Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[mamooth]

I attribute this statement as a case of political projection. This isn't meant as ad hominem, but that such a statement closely mirrors what liberals have been doing since 2008

Racism: Oppose Obama and you're racist

Gender: Oppose Abortion or criticize Hillary, and you're misogynist

Homosexuality: Oppose it, and you're bigoted

Victimhood: It's all Bush's fault. We inherited this mess from him!

I could go on.

A fine illustration of my point. Liberals don't say such things, but such things are all the liberal-critics can talk about.

Again, the "liberalism is exhausted" claim has no evidence backing it up. "The strawman version of liberalism that I've created in my mind is exhausted" has certainly been proven, but that's a rather different thing.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No argument from me on that point either. But is that identity politics/multriculturalsim as a governing ideology gaining traction in America? Or is it losing favor?

It seems to me to be gaining traction, if anything. The obvious double standards it fosters should be problematic to any thinking person, but precious few people actually think. Most simply react and/or conform. A very large portion of the left simply frames issues according to whether or not they see it as "Right wing", then dig in their heels and support the opposite. There is no actual ideology involved, but only a form of group think based upon opposition.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Using "statist', 'progressive', 'political class', as synonyms for 'liberal', when that is the definition, is not ad hominem. Most especially when I defined the term. "Statism' is not a pejorative term. It is a specific political and economic system or philosophy.

And I believe some are providing a rationale for why liberalism is exhausted and some have provided a rationale for why it is not. That is what a discussion is.

And some continue to complain that the thesis for the discussion was presented.

I do wish I had added a fourth rule for the debate. It would have said this:

4. No complaints about the topic or the author of the column used to illustrate the thesis. If you don't approve of the topic please start your own thread.

 

[martybegan]

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?

Classical liberalism is exhausted because the movement has morphed into progressiveness mixed with Statism. Classical liberalism is invested in the inherent rights of people as individuals, the need for government on a limited controlled basis to enhance those rights, and a system of rewards based on merit, with the recipients of those rewards owing service back to those less well off. It had a certain egalitarianism to it.

Liberalism exhausted itself when the proponents stopped using government to free people, and instead started using it to get people to act the way THEY want them to act.

 

[Foxfyre]

No argument from me on that point either. But is that identity politics/multriculturalsim as a governing ideology gaining traction in America? Or is it losing favor?

It seems to me to be gaining traction, if anything. The obvious double standards it fosters should be problematic to any thinking person, but precious few people actually think. Most simply react and/or conform. A very large portion of the left simply frames issues according to whether or not they see it as "Right wing", then dig in their heels and support the opposite. There is no actual ideology involved, but only a form of group think based upon opposition.

IMO liberalism, as it is usually defined in modern day America, has always been a form of group think. And mutliculturalism used as a sociopolitical wedge or power play for specially protected groups I think is one of the foundations of modern day liberalism. In modern liberalism, everybody is supposed to adhere to the same attitude and use the same politically correct language and describe those protected groups in the same way.

It is a sad fact that liberalism these days has too often become a philosophy of everybody understanding and describing everything alike and punishing or attacking anybody who strays off that philosophical reservation that has been created. They seem to be sincerely convinced of the rightness of their beliefs and the evil of those who don't embrace those beliefs, so it usually is not a malicious thing.

Maybe people are beginning to see that. Maybe people are beginning to think there is injustice when a radio talk show host, a television personality, a florist, a baker, a fast food chicken chain, etc. are all publically attacked and literally punished because they don't toe the liberal line on political correctness and mandates. When this happens again and again, maybe some people are beginning to get worried.

Maybe people are beginning to resent when it comes out that they were lied to or the truth was concealed in order to sell a liberal program. Or they see that the programs are not improving things. And maybe they are beginning to see the long range negative consequences of what were probably well intended liberal programs and realize that motives are not always sufficient justification for what we do..

And maybe not. But if it is happening, I can't believe it is not a good thing that it is.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Classical liberalism is exhausted because the movement has morphed into progressiveness mixed with Statism. Classical liberalism is invested in the inherent rights of people as individuals, the need for government on a limited controlled basis to enhance those rights, and a system of rewards based on merit, with the recipients of those rewards owing service back to those less well off. It had a certain egalitarianism to it.

Liberalism exhausted itself when the proponents stopped using government to free people, and instead started using it to get people to act the way THEY want them to act.

