When is it good to be a liberal?

[Political Junky]

I just wonder how liberalism has changed. It always stood for freedom and equal rights. At its beginning it was representing equal rights for Bourgeoisie against the aristocracy, monarchs. Then it evolved into supporting equal rights for everyone. Social justice and liberty was always at its core and still remains.

Unless you listen to the right who potray liberals as branch of marxism, then of course.

It seems that you are perplexed by people describing modern liberalism as marxism. Here is a quote from your own post:

"At its beginning it was representing equal rights for Bourgeoisie against the aristocracy"

Conservatives in the 18th century were royalists. They wanted to remain under the Brits.

 

[sparky]

 

[ihopehefails]

I for one am demanding women can go on beaches without a chaperone.

That would be very liberal of you just as it would be very liberal of someone else to not participate in that ritual.

 

[Cuyo]

Honestly, I think most people are liberal in their politics in the old 19th century kind of way. Even Ronald Reagen noticed that liberalism changed in the 1930s which was the reason he left the democratic party.

So I am asking, Isn't their something good about being liberal at least being liberal the way it use to mean about a hundred years ago?

Look up the definition of pluralism... It's what liberals should be, and I think it embodies "good." ... Not sure how you could be baffled by your own question.

Usually it boils down to this, with a few exceptions:

Liberals = people's rights...
Conservatives = property and banking rights...

Here's a better question... What's "Christ-like" about modern conservatism?

I don't know other than the fact that a lot of conservatives go to church but what does that have to do with their political identity? I'm trying to figure what does your own personal choice in a religion have to do with politics.

BTW, I drive Fords. Does that make me a liberal, conservative, or libertarian?

I think he's referring to the irony that many Christians, particularly more active practicing Christians, tend to be conservative/republican when the fundamentals of that manifesto are in direct contradiction with the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Kex]

I just wonder how liberalism has changed. It always stood for freedom and equal rights. At its beginning it was representing equal rights for Bourgeoisie against the aristocracy, monarchs. Then it evolved into supporting equal rights for everyone. Social justice and liberty was always at its core and still remains.

Unless you listen to the right who potray liberals as branch of marxism, then of course.

It seems that you are perplexed by people describing modern liberalism as marxism. Here is a quote from your own post:

"At its beginning it was representing equal rights for Bourgeoisie against the aristocracy"

Not confused at all. It was representing bourgeoisie because frankly nobody gave a shit about farmers and working men. Ones the businessmen were given the power(starting with French Revolution) they went on to exploit workers and farmers, then Liberalism shifted to be more representative of workers, unions.

 

[ihopehefails]

Look up the definition of pluralism... It's what liberals should be, and I think it embodies "good." ... Not sure how you could be baffled by your own question.

Usually it boils down to this, with a few exceptions:

Liberals = people's rights...
Conservatives = property and banking rights...

Here's a better question... What's "Christ-like" about modern conservatism?

I don't know other than the fact that a lot of conservatives go to church but what does that have to do with their political identity? I'm trying to figure what does your own personal choice in a religion have to do with politics.

BTW, I drive Fords. Does that make me a liberal, conservative, or libertarian?

I think he's referring to the irony that many Christians, particularly more active practicing Christians, tend to be conservative/republican when the fundamentals of that manifesto are in direct contradiction with the teachings of Jesus.

I'm trying to figure what your own personal philosophy about giving has to do with your own political philosophy? What does that have to do with issues around federlism, limited government, certain questionable laws, and any other legal procedure the government can take.

 

[ihopehefails]

I just wonder how liberalism has changed. It always stood for freedom and equal rights. At its beginning it was representing equal rights for Bourgeoisie against the aristocracy, monarchs. Then it evolved into supporting equal rights for everyone. Social justice and liberty was always at its core and still remains.

Unless you listen to the right who potray liberals as branch of marxism, then of course.

It seems that you are perplexed by people describing modern liberalism as marxism. Here is a quote from your own post:

"At its beginning it was representing equal rights for Bourgeoisie against the aristocracy"

Not confused at all. It was representing bourgeoisie because frankly nobody gave a shit about farmers and working men. Ones the businessmen were given the power(starting with French Revolution) they went on to exploit workers and farmers, then Liberalism shifted to be more representative of workers, unions.

That little story about the french revolution comes right out of the communist manifesto. In fact, it sounded like you paraprhased it. Have you read it lately?

 

[Kex]

It seems that you are perplexed by people describing modern liberalism as marxism. Here is a quote from your own post:

"At its beginning it was representing equal rights for Bourgeoisie against the aristocracy"

Not confused at all. It was representing bourgeoisie because frankly nobody gave a shit about farmers and working men. Ones the businessmen were given the power(starting with French Revolution) they went on to exploit workers and farmers, then Liberalism shifted to be more representative of workers, unions.

That little story about the french revolution comes right out of the communist manifesto. In fact, it sounded like you paraprhased it. Have you read it lately?

