Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[OnePercenter]

How can promoting people be exhausted?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

At no point have those who have self identified as "very conservative and conservative" exceeded 40% per the Gallup poll. On the other hand those who self identify as either "moderate, liberal or very liberal" have consistently been a majority. Given that conservatives reject both moderates and liberals for not embracing their positions it is a fallacy to claim that America is a "conservative nation" IMO.

Putting that poll into a timeline perspective gay marriage was a hot button issue used to turn out the conservative voters from 1993 through to 2004. (DOMA was enacted in the 1990's.) Today we have legal gay marriage in 36 states. That alone demonstrates that far from being a "conservative nation" America has moved in a more liberal direction.

If anything the OP premise that "liberalism is exhausted" is more wishful thinking than reality.

 

[edthecynic]

At no point have those who have self identified as "very conservative and conservative" exceeded 40% per the Gallup poll. On the other hand those who self identify as either "moderate, liberal or very liberal" have consistently been a majority. Given that conservatives reject both moderates and liberals for not embracing their positions it is a fallacy to claim that America is a "conservative nation" IMO.

Exactly!

May 12, 2008
RUSH: I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats. Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal

 

[Foxfyre]

However we are four years past that Gallup poll. And the questions posed in the OP do apply to now instead of 2011. There will always be exceptions on various issues, but does the overall mood of the country seem to be embracing conservative concepts? Or liberal ones?

 

[ralfy]

What amounts to the "left" in the U.S. is only superficial. In general, both political parties and citizens in general are dependent on consumer spending and increasing debt.

 

[Foxfyre]

What amounts to the "left" in the U.S. is only superficial. In general, both political parties and citizens in general are dependent on consumer spending and increasing debt.

Welcome to USMB and the thread ralfy, and your point would likely make a good discussion but doesn't really address the topic of whether modern American liberalism is losing power, influence, or favor with the people. Or if you can show how a superficial left applies to that, go for it.

 

[Esmeralda]

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?

I am sorry you are demanding we not mention conservatives, but the reality is just the opposite of your thesis: it is conservatism that has run its course in America. It is a true, deeply true, odd phenomenon that conservatives fail to see that reality. The liberal perspective is stronger than ever, in America and throughout the world. Conservatism is on the decline, especially in America.

For example: the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is spreading throughout America and the world. States all over the US are legalizing gay marriage, as are countries throughout the world. Rather than being on the decline, liberalism is spreading, not dying out.

The fact is that the more educated people are, the more liberal and progressive they are, so, as education spreads throughout the world, including in the States, liberalism spreads. It is not an ideology but a broadening of perspective that is the direct result of more knowledge about ourselves, our history, and our world.

 

[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?

I am sorry you are demanding we not mention conservatives, but the reality is just the opposite of your thesis: it is conservatism that has run its course in America. It is a true, deeply true, odd phenomenon that conservatives fail to see that reality. The liberal perspective is stronger than ever, in America and throughout the world. Conservatism is on the decline, especially in America.

For example: the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is spreading throughout America and the world. States all over the US are legalizing gay marriage, as are countries throughout the world. Rather than being on the decline, liberalism is spreading, not dying out.

The fact is that the more educated people are, the more liberal and progressive they are, so, as education spreads throughout the world, including in the States, liberalism spreads. It is not an ideology but a broadening of perspective that is the direct result of more knowledge about ourselves, our history, and our world.

I haven't demanded no mention of conservatism Esmerelda--only that it not be put in partisan terms by getting tangled up with political parties. And we aren't debating conservatism on this thread but it logically follows that if liberalism is falling out of favor, then people are embracing conservatism more. It is interesting that several members equate support for gays and gay marriage as evidence that liberalism is gaining favor. But nobody wants to talk about opposition to Obama vetoing Keystone, opposition for Obama's immigration policy, opposition for Obamacare and other matters that affect them directly. Gay rights and gay marriage really don't. And the electorate has definitely been electing more conservatives than liberals at federal, state and local levels. I think a single issue of gay marriage isn't going to be the definitive gauge for the argument as many conservatives and libertarians also support gay marriage.

