Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[Carla_Danger]

Your link from RealClearPolitics is full of ad hominem and criticism of specific media outlets.

Please be specific. The link does use MSNBC as an illustration to support the point made, but I didn't see any specific criticism of it. Could you give me an example of ad hominem from the article because I definitely did miss that.

Really, you don't?

Nope. So please post the specific quotation that would show that criticism and the specific quotation that would be classified ad hominem.

Below is an ad hominem attack (from your link)

MSNBC had thought it could mimic Fox News’ success from the left. The problem is that it never understood what Fox News is.

Other MSNBC stars are being followed around by the Grim Reaper. Al Sharpton, a race-baiting tax cheat with blood on his hands, is slated to be moved out of his 6 p.m. slot, presumably so he can spend more time with his wayward teleprompter.

Furthermore, MSNBC is not liberal media, it is a corporate conglomerate. They fired Donahue in 2003 because of his anti Iraq war stance.

You're using a biased opinion piece, yet are asking us to post by a different set of standards. Why is that?

Conceding that '. . .presumably so he can spend more time with his wayward teleprompter. . . ' is ad hominem. The description of Sharpton as a 'race-baiting tax cheat. . . ' is insulting, and was meant to be, but is not ad hominem. Neither, however, change the points that Goldberg is making in his piece. As for MSNBC's political leanings, every single media poll offered in the last 10 years has ranked it the most left of all the mainstream media sources out there. You can object to that but please do it on a different thread and let's don't derail this one with a discussion about that. IMO, Goldberg is more than justified in using it as his 'canary in the coal mine.'

You haven't defined liberalism, or offered any proof that it's exhausted, just a biased opinion piece instead. I guess this debate is over, because there never really was one to begin with.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not interested in Goldberg himself in this thread.

The author and the work are inseparable. If you didn't want Goldberg discussed, you should have simply presented his ideas in your own words.

I am interested in the concepts he offered in the linked piece. Please refer to the guidelines for this thread.

And I'm interested in the effect of his preaching on the choir, which is what that piece was.

So what did he get wrong in this article?

That's a lot like saying "What's wrong with the Unibomber Manifesto? Point to specific parts!".

Is left leaning media thriving

No more or less than usual. Claims that it isn't, based on some rants about MSNBC, are unsupported wishful thinking.

Are the ranks of liberalism swelling?

Yes. Steady slow growth, that is. Especially among young people. And people tend to grow more liberal as they age.

What are the topics we most see pushed by the left these days?

Economic equality, something extremely popular with the American people. In contrast, Goldberg and pals focus almost entirely on identify politics, political correctness and playing the victim.

Can you be specific re something in the article he said that merits criticism?

Again, the piece is a rambling mess, a disjointed mass of red herrings and cherrypicks, a fundamentally gutless work that sets up strawmen instead of addressing actual liberal positions.

Liberalism now focuses mostly on economic opportunity. The piece ignores that, and instead diverts with some fabrications about how liberalism is about race and gays. It lies, that is. It's a dishonest propaganda piece.

In summary, the only evidence offered to support this premise of "liberalism is exhausted" is Goldberg's crank rant, a lot of wishful thinking, and couple conspiracy theories. If there's any actual evidence, someone might want to present it and support it.

I agree.

Well please take a discussion of Goldberg to another thread please. This thread is about the concept Goldberg offers and is not about Goldberg, And the intent IS to separate those two things.

This discussion is about a concept of whether liberalism has exhausted itself and is falling out of favor. Those who cannot discuss that without discussing Jonah Goldberg should start their own thread.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Liberalism now focuses mostly on economic opportunity.

Not true. If by 'economic opportunity' you are implying that entitlements are providing that economic opportunity. What liberalism fails to account for is how much money is spent on those entitlements to stimulate these economic opportunity so to speak. It discourages effort and encourages apathy, such apathy becoming epitome of the decline of liberalism. Instead of providing economic opportunity through jobs, it allows for entitlements.

I see a lot of Keynesian philosophies being employed to make this happen.

 

[amrchaos]

"It's proponents in the media have lost their luster and are no longer able to gain much if any traction in popular appeal."

Hold it--when did liberals have luster?

I think the true problem with the right is being hijacked by a small group of ideologues in the first decade and a lack of direction afterwards.

Liberals are not winning on star power, they are winning due to ineffective opposition.

Interesting concept. So how do you support that argument with audience for leftwing media? In the results of the last election? In those willing to identify themselves as 'liberal'?

More of disdain/distrust of Republicans than any thing else.

Think about it--the best thing going for the Democrats in 2008 were a failing economy and war weariness. In 2012, nothing!

