertarian." Since liberalism was the dominant twentieth century ideology, public policy tended to reflect its beliefs. By the end of the century, people had far fewer economic rights than they had at the beginning. But they had more civil rights.

In short "liberals" of today believe that they should be able to do anything they want with your money but they will allow you to be free to complain about your diminishing economic freedom. After all freedom of speech is a right but economic freedom is a privilege that you don't deserve.

Sadly, you are right. Both of our mainstream political parties are way to fucking conservative... Fortunately, the voters are becoming educated and education is fomenting true liberalism. The light is being shined on conservative (status quo) thinking.

I will be tracking the progress of the Libertarians very closely during the next few elections.

-Joe

 

[editec]

18th century liberalism was in reaction to the dying system of feudal monarchism.

Neither team, regardless if they call themselves liberals or conservatives, opposes the centralization of power which the 18th century liberals sought to eliminate.

Oh, they both talk a good game, but their actions speak louder than their words.

We are basically a nation controlled by an elite group who have reconstituted a system that is leading us back to a feudal system, folks.

Our leaders won't call themselves kings, of course, but their power will be no less absolute.

And since both parties reputing to be either conservative or liberal are working toward that end, I have absolutely no reason to think that liberalism or conservatism is really what this nation is all about.

Sooner or later most of you will wake up.

Sooner or later most of you will realize that liberal and conservative are meaningless terms when it comes to describing the real game our masters are playing on us.

MostAmericans already sense this, I think.

This board is not reflective of the gestalt of the American people, that's for damned sure.

 

[Fatality]

Disgusted with conservatism, America was born liberal.

Amazing what one can learn from a history book... check out what it was to be 'liberal' in the worlds power base, Europe, during our first 75 years as a nation.

Sign me up...

1. GENERAL NATURE OF NINETEENTH-CENTURY LIBERALISM (19th century = 1800’s)

Liberalism is a difficult term to define. It has various shades and from time to time changes its complexion. During the nineteenth century, liberalism had developed into an ideology – a loose set of beliefs about the world and how it should be.

The roots of liberalism stretch back through the French Revolution and the Enlightenment to the seventeenth century political thoughts of John Locke and others. At the base of liberalism was a belief in individualism. Liberals optimistically believed that individuals, unaided and free from outside forces or institutions, should pursue their own interests. Individuals deserved equality before the law and the right to embark on careers open to talent. Government should be constitutional and based on popular sovereignty. The people should be represented by an elected legislature, to whom government ministers were responsible. Government should be limited in its powers, with individual freedoms as freedom of the press, of speech, and of assembly guaranteed. The role of government should be that of a passive police officer, enforcing laws and contracts. Government should interfere in economic life as little as possible, leaving that realm to private enterprise. Liberals were also anticlerical; that is, they opposed interference in government by organized religion. During the first half of the nineteenth century, liberals were usually nationalists, since nationalism at that time was primarily concerned with freeing peoples from alien rule and uniting them under one flag, and nationalism seemed consistent with popular sovereignty, constitutional government, and people’s rights. Liberals, particularly during the first half of the nineteenth century, were not democrats; liberals wanted to limit the right to vote to those holding wealth and the educated. Only later in the nineteenth century did liberals begin to favor universal male suffrage.

Liberals typically came from the middle class –the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, the professionals, and the intellectuals. Their chief opponents were the vested interests of traditional society – the aristocracy, the clergy, and the military – seeking to retain their favored positions. The peasantry was still generally conservative, strongly influenced by the clergy and sometimes by the aristocracy, and not very active in politics. Liberals were sometimes contemptuous of the propertyless masses below, forming alliances with them only so far as necessary. Middle-class liberals’ contempt for those below them was often a mask for fear; their contempt of the aristocrats above them was tinged with envy.

Liberals stood in contrast to conservatives. Liberals were optimistic about the individual; conservatives were pessimistic. Liberals had great faith in reason; conservatives argued that reason was too abstract. Liberals favored many of the ideas and reforms of the Enlightenment and French Revolution; conservatives attacked them. Liberals valued the individual over society; conservatives felt the individual was secondary. For liberals the state was an agent of the people; for conservatives the state was a growing organism not to be tampered with.

