Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[TemplarKormac]

There was no need for him to drag them anywhere, they were already there.

 

[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.

Why dodge? Why the hostile reaction?

It's not a "dodge", nor am i being "hostile". I'm just not interested in reading other people's opinions that might agree with you.

I'd much rather hear your opinions, and the reasoning behind them.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There was no need for him to drag them anywhere, they were already there.

Well, no. I'd disagree with that, too.

But then perhaps you're beginning to see the problems with Jonah Goldberg's OP?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

All the meanwhile you are doing nothing to prove your point. The op eds are published by liberals who have a unique perspective of their own party.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But then perhaps you're beginning to see the problems with Jonah Goldberg's OP?

Nope. I found a fact that was both contrary to Goldberg's claim and yours. Obama wasn't left enough for his own party, and they let him know it. Look at his policy decision over his entire term. Look at his shifts from from left of center to far left all in the span of 7 years.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

All the meanwhile you are doing nothing to prove your point. The op eds are published by liberals who have a unique perspective of their own party.

Their perspective is no more "unique" than mine or yours - the only difference is that they've found someone to pay them for it.

The article you linked in the above post was discussing how Hilary can mobilize the youth vote. It's not in any way relevant to the discussion we're having. Why exactly should I respond to it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

But then perhaps you're beginning to see the problems with Jonah Goldberg's OP?

Nope. I found a fact that was both contrary to Goldberg's claim and yours.

What "fact" is that?

The facts you "don't care" for.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Okay I'll wade in and offer the first post in the new Structured Debate zone.

In his column today Jonah Goldberg proposes a thesis that liberalism as it is defined and practiced in modern day America has worn itself out. It's proponents in the media have lost their luster and are no longer able to gain much if any traction in popular appeal. The 2014 election suggested people are looking for something different. President Obama has been able to move his party far to the left, but has been unable to attract recruits to join them.

The article: Is Liberalism Exhausted RealClearPolitics

Rules for this debate:
:
1. No ad hominem. Address the member's post and make no comment on the character or motive or intent of the member himself or herself.

2. No mention of Republicans or Democrats or any other political party. Keep the focus on liberalism and whether it has or has not run its course in America.

3. Please keep criticism of specific media, political, or other personalities to a minimum.

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED:

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

liberals by definition and action are Two entirely different ideals.

A true liberal would never demand the government force people to buy a product or service.

todays liberals are just leftist, they have no support for liberty at all

Whether your observations about liberals are accurate or not, that kind of sort of misses the point of the OP though. For purposes of this discussion we aren't going with the classical or dictionary definition of 'liberal' but are using the term as it is more commonly understood and/or used in modern day America.

Do you think that it is erosion of liberites under modern day liberalism that is causing liberalism to lose favor? If it is losing favor I mean.

yes.

when people that want to cut spending and decrease the vast power of government, by voting, are called extremist....

liberals no longer support liberty.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But then perhaps you're beginning to see the problems with Jonah Goldberg's OP?

Nope. I found a fact that was both contrary to Goldberg's claim and yours. Obama wasn't left enough for his own party, and they let him know it. Look at his policy decision over his entire term. Look at his shifts from from left of center to far left all in the span of 7 years.

That's not a "fact", that's someone else's opinion.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But then perhaps you're beginning to see the problems with Jonah Goldberg's OP?

Nope. I found a fact that was both contrary to Goldberg's claim and yours.

What "fact" is that?

The facts you "don't care" for.

Come now.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I need to be in bed, my keyboard is broken, and typing is a pain. I'll be able to argue more cogently tomorrow.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I need to be in bed, my keyboard is broken, and typing is a pain. I'll be able to argue more cogently tomorrow.

Fair enough. Have a nice night.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But then perhaps you're beginning to see the problems with Jonah Goldberg's OP?

Nope. I found a fact that was both contrary to Goldberg's claim and yours. Obama wasn't left enough for his own party, and they let him know it. Look at his policy decision over his entire term. Look at his shifts from from left of center to far left all in the span of 7 years.

That's not a "fact", that's someone else's opinion.