Liberalism couldn't sell stacks of hundred dollar bills--that is why they are always promising to give things away.

 

[TemplarKormac]

More of disdain/distrust of Republicans than any thing else.

No mention of other parties.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is liberalism exhausted, i.e. has it run its course in America and will fade into the background in coming years?

I'll say this. I see a trend, and yes, it is becoming exhausted. And without breaking the rules, the pendulum has swung so far towards extreme liberalism, it is naturally going to swing back to the middle and to the other side. The election last year showed how far liberalism has declined. Just in the past few weeks, you have had liberals in the media exposed for lying, people like Lois Lerner being busted after all of her e-mails and tapes regarding the targeting were found, and Hillary Clinton breaking campaign finance rules. You have liberals everywhere resorting to desperate tactics in campaigns, such as using the Ferguson, Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner cases to smear opponents. An ideology that is strong doesn't need people to resort to this kind of thing, only a fading one will keep grasping for support by attacking opponents before it eventually dies out.

The seams are starting to come undone.

Point taken T.K. but we have to be careful about judging by association when it comes to a concept. For every transgressor on the left, the left can probably come up with a transgressor on the right. I don't think we'll be able to evaluate an ideology or concept via the number of villains involved because there are plenty of those to go around.

The concept is whether liberalism as an ideology, even one practiced by honorable, honest, intelligent, capable people, will deliver as advertised. Or whether it will be found wanting by those who have been disappointed to disallusioned by it and now are ready to embrace something different.

 

[Foxfyre]

"It's proponents in the media have lost their luster and are no longer able to gain much if any traction in popular appeal."

Hold it--when did liberals have luster?

I think the true problem with the right is being hijacked by a small group of ideologues in the first decade and a lack of direction afterwards.

Liberals are not winning on star power, they are winning due to ineffective opposition.

Interesting concept. So how do you support that argument with audience for leftwing media? In the results of the last election? In those willing to identify themselves as 'liberal'?

More of disdain/distrust of Republicans than any thing else.

Think about it--the best thing going for the Democrats in 2008 were a failing economy and war weariness. In 2012, nothing!

Liberalism couldn't sell stacks of hundred dollar bills--that is why they are always promising to give things away.

Yes again, I ask that the thread guidelines be followed and that means no reference to specific political parties.

But the government has been giving stuff away for a very long time now regardless of who is in power. It has been the favorite method of those in power keeping that power and everything that goes with it.

But is the bloom off that rose? The people are now beginning to see and perhaps experience the negative consequences of all that free stuff? And are beginning to rethink things?

 

[mamooth]

Well please take a discussion of Goldberg to another thread please. This thread is about the concept Goldberg offers and is not about Goldberg, And the intent IS to separate those two things.

And you won't discuss either thing. I made a long post discussing only the concepts, and instead of responding to it, you accused me of only talking about Goldberg.

This discussion is about a concept of whether liberalism has exhausted itself and is falling out of favor. Those who cannot discuss that without discussing Jonah Goldberg should start their own thread.

So you should leave the thread, and I should stay. At least that's what your guidelines say.

When making a claim, it is customary to support the claim with something besides "Refute this rambling source that I forbid you to discuss". So try that. Start with "Liberalism is exhausted because ...", then list your points as to why you think that's the case, and support each point. You know, debate.

 

[amrchaos]

To be honest, I doubt there was a rose to begin with.

The affordable was not a big issue until after the 2008 elections, and even then it did not have decent public support. A less popular issue was the bailout of the banks and auto industry--that had people screaming on both sides of the political spectrum.

No, liberalism isn't winning on its on merits.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well please take a discussion of Goldberg to another thread please. This thread is about the concept Goldberg offers and is not about Goldberg, And the intent IS to separate those two things.

And you won't discuss either thing. I made a long post discussing only the concepts, and instead of responding to it, you accused me of only talking about Goldberg.

This discussion is about a concept of whether liberalism has exhausted itself and is falling out of favor. Those who cannot discuss that without discussing Jonah Goldberg should start their own thread.

So you should leave the thread, and I should stay. At least that's what your guidelines say.

When making a claim, it is customary to support the claim with something besides "Refute this rambling source that I forbid you to discuss". So try that. Start with "Liberalism is exhausted because ...", then list your points as to why you think that's the case, and support each point. You know, debate.

I believe I have been discussing the OP pretty darn consistently.

And as a matter of personal preference, I don't generally respond to anybody's post on any subject that is chopped up that way.

I haven't said 'liberalism is exhausted. . . ' because I haven't taken that position. I have offered a discussion on the merits or lack thereof of that concept as presented in the OP.

I have said I hope Goldberg's observation on that is correct.