 

[Esmeralda]

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?

I am sorry you are demanding we not mention conservatives, but the reality is just the opposite of your thesis: it is conservatism that has run its course in America. It is a true, deeply true, odd phenomenon that conservatives fail to see that reality. The liberal perspective is stronger than ever, in America and throughout the world. Conservatism is on the decline, especially in America.

For example: the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is spreading throughout America and the world. States all over the US are legalizing gay marriage, as are countries throughout the world. Rather than being on the decline, liberalism is spreading, not dying out.

The fact is that the more educated people are, the more liberal and progressive they are, so, as education spreads throughout the world, including in the States, liberalism spreads. It is not an ideology but a broadening of perspective that is the direct result of more knowledge about ourselves, our history, and our world.

I haven't demanded no mention of conservatism Esmerelda--only that it not be put in partisan terms by getting tangled up with political parties. And we aren't debating conservatism on this thread but it logically follows that if liberalism is falling out of favor, then people are embracing conservatism more. It is interesting that several members equate support for gays and gay marriage as evidence that liberalism is gaining favor. But nobody wants to talk about opposition to Obama vetoing Keystone, for Obama's immigration policy, for Obamacare and other matters that affect them directly. Gay rights and gay marriage really don't.

Liberalism is by no means, in America or elsewhere, falling out of favor. People are NOT embracing conservatism more. Opposition to one current president is not an indication of a sway in national or international favor toward conservatism. ~That is a very, very limited interpretation of any opposition to one president.

Interesting that in this post, you clearly suggest your true agenda is talking about Obama and not the wider topic of the country being more or less liberal. Interesting.

And you discount the discussion of acceptance of the gay lifestyle. Your OP indicates you want to talk about the decline of liberalism: in general. Yet you really want to talk about Obama. Those who are bringing up the issue of gay acceptance are people who are using that phenomenon as a true example of the spread of liberal ideology across the US: Obama has nothing to do with it.

At least be honest about what you want discussed.

 

[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?

I am sorry you are demanding we not mention conservatives, but the reality is just the opposite of your thesis: it is conservatism that has run its course in America. It is a true, deeply true, odd phenomenon that conservatives fail to see that reality. The liberal perspective is stronger than ever, in America and throughout the world. Conservatism is on the decline, especially in America.

For example: the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is spreading throughout America and the world. States all over the US are legalizing gay marriage, as are countries throughout the world. Rather than being on the decline, liberalism is spreading, not dying out.

The fact is that the more educated people are, the more liberal and progressive they are, so, as education spreads throughout the world, including in the States, liberalism spreads. It is not an ideology but a broadening of perspective that is the direct result of more knowledge about ourselves, our history, and our world.

I haven't demanded no mention of conservatism Esmerelda--only that it not be put in partisan terms by getting tangled up with political parties. And we aren't debating conservatism on this thread but it logically follows that if liberalism is falling out of favor, then people are embracing conservatism more. It is interesting that several members equate support for gays and gay marriage as evidence that liberalism is gaining favor. But nobody wants to talk about opposition to Obama vetoing Keystone, for Obama's immigration policy, for Obamacare and other matters that affect them directly. Gay rights and gay marriage really don't.

Liberalism is by no means, in America or elsewhere, falling out of favor. People are NOT embracing conservatism more. Opposition to one current president is not an indication of a sway in national or international favor toward conservatism. ~That is a very, very limited interpretation of any opposition to one president.

Interesting that in this post, you clearly suggest your true agenda is talking about Obama and not the wider topic of the country being more or less liberal. Interesting.

And you discount the discussion of acceptance of the gay lifestyle. Your OP indicates you want to talk about the decline of liberalism: in general. Yet you really want to talk about Obama. Those who are bringing up the issue of gay acceptance are people who are using that phenomenon as a true example of the spread of liberal ideology across the US: Obama has nothing to do with it.

At least be honest about what you want discussed.