Their chief opponents were the vested interests of traditional society – the aristocracy, the clergy, and the military – seeking to retain their favored positions. The peasantry was still generally conservative, strongly influenced by the clergy and sometimes by the aristocracy, and not very active in politics.

The more things change, the more they remain, eh?

-Joe

"Liberals were sometimes contemptuous of the propertyless masses below, forming alliances with them only so far as necessary. Middle-class liberals’ contempt for those below them was often a mask for fear; their contempt of the aristocrats above them was tinged with envy.
"

seems nothing has changed

 

[Oddball]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1324809-post5.html

Yeah, what he said.

 

[JBeukema]

Liberals were sometimes contemptuous of the propertyless masses below, forming alliances with them only so far as necessary. Middle-class liberals’ contempt for those below them was often a mask for fear; their contempt of the aristocrats above them was tinged with envy.

strikes as propaganda and isn't applicable to classical liberalism (at least as I understand and use the term) or libertarianism so much as it is of modern neoliberalism, statism, and the elitism of the modern 'liberals' composing the Democratic party and related ideologies, which have less in common with liberalism than with the class warfare philosophy or stalin and others.

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Disgusted with conservatism, America was born liberal.

Amazing what one can learn from a history book... check out what it was to be 'liberal' in the worlds power base, Europe, during our first 75 years as a nation.

Sign me up...

1. GENERAL NATURE OF NINETEENTH-CENTURY LIBERALISM (19th century = 1800’s)

Liberalism is a difficult term to define. It has various shades and from time to time changes its complexion. During the nineteenth century, liberalism had developed into an ideology – a loose set of beliefs about the world and how it should be.

The roots of liberalism stretch back through the French Revolution and the Enlightenment to the seventeenth century political thoughts of John Locke and others. At the base of liberalism was a belief in individualism. Liberals optimistically believed that individuals, unaided and free from outside forces or institutions, should pursue their own interests. Individuals deserved equality before the law and the right to embark on careers open to talent. Government should be constitutional and based on popular sovereignty. The people should be represented by an elected legislature, to whom government ministers were responsible. Government should be limited in its powers, with individual freedoms as freedom of the press, of speech, and of assembly guaranteed. The role of government should be that of a passive police officer, enforcing laws and contracts. Government should interfere in economic life as little as possible, leaving that realm to private enterprise. Liberals were also anticlerical; that is, they opposed interference in government by organized religion. During the first half of the nineteenth century, liberals were usually nationalists, since nationalism at that time was primarily concerned with freeing peoples from alien rule and uniting them under one flag, and nationalism seemed consistent with popular sovereignty, constitutional government, and people’s rights. Liberals, particularly during the first half of the nineteenth century, were not democrats; liberals wanted to limit the right to vote to those holding wealth and the educated. Only later in the nineteenth century did liberals begin to favor universal male suffrage.

Liberals typically came from the middle class –the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, the professionals, and the intellectuals. Their chief opponents were the vested interests of traditional society – the aristocracy, the clergy, and the military – seeking to retain their favored positions. The peasantry was still generally conservative, strongly influenced by the clergy and sometimes by the aristocracy, and not very active in politics. Liberals were sometimes contemptuous of the propertyless masses below, forming alliances with them only so far as necessary. Middle-class liberals’ contempt for those below them was often a mask for fear; their contempt of the aristocrats above them was tinged with envy.

Liberals stood in contrast to conservatives. Liberals were optimistic about the individual; conservatives were pessimistic. Liberals had great faith in reason; conservatives argued that reason was too abstract. Liberals favored many of the ideas and reforms of the Enlightenment and French Revolution; conservatives attacked them. Liberals valued the individual over society; conservatives felt the individual was secondary. For liberals the state was an agent of the people; for conservatives the state was a growing organism not to be tampered with.

Their chief opponents were the vested interests of traditional society – the aristocracy, the clergy, and the military – seeking to retain their favored positions. The peasantry was still generally conservative, strongly influenced by the clergy and sometimes by the aristocracy, and not very active in politics.

The more things change, the more they remain, eh?

-Joe

thank you.

d.

 

[Liberty]

Joe is the kind of lib I would never argue with (and i love arguing with libs) because he is beyond an idiot, and ignorant of history.

 

[asaratis]

The one that has the most conservative friends.