I understand what you are saying. But I gently disagree that classical liberalism morphed into anything. I believe classical liberalism is redefined as the true conservatives or libertarians (little "L") of today. I believe the WORD 'liberal' has been co-opted and redefined in modern day America and bears no resemblance to the liberalism of the late 18th, 19th, and early 20th Centuries.

I think you are much closer though when you say: "Liberalism exhausted itself when the proponents stopped using government to free people, and instead started using it to get people to act the way THEY want them to act." IMO that is an excellent short assessment of what modern day liberalism has become. But is that trend wearing out? Exhausted? That is what we are discussing.

I believe modern day liberalism in America is a grandchild of a totally different school of thought that produced such disciples as Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx. Certainly all modern day liberals are not Marxists. But they all do seem to embrace the idea that government should be given power to order the sort of society they want to exist and, once that is accomplished, everything will be wonderful. That is why the labels of 'statist' and 'political class' are synonymous with modern day American liberalism.

And if liberalism is exhausted, it would be because people are finally beginning to accept that their own happiness and prosperity has to be their choice and initiative and government cannot do that for them. I hope that is happening.

 

[martybegan]

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?

Classical liberalism is exhausted because the movement has morphed into progressiveness mixed with Statism. Classical liberalism is invested in the inherent rights of people as individuals, the need for government on a limited controlled basis to enhance those rights, and a system of rewards based on merit, with the recipients of those rewards owing service back to those less well off. It had a certain egalitarianism to it.

Liberalism exhausted itself when the proponents stopped using government to free people, and instead started using it to get people to act the way THEY want them to act.

I understand what you are saying. But I gently disagree that classical liberalism morphed into anything. I believe classical liberalism is redefined as the true conservatives or libertarians (little "L") of today. I believe the WORD 'liberal' has been co-opted and redefined in modern day America and bears no resemblance to the liberalism of the late 18th, 19th, and early 20th Centuries.

I believe modern day liberalism in America is a grandchild of a totally different school of thought that produced such disciples as Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx. Certainly all modern day liberals are not Marxists. But they all do seem to embrace the idea that government should be given power to order the sort of society they want to exist and, once that is accomplished, everything will be wonderful. That is why the labels of 'statist' and 'political class' are synonymous with modern day American liberalism.

And if liberalism is exhausted, it would be because people are finally beginning to accept that their own happiness and prosperity has to be their choice and initiative and government cannot do that for them. I hope that is happening.

I also see (small "l") libertarian-ism as the true descendant of classical liberalism. Where I see the connection between classical liberalism and today's version is the type of people drawn to it, and the results they are looking for. Both types want/wanted change, and both have this drive to use government to enact said change. The difference to me is of scope and content. The easiest way to see the actual difference is to reference Animal Farm, where "All animals are equal" morphed into "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

The exhaustion of modern liberalism to me is rooted in the overall reliance of identity politics currently occurring in progressive circles. The "Us" of classical liberalism is being replaced by the "Us vs. Them" of modern liberalism, with multiple "Us'es" fighting each other to see who is the most oppressed, and thus more worthy of being "more equal than others"

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Classical liberalism is exhausted because the movement has morphed into progressiveness mixed with Statism. Classical liberalism is invested in the inherent rights of people as individuals, the need for government on a limited controlled basis to enhance those rights, and a system of rewards based on merit, with the recipients of those rewards owing service back to those less well off. It had a certain egalitarianism to it.

Liberalism exhausted itself when the proponents stopped using government to free people, and instead started using it to get people to act the way THEY want them to act.

I understand what you are saying. But I gently disagree that classical liberalism morphed into anything. I believe classical liberalism is redefined as the true conservatives or libertarians (little "L") of today. I believe the WORD 'liberal' has been co-opted and redefined in modern day America and bears no resemblance to the liberalism of the late 18th, 19th, and early 20th Centuries.

I believe modern day liberalism in America is a grandchild of a totally different school of thought that produced such disciples as Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx. Certainly all modern day liberals are not Marxists. But they all do seem to embrace the idea that government should be given power to order the sort of society they want to exist and, once that is accomplished, everything will be wonderful. That is why the labels of 'statist' and 'political class' are synonymous with modern day American liberalism.

And if liberalism is exhausted, it would be because people are finally beginning to accept that their own happiness and prosperity has to be their choice and initiative and government cannot do that for them. I hope that is happening.