I suggest that you re-read the guidelines for discussion of the topic, Esmerelda. It specifically specifies that the member's post be discussed and not the motive, intent, etc. of the member.

I have not discussed Obama in this thread and would have objected to anybody doing so. I have referenced Congressional effort to offset his executive orders because such illustrates what the thread topic is.

 

[Esmeralda]

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?

I am sorry you are demanding we not mention conservatives, but the reality is just the opposite of your thesis: it is conservatism that has run its course in America. It is a true, deeply true, odd phenomenon that conservatives fail to see that reality. The liberal perspective is stronger than ever, in America and throughout the world. Conservatism is on the decline, especially in America.

For example: the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is spreading throughout America and the world. States all over the US are legalizing gay marriage, as are countries throughout the world. Rather than being on the decline, liberalism is spreading, not dying out.

The fact is that the more educated people are, the more liberal and progressive they are, so, as education spreads throughout the world, including in the States, liberalism spreads. It is not an ideology but a broadening of perspective that is the direct result of more knowledge about ourselves, our history, and our world.

I haven't demanded no mention of conservatism Esmerelda--only that it not be put in partisan terms by getting tangled up with political parties. And we aren't debating conservatism on this thread but it logically follows that if liberalism is falling out of favor, then people are embracing conservatism more. It is interesting that several members equate support for gays and gay marriage as evidence that liberalism is gaining favor. But nobody wants to talk about opposition to Obama vetoing Keystone, for Obama's immigration policy, for Obamacare and other matters that affect them directly. Gay rights and gay marriage really don't.

Liberalism is by no means, in America or elsewhere, falling out of favor. People are NOT embracing conservatism more. Opposition to one current president is not an indication of a sway in national or international favor toward conservatism. ~That is a very, very limited interpretation of any opposition to one president.

Interesting that in this post, you clearly suggest your true agenda is talking about Obama and not the wider topic of the country being more or less liberal. Interesting.

And you discount the discussion of acceptance of the gay lifestyle. Your OP indicates you want to talk about the decline of liberalism: in general. Yet you really want to talk about Obama. Those who are bringing up the issue of gay acceptance are people who are using that phenomenon as a true example of the spread of liberal ideology across the US: Obama has nothing to do with it.

At least be honest about what you want discussed.

I suggest that you re-read the guidelines for discussion of the topic, Esmerelda. It specifically specifies that the member's post be discussed and not the motive, intent, etc. of the member.

I have not discussed Obama in this thread and would have objected to anybody doing so. I have referenced Congressional effort to offset his executive orders because such illustrates what the thread topic is.

I am not making any personal attacks on the OP. I am not discussing republicans or democrats. It is however, impossible to keep the focus on liberalism because you are, in the OP, assuming that liberalism is on the decline, which it isn't. Quite the opposite. And you did indeed discuss Obama, in the very post you wrote to me. I didn't bring up Obama: YOU DID.

And I'm done here because there is a clear intent in the OP to restrict discussion in favor of the OP's agenda, not a true discussion of the facts or of reality.

 

[Meathead]

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.

As with many things, politicis are cyclical. The liberals assume government to accomplish some goals which society feels are overdue. It is in the nature of the left to keep pushing beyond what may be practical, and in doing so embraces a far left agenda leaving behind those who initially supported them. What was once a rational platform becomes one which disenfranchises large swathes of the electorate.

Conservatives, by their nature, are not given to radicalization and will inevitably prevail. The 2014 mid-terms proved this, and the 2016 presidential election will result in more conservative leadership as the "Age of Obama" becomes a study of progressiveness gone awry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberalism has won so many victories over the decades, and so permanently installed the results of those victories into the fabric of America,

that even conservatives don't recognize them as liberalism anymore.

 

[Derideo_Te]

However we are four years past that Gallup poll. And the questions posed in the OP do apply to now instead of 2011. There will always be exceptions on various issues, but does the overall mood of the country seem to be embracing conservative concepts? Or liberal ones?

The Gallup poll provided by Mamooth is current through the end of 2013.