From multiple opinions you can derive a consensus, hence why you see people conducting opinion polling. You are a fan of trends are you not?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

.

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.

Goldberg assumed his audience would understand what was meant by liberalsim in modern day America. I assumed the same things from participants on this thread.

Liberalism in modern day America is referred to at different times as 'statism, progressivism, leftism, political class.' I doubt that there iare many following politics these days that does not know what liberalism in modern day America is. I would really like for the thread not to get bogged down in a battle over semantics. Let's just go with the flow, okay unless somebody offers a description of liberalism that doesn't fit what liberalism is.

"I doubt that there iare many following politics these days that does not know what liberalism in modern day America is"

Are you unwilling- or unable yourself to explain what you think 'liberalism' is?

You claim everyone knows what it is- but seem unwilling to commit yourself to a description or definition.

Fine- then by my definition- liberalism is doing just fine.

Marriage equality has now reached 37 states and the District of Columbia. And more Americans are in favor of marriage equality than are against.

Women have more opportunity than ever.

There are fewer people hungry in America than there were 50 years ago. We have more National Parks for people to enjoy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I need to be in bed, my keyboard is broken, and typing is a pain. I'll be able to argue more cogently tomorrow.

Fair enough. Have a nice night.

You too.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But then perhaps you're beginning to see the problems with Jonah Goldberg's OP?

Nope. I found a fact that was both contrary to Goldberg's claim and yours. Obama wasn't left enough for his own party, and they let him know it. Look at his policy decision over his entire term. Look at his shifts from from left of center to far left all in the span of 7 years.

That's not a "fact", that's someone else's opinion.

From multiple opinions you can derive a consensus, hence why you see people conducting opinion polling. You are a fan of trends are you not?

The plural of anecdote is not data.

A sample of the loudest and most publicized opinions is not a representative sample of anything, and therefore no "trends" can be extrapolated from them.

 

[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

LOL, I really REALLY hate to criticize a post that compliments me. But technically that compliment violates one of the rules for this discussion as stated in the OP. So thanks for the compliment but don't do that any more please. We have to focus on the post and not on the person making it.

Oops. Sorry. I'm not used to debate of this sort, but it is refreshing.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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.

So, it appears that without a serious scientific study, that you will not form an opinion on an issue?

Trends, etc., do not matter? If I say a fad like a "pet rock" is sweeping the nation, do I need a study before you would agree?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Goldberg assumed his audience would understand what was meant by liberalsim in modern day America. I assumed the same things from participants on this thread.

Liberalism in modern day America is referred to at different times as 'statism, progressivism, leftism, political class.' I doubt that there iare many following politics these days that does not know what liberalism in modern day America is. I would really like for the thread not to get bogged down in a battle over semantics. Let's just go with the flow, okay unless somebody offers a description of liberalism that doesn't fit what liberalism is.

"I doubt that there iare many following politics these days that does not know what liberalism in modern day America is"

Are you unwilling- or unable yourself to explain what you think 'liberalism' is?

You claim everyone knows what it is- but seem unwilling to commit yourself to a description or definition.

Fine- then by my definition- liberalism is doing just fine.

Marriage equality has now reached 37 states and the District of Columbia. And more Americans are in favor of marriage equality than are against.

Women have more opportunity than ever.

There are fewer people hungry in America than there were 50 years ago. We have more National Parks for people to enjoy.

Seems to be the point. The battles have all been won. Now, what does the left do? Since the big battles fell to their way of thinking, what will compel liberals to stay liberals? Will the size of a soft drink spur them to action? Will obesity force them to march in the streets?

Without a "big" issue to rally the troops, the thinking is, is that they NEED to keep pounding on racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., to stay relevant.

And I believe that to most people, those protestations are beginning to sound like the "boy who cried wolf" much too often.

People are not seeing in their lives what liberals are telling us is happening.

Mark

 

[mamooth]

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.

Guidelines said no ad homs. Constantly calling liberals 'statists' is clearly an ad hom.

Now, back to the thread topic. There's been no actual evidence presented that "liberalism is exhausted". The burden of proof is on those making the claim, that burden has not been met, so the claim fails.