I also see (small "l") libertarian-ism as the true descendant of classical liberalism. Where I see the connection between classical liberalism and today's version is the type of people drawn to it, and the results they are looking for. Both types want/wanted change, and both have this drive to use government to enact said change. The difference to me is of scope and content. The easiest way to see the actual difference is to reference Animal Farm, where "All animals are equal" morphed into "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

The exhaustion of modern liberalism to me is rooted in the overall reliance of identity politics currently occurring in progressive circles. The "Us" of classical liberalism is being replaced by the "Us vs. Them" of modern liberalism, with multiple "Us'es" fighting each other to see who is the most oppressed, and thus more worthy of being "more equal than others"

Do you really think libertarians want government to effect the change they want? Or do they want government to back off and let the people effect the change? Don't answer that because it is just a question thrown out there and I don't really want to debate that in this thread because it is somewhat off topic. But somebody might want to start a separate thread to discuss that. Or I might if nobody else does.

But it is the overwhelming weight of a bloated, seemingly out-of-control government that is the fruit of liberalism, not libertarianism, that may be alarming people the most. Within liberalism I see its advocates turning a blind eye to a national debt rapidly headed to $18 trillion and beyond, a down graded credit rating for the USA, more and more good American jobs fleeing to more business friendly realms, and the increasing pressure to conform all thought to the liberal point of view and suppress any dissent.

And maybe it is this sort of thing that has become so obvious that more people no longer can ignore it. and they really are becoming weary of it? Or afraid of it?

 

[martybegan]

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?

Classical liberalism is exhausted because the movement has morphed into progressiveness mixed with Statism. Classical liberalism is invested in the inherent rights of people as individuals, the need for government on a limited controlled basis to enhance those rights, and a system of rewards based on merit, with the recipients of those rewards owing service back to those less well off. It had a certain egalitarianism to it.

Liberalism exhausted itself when the proponents stopped using government to free people, and instead started using it to get people to act the way THEY want them to act.

I understand what you are saying. But I gently disagree that classical liberalism morphed into anything. I believe classical liberalism is redefined as the true conservatives or libertarians (little "L") of today. I believe the WORD 'liberal' has been co-opted and redefined in modern day America and bears no resemblance to the liberalism of the late 18th, 19th, and early 20th Centuries.

I believe modern day liberalism in America is a grandchild of a totally different school of thought that produced such disciples as Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx. Certainly all modern day liberals are not Marxists. But they all do seem to embrace the idea that government should be given power to order the sort of society they want to exist and, once that is accomplished, everything will be wonderful. That is why the labels of 'statist' and 'political class' are synonymous with modern day American liberalism.

And if liberalism is exhausted, it would be because people are finally beginning to accept that their own happiness and prosperity has to be their choice and initiative and government cannot do that for them. I hope that is happening.

I also see (small "l") libertarian-ism as the true descendant of classical liberalism. Where I see the connection between classical liberalism and today's version is the type of people drawn to it, and the results they are looking for. Both types want/wanted change, and both have this drive to use government to enact said change. The difference to me is of scope and content. The easiest way to see the actual difference is to reference Animal Farm, where "All animals are equal" morphed into "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

The exhaustion of modern liberalism to me is rooted in the overall reliance of identity politics currently occurring in progressive circles. The "Us" of classical liberalism is being replaced by the "Us vs. Them" of modern liberalism, with multiple "Us'es" fighting each other to see who is the most oppressed, and thus more worthy of being "more equal than others"

Do you really think libertarians want government to effect the change they want? Or do they want government to back off and let the people effect the change? I don't really want to debate that in this thread because it is somewhat off topic, but somebody might want to start a separate thread to discuss that. Or I might if nobody else does.

But it is the overwhelming weight of a bloated, seemingly out-of-control government that is the fruit of liberalism, not libertarianism, that may be alarming people the most. Within liberalism I see its advocates turning a blind eye to a national debt rapidly headed to $18 trillion and beyond, a down graded credit rating for the USA, more and more good American jobs fleeing to more business friendly realms, and the increasing pressure to conform all thought to the liberal point of view and suppress any dissent.

And maybe it is this sort of thing that has become so obvious that more people no longer can ignore it. and they really are becoming weary of it?