The low voter turnout in 2014 is not an indicator that the nation is "embracing conservative concepts".

 

[Meathead]

Liberalism has won so many victories over the decades, and so permanently installed the results of those victories into the fabric of America,

that even conservatives don't recognize them as liberalism anymore.

It's just that not everyone views government dependence and cities like Detroit as a victories.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

I am sorry you are demanding we not mention conservatives, but the reality is just the opposite of your thesis: it is conservatism that has run its course in America. It is a true, deeply true, odd phenomenon that conservatives fail to see that reality. The liberal perspective is stronger than ever, in America and throughout the world. Conservatism is on the decline, especially in America.

For example: the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is spreading throughout America and the world. States all over the US are legalizing gay marriage, as are countries throughout the world. Rather than being on the decline, liberalism is spreading, not dying out.

The fact is that the more educated people are, the more liberal and progressive they are, so, as education spreads throughout the world, including in the States, liberalism spreads. It is not an ideology but a broadening of perspective that is the direct result of more knowledge about ourselves, our history, and our world.

I haven't demanded no mention of conservatism Esmerelda--only that it not be put in partisan terms by getting tangled up with political parties. And we aren't debating conservatism on this thread but it logically follows that if liberalism is falling out of favor, then people are embracing conservatism more. It is interesting that several members equate support for gays and gay marriage as evidence that liberalism is gaining favor. But nobody wants to talk about opposition to Obama vetoing Keystone, opposition for Obama's immigration policy, opposition for Obamacare and other matters that affect them directly. Gay rights and gay marriage really don't. And the electorate has definitely been electing more conservatives than liberals at federal, state and local levels. I think a single issue of gay marriage isn't going to be the definitive gauge for the argument as many conservatives and libertarians also support gay marriage.

Per the initial OP Rules for this Debate;

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.​

But nobody wants to talk about opposition to Obama vetoing Keystone, opposition for Obama's immigration policy, opposition for Obamacare and other matters that affect them directly.

The OP deliberately excluded anyone criticizing specific political parties and personalities in the OP Rules and now the OP is violating the OP's own stated rules.

Either the rules apply to everyone or they don't.

Which is it?

I am looping in cereal_killer because this forum is in Beta mode and I would like to have a clarification on this specific point.

How narrowly or broadly must the OP Rules be interpreted?
Is the debate over if the OP violates their own stated Rules?
What degree of leeway is allowed?
Can we even have a debate without there being any leeway?
Who gets to decide what constitutes an acceptable degree of leeway?
Can the OP push the boundaries and still call out anyone else for pushing them too?
What degree of infraction would be incurred in this regard by either of the parties involved?

TYIA

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

As with many things, politicis are cyclical. The liberals assume government to accomplish some goals which society feels are overdue. It is in the nature of the left to keep pushing beyond what may be practical, and in doing so embraces a far left agenda leaving behind those who initially supported them. What was once a rational platform becomes one which disenfranchises large swathes of the electorate.

Conservatives, by their nature, are not given to radicalization and will inevitably prevail. The 2014 mid-terms proved this, and the 2016 presidential election will result in more conservative leadership as the "Age of Obama" becomes a study of progressiveness gone awry.

In this case though the cycle seems to be many decades old as liberalism as most of us have been defining it in this thread was born around the turn of the 20th Century and has been gaining momentum ever since. And I think it has only become what I think you probably mean as radicalized in the last twenty to thirty years. But maybe it is that very radicalization and the people's push back against it that is diminishing the appeal of liberalism if that indeed is what is happening.

But when you look at other great movements such as the Renaissance and the Reformation , they also spanned long periods of history and they changed the world. The philosophy of freedom that inspired the founding of this nation wasn't an overnight burst of inspiration. And if the spirit of humankind does falter along the way but eventually manages to get it right, we can hope that we are rejecting modern day Progressivism and are returning to the reasoned and practical and liberating concepts that proved their virtues.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberalism has won so many victories over the decades, and so permanently installed the results of those victories into the fabric of America,

that even conservatives don't recognize them as liberalism anymore.