The main idea for communism was given birth with Paris Commune, read on it. Tie French Revolution as a whole to communism is a bit ridiculous.

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't know other than the fact that a lot of conservatives go to church but what does that have to do with their political identity? .

Do you needs the dots joined for ya?

 

[Dr Gregg]

It's always good to be a liberal.

You wouldn't know a liberal if one jumped off the 4th floor balcony and landed on you. You're a leftwing fanatical sheep and idiot parrot. You and a half dozen other members here could be interposed. You all say the same stupid shit.

This is why I call people like Gunny a troll, as this would fit many of the people like him that spout the same talking points over and over again. thanks for the laugh

 

[Cuyo]

I just wonder how liberalism has changed. It always stood for freedom and equal rights. At its beginning it was representing equal rights for Bourgeoisie against the aristocracy, monarchs. Then it evolved into supporting equal rights for everyone. Social justice and liberty was always at its core and still remains.

Unless you listen to the right who potray liberals as branch of marxism, then of course.

I'd have to dig up the old PolSci textbook to help you there, but I'll give it a shot.

Essentially the country grew to a population and economy so large it became incompatible with classic liberalism. Our entire economy is run on what's called the "goldsmith method"- A lot of people don't really understand what "Economic expansion" is. Put very simply, it's more money in circulation than what really exists in any tangible backing. All the funds in the banks in the country don't really "exist" in the traditional sense; In other words, not every account holder could possibly withdrawal all of their money from the bank, because it's not really there. It's been lended out to others. Only a small reserve, perhaps 10-20%, is actually still in the bank.

Hence, when a bank run takes place, there is hysteria when people realize their money is not there. This sort of hysteria helped to feed the great depression; When people hear about somebody losing their funds in a failed bank, they run to their own bank in panic to withdrawal their money. Of course, by that time, their own bank doesn't have the funds to give that person; round and round we go.

This is the reason for FDIC, to prevent bank runs. Other banking regulations exist to prevent institutions from becoming "Too big to fail"(sound familiar?), largely ignored and reversed over the last 30 years.

Of course, this is only one example and even the example I've just given is put in very simple terms. But that's the real reason for a lot of "Socialist" policies we have in this country, to maintain stability, or at least a perception of stability that prevents hysteria.

And yes, those calling modern Liberals "Marxists" and suggest somehow that the intended ends of any government program is control, New World Order and all that noise... They're generally desperately wanting for understanding.

 

[Cuyo]

I'm trying to figure what your own personal philosophy about giving has to do with your own political philosophy? What does that have to do with issues around federlism, limited government, certain questionable laws, and any other legal procedure the government can take.

You seem like an intelligent guy (I'm serious, don't get offended). Many Christians, and the more fundamental they are the more this becomes true: They don't know jack shit about politics. They just know that the evil Democrats like to kill babies for fun.

In this way, particularly poorer Christians, vote consistently against their own best interests. They're just kind of tricked into it; it's actually kind of sad.

 

[Kex]

I just wonder how liberalism has changed. It always stood for freedom and equal rights. At its beginning it was representing equal rights for Bourgeoisie against the aristocracy, monarchs. Then it evolved into supporting equal rights for everyone. Social justice and liberty was always at its core and still remains.

Unless you listen to the right who potray liberals as branch of marxism, then of course.

I'd have to dig up the old PolSci textbook to help you there, but I'll give it a shot.

Essentially the country grew to a population and economy so large it became incompatible with classic liberalism. Our entire economy is run on what's called the "goldsmith method"- A lot of people don't really understand what "Economic expansion" is. Put very simply, it's more money in circulation than what really exists in any tangible backing. All the funds in the banks in the country don't really "exist" in the traditional sense; In other words, not every account holder could possibly withdrawal all of their money from the bank, because it's not really there. It's been lended out to others. Only a small reserve, perhaps 10-20%, is actually still in the bank.

Hence, when a bank run takes place, there is hysteria when people realize their money is not there. This sort of hysteria helped to feed the great depression; When people hear about somebody losing their funds in a failed bank, they run to their own bank in panic to withdrawal their money. Of course, by that time, their own bank doesn't have the funds to give that person; round and round we go.

This is the reason for FDIC, to prevent bank runs. Other banking regulations exist to prevent institutions from becoming "Too big to fail"(sound familiar?), largely ignored and reversed over the last 30 years.

Of course, this is only one example and even the example I've just given is put in very simple terms. But that's the real reason for a lot of "Socialist" policies we have in this country, to maintain stability, or at least a perception of stability that prevents hysteria.

And yes, those calling modern Liberals "Marxists" and suggest somehow that the intended ends of any government program is control, New World Order and all that noise... They're generally desperately wanting for understanding.

I wish the capital on hands was at 10-15%, from what I've read it was closer to 5%.

However, your post didn't make much sense to me.

 

[Cuyo]

I wish the capital on hands was at 10-15%, from what I've read it was closer to 5%.

However, your post didn't make much sense to me.

I apologize, I have failed.

