Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[edthecynic]

And of course he uses the results of the 2014 election as support that liberal policies are largely being rejected by the electorate.

Actually the 2014 election itself was largely rejected by the electorate. It had the lowest turnout in 72 years! Shills like Goldberg always argue in half-truths.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I didn't "miss" the ending, I ignored it because it's entirely irrelevant to my point.

Then you aren't fairly considering her point.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Can you give me an example of how Obama has "pulled" the Democratic Party to the left?

How about you show us how he hasn't?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And of course he uses the results of the 2014 election as support that liberal policies are largely being rejected by the electorate.

Actually the 2014 election itself was largely rejected by the electorate. It had the lowest turnout in 72 years! Shills like Goldberg always argue in half-truths.

The fact remains liberalism as an ideology lost. In fact that explains why liberals lost in the first place. The ideology has become alienating.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think if you'd actually examine changes in ideology with any legitimate statistical analysis, you'd see results significantly more interesting than "liberalism is exhausted".

Actually, you can pin the decline of both liberalism and conservatism to the growing political distrust people have.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Can you give me an example of how Obama has "pulled" the Democratic Party to the left?

How about you show us how he hasn't?

You know that's not how it works.

The burden of proof lies with the positive claim. It's not up to me to prove a negative.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

It depends what definition of "liberalism" that you're using. Do you mean my definition? Your definition?

Jonah Goldberg's definition?

"Liberalism", in this context, doesn't mean anything. I consider myself a colloquial "liberal", yet I imagine that not very much of what Jonah Goldberg thinks "liberalism" is would apply to me.

Are ideologies changing? Sure. They're always changing.

Does the death-knell of MSNBC imply anything more than just another cable channel failing? Does it mean that "liberalism" is dead? Of course not. The whole cable-news-as-sports-team thing that some people have is idiotic.

For the purpose of this discussion we are going with the way most people define liberalism in modern day America which is synonymous with the statists, progressives, leftists, and political class. Because of the plethora of such discussions on that at USMB and elsewhere, I don't think it is necessary to get bogged down in senmantics and/or nitpick definitions. I pretty sure we all know what we mean by 'liberalism' in this context.

No, that's not the way "most people" define liberalism, that's the way conservatives define "liberalism". I don't think there's any liberal that would describe themselves as a "statist". It's not "nitpicking", it's the fault that makes the argument in the OP an exercise in rhetoric rather than an actual conversation.

I don't know that there is a death-knell of MSNBC. I don't think it would be terribly missed but I don't know whether the audience and resulting advertisers they do have makes it sufficiently profitable that it isn't going away any time soon. If programming is successfully reaching a specific target audience, the lack of big numbers doesn't always matter to the owners.

Goldberg used MSNBC as a 'canary in the coal mine' as its meager audience suggests few people are interested in their decidedly mostly leftist point of view and he interpreted this as declining enthusiasm for liberal points of view and concepts. MSNBC was one of three trends he used to support his thesis that liberalism is exhausted and is losing its base.

I understand what his "interpretation" was, but my point is that it's completely ludicrous. It has no basis in reality, it's not even trying to. It's a morale booster for the right, nothing more. He makes no valid points, his analysis is pure fantasy.

I don't know if he is right. But that is what the OP intended to invite people to discuss.

As far as I know, that's exactly what I've been discussing.

So what points did he make that were not valid? Can you be specific about that? Why do you say he is wrong that MSNBC, the most liberal of all major mainstream media, is the least successful of all the major mainstream media? Is he wrong that Obama has moved everything left but has been unsuccessful in getting others to join him there? On what basis do you say that is a wrong assessment? Is he wrong that liberalism has been generally losing suppport at the local, state, and federal levels? On what basis do you say he is wrong?

1. I didn't say that he was wrong that MSNBC is falling apart, I said that his extrapolation to the whole of "liberalism" was patently ridiculous. Political ideology isn't measured by what cable channel people watch. I have many liberal friends, and none of them have ever been big MSNBC watchers.

2. Yes, he is wrong that "Obama has moved everything left". He hasn't.

3. How has "liberalism has been generally losing suppport at the local, state, and federal levels"? Be specific.

I have not argued these things Doc. I am hosting a discussion in a thread on a message board. I am using Goldberg's thesis for the basis of the discussion. I accept that your post rejects his thesis and the examples he used to support it. And I accept that my request for your basis for your posted opinion about that will likely not be forthcoming. And that's cool.

I hope there are those, both pro and con, who will continue to find the topic interesting and will be interested in discussing it. For now I'm going to bed and will wish all a good night. I shall return. . . .

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Can you give me an example of how Obama has "pulled" the Democratic Party to the left?

How about you show us how he hasn't?

You know that's not how it works.

The burden of proof lies with the positive claim. It's not up to me to prove a negative.

I didn't "miss" the ending, I ignored it because it's entirely irrelevant to my point.

Then you aren't fairly considering her point.

Whose point? Foxfyres?

What point am not fairly considering?

 

[Foxfyre]

Remember guys. Focus on the post, and not the person making it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It depends what definition of "liberalism" that you're using. Do you mean my definition? Your definition?

