And per the title....that means not being Americans.
Seems to raise hackles when I point out that
Liberalism is simply one more iteration of the totalitarian political persuasion.
And, yes, I do mean that
Liberalism belongs in the same family with communism, socialism, Nazism, etc.
And no, I don't mean that Liberalism is about gulags and concentration camps, FDR's efforts toward the Japanese notwithstanding, because the American version is suffused through, and extenuated by, America's history.
"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but
the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Jonah Goldberg
Modern Liberalism is not guided by such American concepts as unalienable rights.
Liberalism, and institutions pervaded by its tenets, accept the
silencing of those with opposing views.
Yes, they do.
Most especially universities, the monasteries of Liberalism....as you will find below.
1. " Marquette Philosophy Instructor: “Gay Rights” Can’t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students
2. A student ... in a philosophy class (“Theory of Ethics”), and the instructor (one Cheryl Abbate) was attempting to apply a philosophical text to modern political controversies. ...She listed some issues on the board, and came to “gay rights.”
She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”
3. The student, a conservative who disagrees with some of the gay lobby’s notions of “gay rights” (such as gay marriage).... told Abbate that if she dismisses an entire argument because of her personal views, that sets a terrible precedent for the class.
4. The student argued against gay marriage and gay adoption, ... Abbate made some plausible arguments to the student — pointing out that single people can adopt a child, so why not a gay couple? She even asked the student for research showing that children of gay parents do worse than children of straight, married parents. The student said he would provide it.
5. Abbate explained that “some opinions are not appropriate, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions” and then went on to ask “do you know if anyone in your class is homosexual?” And further “don’t you think it would be offensive to them” if some student raised his hand and challenged gay marriage?
The point being, apparently that any gay classmates should not be subjected to hearing any disagreement with their presumed policy views.
6. .... as the student said that it was
his right as an American citizen to make arguments against gay marriage. Abbate replied that “
you don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments.”
She further said she would “take offense” if the student said that women can’t serve in particular roles. And she added that somebody who is homosexual would experience similar offense if somebody opposed gay marriage in class.
She went on “In this class, homophobic comments, racist comments, will not be tolerated.”
She then invited the student to drop the class."
Marquette Warrior Marquette Philosophy Instructor Gay Rights Can t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students
Liberalism is what the United States of America was founded on. We are liberals to varying degrees.
maybe you need to take a few adult education classes?
The modern term 'Liberal' was stolen by communist John Dewey...he changed 'Socialist' to Liberal.
But you know that, don't you.
The nation was founded on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government....conservative principles.
'Fess up.
The intellectual dishonesty of liberalism conservatism and politics Washington Times Communities
LOS ANGELES, November 29, 2013 — According to an AP-GfK poll conducted last month, most Americans don’t trust each other. Only a third are inclined to put their faith in fellow Americans. We do not assume the best in each other anymore, and this is evidenced even and especially in the workings of our government.
This reflects the disintegration of the middle in American politics, the predominance of ideology and the absence of a truly centrist way of thinking.
In an environment where everybody assumes everyone else is wrong about everything, nothing gets done. This is the way conservatives feel about liberals, and vice-versa. It is the vanity of ideology, the disregard of practicality. Yet the thinkers that both sides trace their intellectual heritage to were much more balanced in their viewpoints than are their modern acolytes.
A famous economist wrote that the interests of large corporations are almost always opposed to those of the public, saying, “The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution … It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.”
To some conservatives this might sound like the anti-capitalist rhetoric of a modern-liberal. But this was the sentiment of Adam Smith (1723-1790), father of classical economics, the fundamental figure in the history of American free-market philosophy.
Another economist wrote that taxes should never be raised in a weak economy. That’s a point of view some progressives might expect to hear from conservatives who don’t want to pay for the social safety net or who don’t want to see the rich bothered for another penny. But it was the conclusion of John Maynard Keynes (1843-1946), the intellectual ancestor of today’s progressive economists.
There are many small ironies like those to be found in a thorough exploration of the thinkers who have shaped modern liberalism and conservatism. Karl Marx (1818-1883), for instance, was opposed to international elites steering the nations towards one world governance just as modern conservatives are — though they identify this trend towards international governance with Marx’s thinking. Art Laffer, current conservative economist who helped inspire supply side economics, opposed cutting social security and unemployment benefits during weak economic times, a constant theme among today’s liberals.
What this reveals to us is that history, hence reality, is more nuanced and complicated than the simplistic philosophies we identify with on the left and the right. That is because our philosophies are not philosophy at all, but rather ideologies, and ideology by nature has little to do with the pursuit of truth. It leads neither to a clear headed appreciation of history, nor to a hard-nosed understanding of the problems of the present.
Our founding fathers felt the same way about ideology, which John Adams described as “the science of idiots.” This is why George Washington did not believe in political parties. If you define yourself as a liberal and are serious about always being liberal, then you are certain to be wrong whenever the truth is conservative, and vice-versa. If you are chiefly concerned about the difference between right and left, you are likely to miss the differences between right and wrong.
Let us embrace therefore the ideology of non-ideology which, if it needs a label, we might call centrism.
Centrism so defined is not the practice of consistently splitting the difference between left and right. But if liberalism and conservatism as political attitudes represent the forces of change and consistency in the forces of society and government, then centrism simply acknowledges that there is a proper balance between both, and that truth is in that balance.
In this sense, Adam Smith and the founding fathers were neither liberal nor conservative. They were centrist, and more concerned with objective metrics of progress then they were in ideology.
To have a centrist outlook is to frame issues in this way, seeking the balance, and not measuring political progress according to how much things are either changed, made or kept as they were. This frees us to have a political discourse in America predicated on determining what is morally correct in our politics rather than on what satisfies the prejudices of one side or the other.
Now we might correctly argue that the two sides do speak a great deal about morality and what is and is not moral in politics and society. But our conception of the moral is tethered to the assumptions of our ideologies when it ought to be the other way around.
Liberals often assume that a redistributionist government is a reflection of a generous society, and seek after ways to make government more powerful in its ability to redistribute. But if the point of generosity is to enable people to have more, and by incentivizing dependency and discouraging production we ensure that people have less, then is a larger more aggressive government compatible with generosity?
Conservatives take the view that smaller governments lead to freedom, and strive to make government smaller so that people can be free. Freedom is a moral good, inasmuch as we must find happiness in our own ways. But if a smaller government leaves us vulnerable to exploitation, poverty, crime and unhealthiness, does it make us free? Or might we be freer with a larger state with the power to secure that freedom?
I am not taking a side here, but political argument should be waged on firmer ground, where the imperative of truth exceeds that of ideology.
A comedic version of Michelle Malkin. What say you OP?
yet EVERY ONE of her zany threads are like this 
Why can't OP ever use standard American English grammar? 