Current libertarianism to me is a response to the change of liberalism from classic to modern. The original goals of the american revolution, coupled with the original goals of the french revolution (before the statist leanings took over), a government of the people, limited by a constitution, without the trappings of a nobility or hereditary ruling class was what defined liberalism. Libertarians are the classic liberals who said "ok, we got what we want, lets stop here" before the modern liberals began with, "hey we got government this far, lets see what we can do with MORE of it!" When the progressives got hold of the "liberal" label, that's when the transformation started, and when a set of progressives realized that overreaching government was the best way to get their agenda pushed, that's when we got deficits, conformation pressure,and all the other statist concepts.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Classical liberalism is exhausted because the movement has morphed into progressiveness mixed with Statism. Classical liberalism is invested in the inherent rights of people as individuals, the need for government on a limited controlled basis to enhance those rights, and a system of rewards based on merit, with the recipients of those rewards owing service back to those less well off. It had a certain egalitarianism to it.

Liberalism exhausted itself when the proponents stopped using government to free people, and instead started using it to get people to act the way THEY want them to act.

I understand what you are saying. But I gently disagree that classical liberalism morphed into anything. I believe classical liberalism is redefined as the true conservatives or libertarians (little "L") of today. I believe the WORD 'liberal' has been co-opted and redefined in modern day America and bears no resemblance to the liberalism of the late 18th, 19th, and early 20th Centuries.

I believe modern day liberalism in America is a grandchild of a totally different school of thought that produced such disciples as Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx. Certainly all modern day liberals are not Marxists. But they all do seem to embrace the idea that government should be given power to order the sort of society they want to exist and, once that is accomplished, everything will be wonderful. That is why the labels of 'statist' and 'political class' are synonymous with modern day American liberalism.

And if liberalism is exhausted, it would be because people are finally beginning to accept that their own happiness and prosperity has to be their choice and initiative and government cannot do that for them. I hope that is happening.

I also see (small "l") libertarian-ism as the true descendant of classical liberalism. Where I see the connection between classical liberalism and today's version is the type of people drawn to it, and the results they are looking for. Both types want/wanted change, and both have this drive to use government to enact said change. The difference to me is of scope and content. The easiest way to see the actual difference is to reference Animal Farm, where "All animals are equal" morphed into "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

The exhaustion of modern liberalism to me is rooted in the overall reliance of identity politics currently occurring in progressive circles. The "Us" of classical liberalism is being replaced by the "Us vs. Them" of modern liberalism, with multiple "Us'es" fighting each other to see who is the most oppressed, and thus more worthy of being "more equal than others"

Do you really think libertarians want government to effect the change they want? Or do they want government to back off and let the people effect the change? I don't really want to debate that in this thread because it is somewhat off topic, but somebody might want to start a separate thread to discuss that. Or I might if nobody else does.

But it is the overwhelming weight of a bloated, seemingly out-of-control government that is the fruit of liberalism, not libertarianism, that may be alarming people the most. Within liberalism I see its advocates turning a blind eye to a national debt rapidly headed to $18 trillion and beyond, a down graded credit rating for the USA, more and more good American jobs fleeing to more business friendly realms, and the increasing pressure to conform all thought to the liberal point of view and suppress any dissent.

And maybe it is this sort of thing that has become so obvious that more people no longer can ignore it. and they really are becoming weary of it?

Current libertarianism to me is a response to the change of liberalism from classic to modern. The original goals of the american revolution, coupled with the original goals of the french revolution (before the statist leanings took over), a government of the people, limited by a constitution, without the trappings of a nobility or hereditary ruling class was what defined liberalism. Libertarians are the classic liberals who said "ok, we got what we want, lets stop here" before the modern liberals began with, "hey we got government this far, lets see what we can do with MORE of it!" When the progressives got hold of the "liberal" label, that's when the transformation started, and when a set of progressives realized that overreaching government was the best way to get their agenda pushed, that's when we got deficits, conformation pressure,and all the other statist concepts.

Interesting. I hadn't thought about it in that context before and so, of course, I now have to think about it in that context. My first impression is that there was too much of a gap between initiation of the founding libertarianism and the introduction of progressive concepts for the two to be related. But your argument is convincing and I will give it some thought.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Are the ranks of liberalism swelling?

Yes, they are swelling and the demographics prove that to be the case.

The OP is based upon the false premise that "liberalism is exhausted" and has "run it's course" is absurd because liberalism, like conservatism, is an idea, a concept, something that can never die because no one can kill an idea.

This is why we still have people that believe in communism and white supremacy even though both have been abject failures in practice. Those concepts will still be around for centuries to come.

So given that liberalism, like conservatism, cannot be exterminated the OP is fallacious. What the OP should be asking about is the robustness of liberalism. Instead the OP has been deflected (up to this point) into a criticism of MSNBC while Faux Noise has been lauded as a "success". Those cable opinion channels are simply capitalism trying to exploit certain political demographics for profit. They are not a reflection of the health and/or future of either liberalism or conservatism. If anything the corporate success of Faux Noise is based upon pandering to the lowest common denominator as a proven means of generating profits.

