Liberalism vs Leftist...

[Procrustes Stretched]

Liberalism is an overarching philosophy, which in the political sphere represents the best in American ideals. In colonial times in America when American colonists were often bigoted and narrow minded there sprung up a liberalism that fed the culture which developed into an independent American identity.

Leftism is a narrow political label which rightly is attached to narrow minded and bigoted leftists (just as far right wing is apolitical label rightly attached to narrow minded and bigoted right wingers).

One problem I have with the average joe/jane nitiwts in this country is that they often mistakenly equate leftism with liberalism. This is the kind of idiocy populists like O'Reilly. Michael Moore and Limbaugh propagate in order to sell shit to the American public.

Just as the far right has ruined the term liberal in the minds of most people, it has finally ruined the term conservative in their minds.

America has more to fear from the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/fear-brokers-Thomas-J-McIntyre/dp/0807032476"]Fear Brokers [/ame]of the far right than from any left wing nitwit, afterall when was the last time a truly leftist politician or spokesman got anything they believed in shoved down the throats of the American public?

I can only name two truly leftist politicians who have been elected to the US House ... Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich and neither of these elected officails has produced anything (that I can recall) that has affected the lives of the average joe who so fears leftism.

So maybe leftisms is just a strawman/boogyman created by the far right to keep you average joes and janes all wet and stupid.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

fact: There are far more effective right wing blowhards than there are far left ones. What does that say about the American public and the far left?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I don't like political labels. Why someone would want to be narrowly confined in a political box, is amazing to me.

The "far right" is no government at all. I don't know anyone in the GOP, or in any other party or office, that believes we should have no government at all.

If you want to get technical, most people fall into the "liberalism" category. It is the degree(s) of said "liberalism," that is the distinguishing factor. I don't agree with your post. You project the same mindset that you speak out against. That is usually the case, for those who love to wrap themselves in political labels.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Liberalism developed as a rejection of any kind of statism, be it monarchy or feudalism, and a respect for personal liberty. Classical liberalism was closer to modern-day Libertarianism rather than modern liberalism. However, in the early to mid-20th century the label of liberal was essentially hijacked by progressives, and that's pretty much where it stands now. Liberalism today is essentially interchangeable with progressivism.

 

[Ringel05]

Nice try at obfuscation and misdirection. First identify that both extreme sides are narrowminded and bigoted (in this you are absolutely correct). At the same time provide a brief but skewed description of liberalism and leftism (look up classic, modern and neoliberalism & the progession of these definitions up to modern times). Finally (now that readers think you are fair minded and unbiased) using a subtile form of fear mongering (America has more to fear from the Fear Brokers) accuse one side of being worse than the other(conservatives in this case).
Of course you tipped your hand when you wrote:
So maybe leftisms is just a strawman/boogyman created by the far right to keep you average joes and janes all wet and stupid.
And BTW, last time I checked there were far more than two "leftist" politicians in Washington. I am an old JFK style democrat (which by todays standards makes me either a Blue Dog Democrat or a moderate Republican) and I have watched the "leftists", (calling themselves Progessives now - nice way to hide what one truly is, don't you think?), slowely take control of the Democratic party over the last couple of decades.

Like I said, nice try, rather amaturish but nice try anyway

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I don't like political labels. Why someone would want to be narrowly confined in a political box, is amazing to me.

The "far right" is no government at all. I don't know anyone in the GOP, or in any other party or office, that believes we should have no government at all.

If you want to get technical, most people fall into the "liberalism" category. It is the degree(s) of said "liberalism," that is the distinguishing factor. I don't agree with your post. You project the same mindset that you speak out against. That is usually the case, for those who love to wrap themselves in political labels.

If you could take your head out of your ass for a few minutes you'd see where I use 'liberal' as a philosophical label and not a political label.

reading and comprehension is tough when you're an expert at ecerything but what you're involved in.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Liberalism developed as a rejection of any kind of statism, be it monarchy or feudalism, and a respect for personal liberty. Classical liberalism was closer to modern-day Libertarianism rather than modern liberalism. However, in the early to mid-20th century the label of liberal was essentially hijacked by progressives, and that's pretty much where it stands now. Liberalism today is essentially interchangeable with progressivism.

The age of enlightenment and the American revolution were gifts of liberalism. \Of course after the American revolution the demoratic mob with greedy conservative shills turned it's back on the liberal principles of the founding fathers and went into evangelical nitwit shit and land speculation amd other fucking 'free' market nonsense. they almost ruined what we were given.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Liberalism today is essentially interchangeable with progressivism.

nope. pay attention. liberal progressivism is not liberalism.