 

[The Rabbi]

Joe is the kind of lib I would never argue with (and i love arguing with libs) because he is beyond an idiot, and ignorant of history.

a little knowledge is an absurd thing.

Today's conservatives are basically classical liberals. Today's liberals are basically marxists.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Joe is the kind of lib I would never argue with (and i love arguing with libs) because he is beyond an idiot, and ignorant of history.

a little knowledge is an absurd thing.

Today's conservatives are basically classical liberals. Today's liberals are basically marxists.

​

The Rabbi​

​

Thanks Rabbi!

Funniest fucking thing I've read on the board all year!

The only people more concerned with keeping the status quo than todays 'Democrats' are today 'Republicans'! ALL of whom are CONSERVATIVE!

Oh, God...​

I think I just peed my pants a little! ​

 

[mightypeon]

As soon as Rabbi opens his mouth about marxism, Karl Marx begins to rotate in his grave.
One may attempt to utilize the 2 facts 1: Rabbi will never stop saying stupid things, and 2: karl Marx will thus never stop spinning in his grave, to combine both the Rabbi and the Grave of karl marx into a Wind- or rather Bullshit-mill.

 

[California Girl]

Any time anyone says 'read a history book' I am immediately suspicious. Which version of history?

Have any of you guys read what is taught as factual history in schools these days? I'd laugh if it wasn't so ridiculous... ridiculous not in a good, funny way.

 

[California Girl]

Joe is the kind of lib I would never argue with (and i love arguing with libs) because he is beyond an idiot, and ignorant of history.

a little knowledge is an absurd thing.

Today's conservatives are basically classical liberals. Today's liberals are basically marxists.

​

The Rabbi​

​

Thanks Rabbi!

Funniest fucking thing I've read on the board all year!

The only people more concerned with keeping the status quo than todays 'Democrats' are today 'Republicans'! ALL of whom are CONSERVATIVE!

Oh, God...​

I think I just peed my pants a little! ​

Avg, I actually have quite a respect for you but the Rabbi is much closer to the truth than you know. What we recognize today as 'liberals' and 'classic liberals' are worlds apart. I am very supportive of 'classic liberal' agendas. Scary shit,huh?

 

[The Rabbi]

Joe is the kind of lib I would never argue with (and i love arguing with libs) because he is beyond an idiot, and ignorant of history.

a little knowledge is an absurd thing.

Today's conservatives are basically classical liberals. Today's liberals are basically marxists.

​

The Rabbi​

​

Thanks Rabbi!

Funniest fucking thing I've read on the board all year!

The only people more concerned with keeping the status quo than todays 'Democrats' are today 'Republicans'! ALL of whom are CONSERVATIVE!

Oh, God...​

I think I just peed my pants a little! ​

People laugh at what they dont understand.
You have outed yourself as the biggest fucktard on this board, bigger even than Chris. And that takes some doing.
Every Republican is a conservative? In what fucking universe? Olympia Snowe is a conservative? Arnold Schwartzenegger? Someone must not have gotten the message here?
Yes, look at what classical liberal means and you will find that most conservatives actually fit that definition better than most liberals.

 

[AVG-JOE]

a little knowledge is an absurd thing.

Today's conservatives are basically classical liberals. Today's liberals are basically marxists.

​

The Rabbi​

​

Thanks Rabbi!

Funniest fucking thing I've read on the board all year!

The only people more concerned with keeping the status quo than todays 'Democrats' are today 'Republicans'! ALL of whom are CONSERVATIVE!

Oh, God...​

I think I just peed my pants a little! ​

Avg, I actually have quite a respect for you but the Rabbi is much closer to the truth than you know. What we recognize today as 'liberals' and 'classic liberals' are worlds apart. I am very supportive of 'classic liberal' agendas. Scary shit,huh?

Actually, it's not scary at all. Kind of the point to this thread - being careful about how labels like 'liberal' and 'conservative' are casually tossed around. I think a LOT of self proclaimed conservatives would sign on to the 'classic' liberal clip-board if they could just get past the label that 'liberal' has become.

The point with The Rabbi is that 'conservative', by definition and by practice today, is all about keeping and protecting the status quo - something that politicians on both sides of the aisle are well paid by corporate lobbyists to do. His comment struck me as hilarious.