 

[amrchaos]

I know you do not want to talk party politics but I am going to say it:

If Chris Christie win his party's primaries, he will become president.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The concept is whether liberalism as an ideology, even one practiced by honorable, honest, intelligent, capable people, will deliver as advertised.

I'd wager not. In the political world, I don't believe there is any intelligent, honest, or capable way to make a promise and deliver on it.

Or whether it will be found wanting by those who have been disappointed to disillusioned by it and now are ready to embrace something different.

I'll go out on a limb and say once again that last year's elections was a sign of just that. An ideology is no good if you fail to deliver on it, it doesn't matter how honest, intelligent, or capable you are. People are in constant search of an ideology which will keep the promises it makes. When one ideology fails, they migrate to the other; whereas the converse is also true.

If you want me to be brutally honest, I will turn around and say that no ideology will exhaust itself if people are either gullible or insightful enough to subscribe to them. But I genuinely believe that liberalism is exhausting itself. If an ideology is sound, it won't drive people to extremes. If an ideology, wishes to thrive, it needs honest, intelligent, and capable people to drive it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When making a claim, it is customary to support the claim with something besides "Refute this rambling source that I forbid you to discuss".

As is has been the case all along, nobody wishes to speak on the topic of the thread. Any attempt by Fox to direct the discussion is met with hostility, especially by one side of the debate. I've seen this in all of the threads Fox has posted on this forum. It is a genuine lack of respect.

 

[Foxfyre]

The concept is whether liberalism as an ideology, even one practiced by honorable, honest, intelligent, capable people, will deliver as advertised.

I'd wager not. In the political world, I don't believe there is any intelligent, honest, or capable way to make a promise and deliver on it.

Or whether it will be found wanting by those who have been disappointed to disillusioned by it and now are ready to embrace something different.

I'll go out on a limb and say once again that last year's elections was a sign of just that. An ideology is no good if you fail to deliver on it, it doesn't matter how honest, intelligent, or capable you are. People are in constant search of an ideology which will keep the promises it makes. When one ideology fails, they migrate to the other; whereas the converse is also true.

If you want me to be brutally honest, I will turn around and say that no ideology will exhaust itself if people are either gullible or insightful enough to subscribe to them. But I genuinely believe that liberalism is exhausting itself. If an ideology is sound, it won't drive people to extremes. If an ideology, wishes to thrive, it needs honest, intelligent, and capable people to drive it.

A well thought out and insightful post, TK. The only criticism I could offer is that I think you are shortchanging culture itself. IMO, Liberalism has most definitely changed our culture from one of rugged independence, moral virtue, charity from the heart, and love of God, family, fellow man, and country to one of intense selfishness, oneupmanship, authoritarianism, jealousy, along with a chip-on-the-shoulder gimme mentality.

Maybe just maybe people are finding that kind of society to be less palatable than they are willing to just accept. People are less hopeful, more fearful, and more unhappy than they expected to be. And they might, just might be willing to start considering the classical concepts again that created this great nation.

That is how the first U.S. Americans got there--reading and studying and debating and thinking through those concepts they read from the classical writings. It was the ability to read the classical thought themselves that caused medieval people to shrug off the 'dark ages' and embrace the Renaissance.

Let's hope that we Americans are capable of such renewal of thought and regeneration of defensible values again.

 

[Foxfyre]

To be honest, I doubt there was a rose to begin with.

The affordable was not a big issue until after the 2008 elections, and even then it did not have decent public support. A less popular issue was the bailout of the banks and auto industry--that had people screaming on both sides of the political spectrum.

No, liberalism isn't winning on its on merits.

But it HAS been winning on its promises and noble sounding pronouncements. Promises and pronoucnements that too often have now proved to be empty and without substance. I think it is probably that which is turning the tide if it is indeed turning.

 

[jwoodie]

The axis of indoctrination (academia, media, Hollywood) has achieved its goal. We are going to see liberalism on steroids in the future.

.

No, not at all.

I think we've passed the tipping point, and we're on our way towards what the Left wants, some version of a Euro-social democracy.

What I don't (can't) know is whether it will end up looking more like Germany, France or Greece.

The de facto collapse of our southern border will ultimately be the last straw, as the Left will able to flood the electorate with those who are much more inclined to support such a system, a far more powerful, centralized federal government presiding over a populace heavily divided into the various identity groups.

That's been the goal all along.

It is what it is.

.

This forum was not designed for you. Please leave.

LOL. You guys aren't giving me a great deal of hope here. I read an article like Goldberg's today and think maybe there is hope. Maybe the American people are less sheeplike than I've given them credit for. Maybe they are able to figure out some things for themselves and the worm really is turning.