'Reagan's revolution made leftists and progressives run away from the label liberal. True liberals never ran. Principles matter to us---always have

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Liberalism developed as a rejection of any kind of statism, be it monarchy or feudalism, and a respect for personal liberty. Classical liberalism was closer to modern-day Libertarianism rather than modern liberalism. However, in the early to mid-20th century the label of liberal was essentially hijacked by progressives, and that's pretty much where it stands now. Liberalism today is essentially interchangeable with progressivism.

The age of enlightenment and the American revolution were gifts of liberalism. \Of course after the American revolution the demoratic mob with greedy conservative shills turned it's back on the liberal principles of the founding fathers and went into evangelical nitwit shit and land speculation amd other fucking 'free' market nonsense. they almost ruined what we were given.

Gifts of classical liberalism, which adheres to free markets.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Liberalism today is essentially interchangeable with progressivism.

nope. pay attention. liberal progressivism is not liberalism.

'Reagan's revolution made leftists and progressives run away from the label liberal. True liberals never ran. Principles matter to us---always have

Modern liberalism is closer to progressivism than it is to classical liberalism.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nice try at obfuscation and misdirection. First identify that both extreme sides are narrowminded and bigoted (in this you are absolutely correct). At the same time provide a brief but skewed description of liberalism and leftism (look up classic, modern and neoliberalism & the progession of these definitions up to modern times). Finally (now that readers think you are fair minded and unbiased) using a subtile form of fear mongering (America has more to fear from the Fear Brokers) accuse one side of being worse than the other(conservatives in this case).
Of course you tipped your hand when you wrote:
So maybe leftisms is just a strawman/boogyman created by the far right to keep you average joes and janes all wet and stupid.

yawn.

try harder next time.

And BTW, last time I checked there were far more than two "leftist" politicians in Washington. I am an old JFK style democrat (which by todays standards makes me either a Blue Dog Democrat or a moderate Republican) and I have watched the "leftists", (calling themselves Progessives now - nice way to hide what one truly is, don't you think?), slowely take control of the Democratic party over the last couple of decades.

Like I said, nice try, rather amaturish but nice try anyway

style JFK democrat? hahahahahahaha... you still support agendas like the Space Ppogram and Vietnam war...both huge revenue drains? what about JFK's social agenda? are you clueless?

PAy attention, I am on record despising most progressivism (right and left...populism too) and have n-e-v-e-r called myself a progressive.

Liberal Republicans used to run the GOP and more than a few of them were supporters of \JFK. I used to admire the GOP.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Liberalism developed as a rejection of any kind of statism, be it monarchy or feudalism, and a respect for personal liberty. Classical liberalism was closer to modern-day Libertarianism rather than modern liberalism. However, in the early to mid-20th century the label of liberal was essentially hijacked by progressives, and that's pretty much where it stands now. Liberalism today is essentially interchangeable with progressivism.

The age of enlightenment and the American revolution were gifts of liberalism. \Of course after the American revolution the demoratic mob with greedy conservative shills turned it's back on the liberal principles of the founding fathers and went into evangelical nitwit shit and land speculation amd other fucking 'free' market nonsense. they almost ruined what we were given.

Gifts of classical liberalism, which adheres to free markets.

Free markets have a place. Today's cons and libertines try and portray a free market without controls (out of context with Smith's understanding of society and markets) as a panacea when in reality that type of thing is a cancer

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The age of enlightenment and the American revolution were gifts of liberalism. \Of course after the American revolution the demoratic mob with greedy conservative shills turned it's back on the liberal principles of the founding fathers and went into evangelical nitwit shit and land speculation amd other fucking 'free' market nonsense. they almost ruined what we were given.

Gifts of classical liberalism, which adheres to free markets.

Free markets have a place. Today's cons and libertines try and portray a free market without controls (out of context with Smith's understanding of society and markets) as a panacea when in reality that type of thing is a cancer

A free market is far from a cancer, it's the answer to our problems. Government interventions give us malinvestment and recessions, whereas a free market would efficiently allocate resources.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Liberalism today is essentially interchangeable with progressivism.

nope. pay attention. liberal progressivism is not liberalism.

'Reagan's revolution made leftists and progressives run away from the label liberal. True liberals never ran. Principles matter to us---always have

Modern liberalism is closer to progressivism than it is to classical liberalism.

I disagree. Redefining what liberalism is does not make it so. Liberalism as a philosophical stance is what it is. Modern Progressivism is more like populism by another name.


I find that people who hang out on the internet(s) too often get hung up on periphial issues like the exact definitions of the types of liberalism, when in reality those definitoions are anything but exact in definition.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

nope. pay attention. liberal progressivism is not liberalism.