IMO liberalism is alive and well and will demonstrate that it is capable of flexing it's political muscles in the next decade. During that same period we will see the aging conservative extremists losing ground and being replaced with a younger and more moderate form of conservatism. They will embrace many liberal positions and bring to bear fiscal constraints that will make them financially viable.

In essence the ranks of liberals will grow and the nation will continue on it's path to an evermore liberal society as was envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Liberalism in modern day America is referred to at different times as 'statism

Liberalism might be fallaciously labeled as "statism" but that is not how liberalism is defined nor is that how it is portrayed by those who call themselves liberals.

So in order to have an honest debate about liberalism let's exclude the falsehoods about liberalism and stick with the reality instead.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

There is only one way to answer that is by changing a single word;

The concept is whether conservatism 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 [sic] by it and now are ready to embrace something different.

If your statement is true about liberalism then it is equally true about conservatism, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If Liberals are growing, why do they have to import their new base from Mexico?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

Conservatives have been "giving away free money" and yes, the bloom is most certainly off that rose. Liberals want to address that problem but conservatives want to expand it even though it has caused a great deal of fiscal damage to this nation.

Is the "exhaustion of liberalism" nothing more than an attempt to discredit liberalism so that it cannot redress the conservative "giving away free money" failure?

 

[Derideo_Te]

If an ideology is sound, it won't drive people to extremes.

And yet we see extreme conservatives in Congress refusing to fund the DHS over a dispute about the implementation of policy. Are you saying that conservatism as currently practiced is unsound?

Going back to the OP I am not seeing the same extremism amongst liberals in Congress. Perhaps you could provide some examples to make your position clear. And please stick to actual policies and legislation rather than talking heads and/or media reports of current events.

TYIA.

 

[mamooth]

Using "statist', 'progressive', 'political class', as synonyms for 'liberal', when that is the definition, is not ad hominem. Most especially when I defined the term. "Statism' is not a pejorative term. It is a specific political and economic system or philosophy.

Redefining common English words to mean whatever you want them to mean is a characteristic of the political correctness movement.

Can you show us any common definition of "liberal" that includes "statist", or is that redefinition specific to your subgroup? If you're using definitions of words that differ from common English, that makes discussion difficult. You're essentially trying to define yourself as correct from the outset, and nobody is obligated to accept such definitions.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Commentary Left finds Obama not liberal enough - CNN.com

From September 11, 2009?

Does that contradict the allegation that Obama has moved the party to the left?

 

[Foxfyre]

I am standing firm that I won't get into a war of definitions on what most people peceive that modern day American liberalism is. Most people posting on this thread seem to agree on how most Americans define modern day liberalism and, depending on your particular ideology, that definition is either positive or negative. I prefer to regard it as neutral and it is what it is for purposes of this discussion.

And this discussion is not a comparison of conservatism and liberalism, but is specifically a discussion on whether liberalism is losing favor in America or whether it is not.

Those who would like to discuss who does and does not support funding the DHS will find a discussion on that in another thread in this forum.

As for whether liberalism is or is not losing ground I could only find this:

Larry Bartels has some pretty heavy duty credentials in evaluating this stuff and has calculated that conservatism is pretty strong in America these days.
Americans are more conservative than they have been in decades - The Washington Post

A 2011 Gallup poll
Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.

A quick search didn't turn up a more recent poll on the subject, but there are probably some out there.

Rasmussen has been running a series of recent polls however that are consistently showing that a majority of all voters disapprove of President Obama's veto of the Keystone Pipeline, disapprove of his executive order amnesty initiatives, and believe he is assuming too much power as President. That suggests that the liberal point of view may indeed be losing favor with the people. Time will no doubt tell.

 

[mamooth]

IMO liberalism, as it is usually defined in modern day America, has always been a form of group think.

The ironic-funny part of that is how all the liberal-critics on the thread keep saying the same things and then congratulating each other for saying the same things.

You keep setting up strawmen that have nothing to do with liberalism. You've decisively shown how the cartoon liberals of your imagination are exhausted. For your next step, trying moving on to the real liberals.

Oh, this from the extremely right-leaning Gallup. Conservative numbers are slowly edging down, liberal numbers edging up. Hence, poll data proves liberalism is growing.