He is right that leftwing (aka liberal) media has a really dismal track record. Despite massive funding, Air America couldn't make it. MSNBC has a tiny fraction of the audience of Fox News who continues to out pull all the other cable news networks combined in ratings. NPR and PBS are less partisan than most others, but they are accused of being at least somewhat left of center. I have been reading where they are struggling financially, though I'm not sure that is due to loss of audience. Both are completely funded of course and don't have to make it on popularity. But why is their funding falling behind?

And it seems that fewer people are willing to identify themselves as 'liberal'.

So in all due respect, while I fear you might be right, I hope you are wrong.

I think it's a terribly wasted opportunity, and I don't think it's the spirit of our Constitution, but it's certainly an easier sell than personal responsibility and self discipline.

.

I'm not following that too well Mac. Can you elaborate or explain what you mean here?

What is 'liberalism'- other than anything other than what you agree with?

You can't debate something without agreeing what that something is.

 

[mamooth]

Thread summary:

No evidence has been presented that "liberalism is exhausted", despite repeated requests that such evidence be presented.

Conclusion: The premise is bogus, wishful thinking from the demoralized opposition of the liberals.

Let's keep going on this. Time to rub some salt in the wounds.

The liberals have just kicked ass on the Net Neutrality issue. It was a rout. The forces of monopolism and cronyism are in full retreat. The censor-happy statists have all been left crying bitter tears into their Stalinist beers.

That is, the liberals are heading into the locker room at halftime with a 30-0 lead, energized and with the momentum.

That's what you call discussion of the thread topic. Given how so few other posters here have been willing to discuss the thread topic, they ought to thank me for the example of how to do it. Repeatedly talking about how much you hate liberals is not actually discussing the thread topic.

Now, if anyone would like to claim the liberals aren't energized, they need to explain why the liberals have been out doing tequila shots out of a stripper's naval, then making a stop to piss on the graves of the anti-capitalists, followed by a 6 AM drunken breakfast at Denny's.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Mamooth. I'm going to ask you this:

Did you ever read the article? Or are you simply attacking the title?

 

[mamooth]

Templar, either discuss the thread topic with me, or move along. I'm not interested in your evasions and attempts to divert the thread.

Specifically, if the liberals are exhausted, why are all the liberals celebrating the epic asswhupping that the liberals just delivered to the statists?

Why are all the liberals salivating over the prospects of 2016?

Why are all the liberals pressing hard on the economic issues, while their opponents are concentrating on claims of victimhood, identity politics and political correctness?

Why are the liberals the ones who don't see a need to make trolling threads?

Someone may be exhausted and demoralized, but it's clearly not the liberals. Address that.

 

[80zephyr]

The concept is whether liberalism as an ideology, even one practiced by honorable, honest, intelligent, capable people, will deliver as advertised.

I'd wager not. In the political world, I don't believe there is any intelligent, honest, or capable way to make a promise and deliver on it.

Or whether it will be found wanting by those who have been disappointed to disillusioned by it and now are ready to embrace something different.

I'll go out on a limb and say once again that last year's elections was a sign of just that. An ideology is no good if you fail to deliver on it, it doesn't matter how honest, intelligent, or capable you are. People are in constant search of an ideology which will keep the promises it makes. When one ideology fails, they migrate to the other; whereas the converse is also true.

If you want me to be brutally honest, I will turn around and say that no ideology will exhaust itself if people are either gullible or insightful enough to subscribe to them. But I genuinely believe that liberalism is exhausting itself. If an ideology is sound, it won't drive people to extremes. If an ideology, wishes to thrive, it needs honest, intelligent, and capable people to drive it.

A well thought out and insightful post, TK. The only criticism I could offer is that I think you are shortchanging culture itself. IMO, Liberalism has most definitely changed our culture from one of rugged independence, moral virtue, charity from the heart, and love of God, family, fellow man, and country to one of intense selfishness, oneupmanship, authoritarianism, jealousy, along with a chip-on-the-shoulder gimme mentality.

Maybe just maybe people are finding that kind of society to be less palatable than they are willing to just accept. People are less hopeful, more fearful, and more unhappy than they expected to be. And they might, just might be willing to start considering the classical concepts again that created this great nation.

That is how the first U.S. Americans got there--reading and studying and debating and thinking through those concepts they read from the classical writings. It was the ability to read the classical thought themselves that caused medieval people to shrug off the 'dark ages' and embrace the Renaissance.

Let's hope that we Americans are capable of such renewal of thought and regeneration of defensible values again.

Wow. Excellent post. I can see that you are capable of thinking "outside the box".

Mark