It's just that not everyone views government dependence and cities like Detroit as a victories.

Which, if liberalism is losing favor, it could be because people look at what it has done to cities like Detroit while more conservative policies have improved things elsewhere.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

As with many things, politicis are cyclical. The liberals assume government to accomplish some goals which society feels are overdue. It is in the nature of the left to keep pushing beyond what may be practical, and in doing so embraces a far left agenda leaving behind those who initially supported them. What was once a rational platform becomes one which disenfranchises large swathes of the electorate.

Conservatives, by their nature, are not given to radicalization and will inevitably prevail. The 2014 mid-terms proved this, and the 2016 presidential election will result in more conservative leadership as the "Age of Obama" becomes a study of progressiveness gone awry.

In this case though the cycle seems to be many decades old as liberalism as most of us have been defining it in this thread was born around the turn of the 20th Century and has been gaining momentum ever since. And I think it has only become what I think you probably mean as radicalized in the last twenty to thirty years. But maybe it is that very radicalization and the people's push back against it that is diminishing the appeal of liberalism if that indeed is what is happening.

But when you look at other great movements such as the Renaissance and the Reformation , they also spanned long periods of history and they changed the world. The philosophy of freedom that inspired the founding of this nation wasn't an overnight burst of inspiration. And if the spirit of humankind does falter along the way but eventually manages to get it right, we can hope that we are rejecting modern day Progressivism and are returning to the reasoned and practical and liberating concepts that proved their virtues.

The terms liberal and liberty both have their roots in the Latin term for freedom. The concept of liberalism has been around for thousands of years.It is fallacious to try and ascribe freedom to repressive concepts like conservatism. If it had been left to conservatives this nation would still be under the English monarchy.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

As with many things, politicis are cyclical. The liberals assume government to accomplish some goals which society feels are overdue. It is in the nature of the left to keep pushing beyond what may be practical, and in doing so embraces a far left agenda leaving behind those who initially supported them. What was once a rational platform becomes one which disenfranchises large swathes of the electorate.

Conservatives, by their nature, are not given to radicalization and will inevitably prevail. The 2014 mid-terms proved this, and the 2016 presidential election will result in more conservative leadership as the "Age of Obama" becomes a study of progressiveness gone awry.

In this case though the cycle seems to be many decades old as liberalism as most of us have been defining it in this thread was born around the turn of the 20th Century and has been gaining momentum ever since. And I think it has only become what I think you probably mean as radicalized in the last twenty to thirty years. But maybe it is that very radicalization and the people's push back against it that is diminishing the appeal of liberalism if that indeed is what is happening.

But when you look at other great movements such as the Renaissance and the Reformation , they also spanned long periods of history and they changed the world. The philosophy of freedom that inspired the founding of this nation wasn't an overnight burst of inspiration. And if the spirit of humankind does falter along the way but eventually manages to get it right, we can hope that we are rejecting modern day Progressivism and are returning to the reasoned and practical and liberating concepts that proved their virtues.

The terms liberal and liberty both have their roots in the Latin term for freedom. The concept of liberalism has been around for thousands of years.It is fallacious to try and ascribe freedom to repressive concepts like conservatism. If it had been left to conservatives this nation would still be under the English monarchy.

Again I won't engage in a battle of semantics and definitions. Liberal and liberalism for purposes of this discussion is the concept as most people define it and use it in modern day America. It is liberalism as is synonymous with statism, Progressivism, political class, leftism as those terms are most commonly understood in modern day America.

A substantial number of Americans have embraced modern day liberalism for some time now, but the thesis of the OP asks the question of whether liberalism is losing its appeal. Whether it has worn itself out. Those who believe it is as strong and vital as ever should make their case for that. One or two have done so on this thread. Those who believe liberalism is fading in appeal and influence should make their case for that.

Those who prefer to discuss the shortcomings or evils or whatever of conservatism or whether it is losing favor could also make that an interesting discussion, but should start a separate thread for that as that would be a different topic.