'Reagan's revolution made leftists and progressives run away from the label liberal. True liberals never ran. Principles matter to us---always have

Modern liberalism is closer to progressivism than it is to classical liberalism.

I disagree. Redefining what liberalism is does not make it so. Liberalism as a philosophical stance is what it is. Modern Progressivism is more like populism by another name.


I find that people who hang out on the internet(s) too often get hung up on periphial issues like the exact definitions of the types of liberalism, when in reality those definitoions are anything but exact in definition.

Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, and Henry Hazlitt were three of the biggest proponents of classical liberalism in the 20th century. Modern day liberalism is of the FDR or Wilsonian progressive sort. As I said before, liberalism came about opposed to statism of any sort, which is clearly not the case any longer.

 

[PeterS]

Liberalism developed as a rejection of any kind of statism, be it monarchy or feudalism, and a respect for personal liberty. Classical liberalism was closer to modern-day Libertarianism rather than modern liberalism. However, in the early to mid-20th century the label of liberal was essentially hijacked by progressives, and that's pretty much where it stands now. Liberalism today is essentially interchangeable with progressivism.

And to reject a monarchy and declare yourself your own sovereign wasn't progressive? You are talking about one of the most progressive acts in the history of Mankind. Liberalism has always been progressive and when it ceases to be so it won't be liberalism but conservatism that we are talking about won't it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Liberalism developed as a rejection of any kind of statism, be it monarchy or feudalism, and a respect for personal liberty. Classical liberalism was closer to modern-day Libertarianism rather than modern liberalism. However, in the early to mid-20th century the label of liberal was essentially hijacked by progressives, and that's pretty much where it stands now. Liberalism today is essentially interchangeable with progressivism.

And to reject a monarchy and declare yourself your own sovereign wasn't progressive? You are talking about one of the most progressive acts in the history of Mankind. Liberalism has always been progressive and when it ceases to be so it won't be liberalism but conservatism that we are talking about won't it.

Classical liberalism was very progressive. However, the political ideology of progressivism isn't progressive at all. Progressivism isn't a step forward at all, it's a step towards the old system of statism.

 

[PeterS]

Modern liberalism is closer to progressivism than it is to classical liberalism.

I disagree. Redefining what liberalism is does not make it so. Liberalism as a philosophical stance is what it is. Modern Progressivism is more like populism by another name.


I find that people who hang out on the internet(s) too often get hung up on periphial issues like the exact definitions of the types of liberalism, when in reality those definitoions are anything but exact in definition.

Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, and Henry Hazlitt were three of the biggest proponents of classical liberalism in the 20th century. Modern day liberalism is of the FDR or Wilsonian progressive sort. As I said before, liberalism came about opposed to statism of any sort, which is clearly not the case any longer.

Liberalism is centered around the principle that the individual is their own Sovereign which places the individual as owner of government. Explain how, when government acts to protect the quality of life of those who own it, it is a violation of classical intent.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Liberalism developed as a rejection of any kind of statism, be it monarchy or feudalism, and a respect for personal liberty. Classical liberalism was closer to modern-day Libertarianism rather than modern liberalism. However, in the early to mid-20th century the label of liberal was essentially hijacked by progressives, and that's pretty much where it stands now. Liberalism today is essentially interchangeable with progressivism.

And to reject a monarchy and declare yourself your own sovereign wasn't progressive? You are talking about one of the most progressive acts in the history of Mankind. Liberalism has always been progressive and when it ceases to be so it won't be liberalism but conservatism that we are talking about won't it.

Progressivism like Justice is blind---blind to the result. Liberalism is tempered by rationality. Progress as in advancement is not always a result of progressive politics.

Being a liberal means one would never think twice about an impulse to shout down an opponent or to try and silence opposition.

Intolerance is a hallmark of America's progressive movement and that my dear nitwit is anthema to liberalism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I disagree. Redefining what liberalism is does not make it so. Liberalism as a philosophical stance is what it is. Modern Progressivism is more like populism by another name.


I find that people who hang out on the internet(s) too often get hung up on periphial issues like the exact definitions of the types of liberalism, when in reality those definitoions are anything but exact in definition.

Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, and Henry Hazlitt were three of the biggest proponents of classical liberalism in the 20th century. Modern day liberalism is of the FDR or Wilsonian progressive sort. As I said before, liberalism came about opposed to statism of any sort, which is clearly not the case any longer.

Liberalism is centered around the principle that the individual is their own Sovereign which places the individual as owner of government. Explain how, when government acts to protect the quality of life of those who own it, it is a violation of classical intent.

Because it must violate the right of others to keep the fruits of their labor.