"Liberalism" made a move further left of the spectrum because the country became too large to support Classic Liberalism with any sort of stability. More central government became necessary to maintain order in a growing economy.

I did digress quite a bit there, didn't i.

 

[Kex]

I wish the capital on hands was at 10-15%, from what I've read it was closer to 5%.

However, your post didn't make much sense to me.

I apologize, I have failed.

"Liberalism" made a move further left of the spectrum because the country became too large to support Classic Liberalism with any sort of stability. More central government became necessary to maintain order in a growing economy.

I did digress quite a bit there, didn't i.

You did. However, more government control is quite subjective. If we compare to the WWII control or Vietnam War control the government moved towards reducing it's powers.

 

[Cuyo]

I wish the capital on hands was at 10-15%, from what I've read it was closer to 5%.

However, your post didn't make much sense to me.

I apologize, I have failed.

"Liberalism" made a move further left of the spectrum because the country became too large to support Classic Liberalism with any sort of stability. More central government became necessary to maintain order in a growing economy.

I did digress quite a bit there, didn't i.

You did. However, more government control is quite subjective. If we compare to the WWII control or Vietnam War control the government moved towards reducing it's powers.

I assume you mean the state of the union during respective timeframes, and not the handling of the wars themselves.

The New Deal took place before our involvement in WWII. This is when we saw the beginnings of Social Security, farm subsidies, FHA, FDIC, Glass-Steagall, and the first meaningful "Shovel-ready" work programs for unemployed Americans. After the war Johnson expanded some of these programs and made further expansions of federal government.

It's true that Nixon worked to reduce the federal government, but lets put it this way: If 1 is left, and 10 is right, we moved from 9 to 3 under FDR; then down to 2 under Johnson, and back up to maybe 4 under Nixon.

Now after 30 years of Reaganomics, we're somewhere near 7 or 8, and IMHO the state of affairs is proving once again that we are too large to maintain civilization in a laissez-faire system.

 

[Kex]

I apologize, I have failed.

"Liberalism" made a move further left of the spectrum because the country became too large to support Classic Liberalism with any sort of stability. More central government became necessary to maintain order in a growing economy.

I did digress quite a bit there, didn't i.

You did. However, more government control is quite subjective. If we compare to the WWII control or Vietnam War control the government moved towards reducing it's powers.

I assume you mean the state of the union during respective timeframes, and not the handling of the wars themselves.

The New Deal took place before our involvement in WWII. This is when we saw the beginnings of Social Security, farm subsidies, FHA, FDIC, Glass-Steagall, and the first meaningful "Shovel-ready" work programs for unemployed Americans. After the war Johnson expanded some of these programs and made further expansions of federal government.

It's true that Nixon worked to reduce the federal government, but lets put it this way: If 1 is left, and 10 is right, we moved from 9 to 3 under FDR; then down to 2 under Johnson, and back up to maybe 4 under Nixon.

Now after 30 years of Reaganomics, we're somewhere near 7 or 8, and IMHO the state of affairs is proving once again that we are too large to maintain civilization in a laissez-faire system.

Oh, no doubt about that. My point was that the federal government actually reduced it's strings on society and on economy as a whole alot from 1940s to todays. And right now freedom in economy pays us it's fruits. However, its Liberals fault!!!!11!!!

 

[maineman]

we chose to live in a society. We chose to pool our resources for the purposes of protecting ourselves, and providing basic services to ourselves, and to educate ourselves and our children. Those of us who consider ourselves to be members of the religious left, know that Jesus told us that whatever we do to the least of those among us, we do to Him. For me, my liberalism is a natural outgrowth of those attitudes. I want to live in a society where we care about our neighbors and we try to give all of them a hand up.

 

[oreo]

Honestly, I think most people are liberal in their politics in the old 19th century kind of way. Even Ronald Reagen noticed that liberalism changed in the 1930s which was the reason he left the democratic party.

So I am asking, Isn't their something good about being liberal at least being liberal the way it use to mean about a hundred years ago?

A good liberal to me--would be one who works very hard for their money--& makes enough money to actually pay taxes, in fact lots of taxes. And then doesn't really mind paying for others that either don't work, don't want to work, or make much less than them, & are still O.K. with sharing their hard earned money.

But--I kind of doubt I would find too many of those kind of "liberals."---

 

[skookerasbil]

Thankfully for the rest of us, they are the fringe of the voting public.............and have FINALLY brought out the anger in average Americans. If there is one political certainty from the last 12 months, it is that Americans TOTALLY reject liberal public policy, in fact, most consider it a fcukking joke. Thats just the political reality in America as of 2010 s0ns!!!

I know its gotta sting for the k00ks..........to see everything slide south in such epic fashion the last year. But this nothing new, of course........its always how Americans have felt about liberalism. We just had a few million independents who got snowed by a radical lefty in 2008, went to the polls and made a huge mistake. Obviously............the polls indicate that Toto has effectively pulled back the curtain on the modern Wizard of Oz.