Jonah Goldberg's definition?

"Liberalism", in this context, doesn't mean anything. I consider myself a colloquial "liberal", yet I imagine that not very much of what Jonah Goldberg thinks "liberalism" is would apply to me.

Are ideologies changing? Sure. They're always changing.

Does the death-knell of MSNBC imply anything more than just another cable channel failing? Does it mean that "liberalism" is dead? Of course not. The whole cable-news-as-sports-team thing that some people have is idiotic.

For the purpose of this discussion we are going with the way most people define liberalism in modern day America which is synonymous with the statists, progressives, leftists, and political class. Because of the plethora of such discussions on that at USMB and elsewhere, I don't think it is necessary to get bogged down in senmantics and/or nitpick definitions. I pretty sure we all know what we mean by 'liberalism' in this context.

No, that's not the way "most people" define liberalism, that's the way conservatives define "liberalism". I don't think there's any liberal that would describe themselves as a "statist". It's not "nitpicking", it's the fault that makes the argument in the OP an exercise in rhetoric rather than an actual conversation.

I don't know that there is a death-knell of MSNBC. I don't think it would be terribly missed but I don't know whether the audience and resulting advertisers they do have makes it sufficiently profitable that it isn't going away any time soon. If programming is successfully reaching a specific target audience, the lack of big numbers doesn't always matter to the owners.

Goldberg used MSNBC as a 'canary in the coal mine' as its meager audience suggests few people are interested in their decidedly mostly leftist point of view and he interpreted this as declining enthusiasm for liberal points of view and concepts. MSNBC was one of three trends he used to support his thesis that liberalism is exhausted and is losing its base.

I understand what his "interpretation" was, but my point is that it's completely ludicrous. It has no basis in reality, it's not even trying to. It's a morale booster for the right, nothing more. He makes no valid points, his analysis is pure fantasy.

I don't know if he is right. But that is what the OP intended to invite people to discuss.

As far as I know, that's exactly what I've been discussing.

So what points did he make that were not valid? Can you be specific about that? Why do you say he is wrong that MSNBC, the most liberal of all major mainstream media, is the least successful of all the major mainstream media? Is he wrong that Obama has moved everything left but has been unsuccessful in getting others to join him there? On what basis do you say that is a wrong assessment? Is he wrong that liberalism has been generally losing suppport at the local, state, and federal levels? On what basis do you say he is wrong?

1. I didn't say that he was wrong that MSNBC is falling apart, I said that his extrapolation to the whole of "liberalism" was patently ridiculous. Political ideology isn't measured by what cable channel people watch. I have many liberal friends, and none of them have ever been big MSNBC watchers.

2. Yes, he is wrong that "Obama has moved everything left". He hasn't.

3. How has "liberalism has been generally losing suppport at the local, state, and federal levels"? Be specific.

I have not argued these things Doc. I am hosting a discussion in a thread on a message board. I am using Goldberg's thesis for the basis of the discussion. I accept that your post rejects his thesis and the examples he used to support it. And I accept that my request for your basis for your posted opinion about that will likely not be forthcoming. And that's cool.

I hope there are those, both pro and con, who will continue to find the topic interesting and will be interested in discussing it. For now I'm going to bed and will wish all a good night. I shall return. . . .

The basis for my "posted opinion" is my opinion.

Just as Jonah Goldberg's basis for his published opinion is his opinion, and nothing more.

 

[Foxfyre]

Can you give me an example of how Obama has "pulled" the Democratic Party to the left?

How about you show us how he hasn't?

You know that's not how it works.

The burden of proof lies with the positive claim. It's not up to me to prove a negative.

And on my way out I would suggest that asking somebody to support his opinion is not asking them to prove a negative. Goldberg gave his reasons for his thesis. If those reasons are rejected, it would make for a much more interesting discussion if the person rejecting them explained why they are rejected.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Can you give me an example of how Obama has "pulled" the Democratic Party to the left?

How about you show us how he hasn't?

You know that's not how it works.

The burden of proof lies with the positive claim. It's not up to me to prove a negative.

And on my way out I would suggest that asking somebody to support his opinion is not asking them to prove a negative. Goldberg gave his reasons for his thesis. If those reasons are rejected, it would make for a much more interesting discussion if the person rejecting them explained why they are rejected.

Jonah Goldberg did not offer any "reasons" or "evidence" for his claim that Obama has dragged the party to the left. He just assumed that his readers would accept it as fact.

I do not.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just like the 2010 elections were definitive proof that the country had rejected "liberalism" - until the 2012 elections happened.

It was. It was showing a trend in the decline. Peaks and valleys. Believe me, it was a precursor.

Can you give me an example of how Obama has "pulled" the Democratic Party to the left?

How about you show us how he hasn't?

You know that's not how it works.

The burden of proof lies with the positive claim. It's not up to me to prove a negative.

I will also note that in accordance with the stated rules of this opinion piece, the mention of a particular party is prohibited....

You would be right, but..

In one instance he' pulled the party to the right so far they have begun pulling away from him altogether. For example:

Left revokes President Obama s liberal card - Edward-Isaac Dovere - POLITICO.com

However, he probably sensed the discontent within his own party that he tried get back within their good graces, and overcompensated:

Obama veers left - Ben White - POLITICO

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As for Jonah's "thesis", it's nothing but rhetoric. It's righty "feel good" stuff.

I have repeated explained why I reject Jonah Goldberg's thesis - his "thesis" has no basis in reality. The "evidence" he puts forward is, on it's face, ridiculous. Neither his specious claim that Obama has "dragged" the party to the left, nor MSNBC's ratings are evidence that "liberalism" is in decline.

You know what would be "evidence" of a decline in "liberalism"? A extensive scientific survey of the American public's opinions on a battery of issues.

Do you have one of those to support your claims?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Just like the 2010 elections were definitive proof that the country had rejected "liberalism" - until the 2012 elections happened.

It was. It was showing a trend in the decline. Peaks and valleys. Believe me, it was a precursor.

Can you give me an example of how Obama has "pulled" the Democratic Party to the left?

How about you show us how he hasn't?

You know that's not how it works.

The burden of proof lies with the positive claim. It's not up to me to prove a negative.

I will also note that in accordance with the stated rules of this opinion piece, the mention of a particular party is prohibited....

You would be right, but..

In one instance he' pulled the party to the right so far they have begun pulling away from him altogether. For example:

Left revokes President Obama s liberal card - Edward-Isaac Dovere - POLITICO.com

However, he probably sensed the discontent within his own party that he tried get back within their good graces, and overcompensated:

Obama veers left - Ben White - POLITICO

I don't care about Edward-Isaac Dovere's opinion, nor do I care about Ben White's opinion. My opinion is not related to either of theirs.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Can you give me an example of how Obama has "pulled" the Democratic Party to the left?

How about you show us how he hasn't?

You know that's not how it works.

The burden of proof lies with the positive claim. It's not up to me to prove a negative.

And on my way out I would suggest that asking somebody to support his opinion is not asking them to prove a negative. Goldberg gave his reasons for his thesis. If those reasons are rejected, it would make for a much more interesting discussion if the person rejecting them explained why they are rejected.

Jonah Goldberg did not offer any "reasons" or "evidence" for his claim that Obama has dragged the party to the left. He just assumed that his readers would accept it as fact.

I do not.

Actually, I think Obama hijacked his own party. Even strategists on both sides saw that, in 2008 for example:

According to Dan Pfeiffer:

“If the Obama coalition can become the Democratic coalition, it will shape the contours of the debate for years to come and pave the way for a lot of things we feel strongly about, that may not get done in our last two years.”

The tricky Obama-Clinton handoff begins - The Washington Post

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just like the 2010 elections were definitive proof that the country had rejected "liberalism" - until the 2012 elections happened.

It was. It was showing a trend in the decline. Peaks and valleys. Believe me, it was a precursor.

Can you give me an example of how Obama has "pulled" the Democratic Party to the left?

How about you show us how he hasn't?

You know that's not how it works.

The burden of proof lies with the positive claim. It's not up to me to prove a negative.

I will also note that in accordance with the stated rules of this opinion piece, the mention of a particular party is prohibited....

You would be right, but..

In one instance he' pulled the party to the right so far they have begun pulling away from him altogether. For example:

Left revokes President Obama s liberal card - Edward-Isaac Dovere - POLITICO.com

However, he probably sensed the discontent within his own party that he tried get back within their good graces, and overcompensated:

Obama veers left - Ben White - POLITICO

I don't care about Edward-Isaac Dovere's opinion, nor do I care about Ben White's opinion. My opinion is not related to either of theirs.

Why dodge? Why the hostile reaction?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Commentary Left finds Obama not liberal enough - CNN.com

 

[TemplarKormac]

IF one looks at the issue more carefully, you will notice that it isn't Obama who dragged his party further to the left, it was his party who wanted to pull HIM further to the left:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/magazine/what-the-left-doesnt-understand-about-obama.html

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Can you give me an example of how Obama has "pulled" the Democratic Party to the left?

How about you show us how he hasn't?

You know that's not how it works.

The burden of proof lies with the positive claim. It's not up to me to prove a negative.

And on my way out I would suggest that asking somebody to support his opinion is not asking them to prove a negative. Goldberg gave his reasons for his thesis. If those reasons are rejected, it would make for a much more interesting discussion if the person rejecting them explained why they are rejected.

Jonah Goldberg did not offer any "reasons" or "evidence" for his claim that Obama has dragged the party to the left. He just assumed that his readers would accept it as fact.

I do not.

Actually, I think Obama hijacked his own party. Even strategists on both sides saw that, in 2008 for example:

According to Dan Pfeiffer:

“If the Obama coalition can become the Democratic coalition, it will shape the contours of the debate for years to come and pave the way for a lot of things we feel strongly about, that may not get done in our last two years.”

The tricky Obama-Clinton handoff begins - The Washington Post

Please, stop posting these opinion pieces, and speak for yourself. I don't care about Dan Pfeiffer's opinion, I'm not having a conversation with him. Speak for yourself.

But those strategists aren't speaking of Obama "hijacking" his party in the way that's being discussed in Jonah's piece, anyway.