Would you vote for a liberal?

[Ropey]

A classical liberal is one who historically has wanted limited government interference in ones' lives. The term "liberal" has evolved over time, but I think it is perfectly consistent for one to call themselves a "classical liberal" if they believe in limited government power.

It was and is clear Toro.

In Canada I vote Conservative. In America I would vote Independent and throw away my vote to register my distaste for both parties.

 

[The T]

I would vote for a Democrat who more closely matched my ideals or my stances.... but since that is impossible with a liberal or progressive... I will safely say that I will never vote for a liberal

There is only ONE Classic Democrat left...but forced to be an independent...Liberman.

 

[bripat9643]

That would portend you knew what a Modern Conservative was, no? And what is a NORMAL CONSERVATIVE? Will this be twisting of the meanings of words?

Liberal Dictionary:
===================================
Normal conservative - liberal
Mainstream - liberal
Independent - liberal
Moderate - liberal

 

[Toro]

A classical liberal is one who historically has wanted limited government interference in ones' lives. The term "liberal" has evolved over time, but I think it is perfectly consistent for one to call themselves a "classical liberal" if they believe in limited government power.

It was and is clear.

In Canada I vote Conservative. In America I would vote Independent and throw away my vote to register my distaste for both parties.

As I am voting independently on this forum.

I've only ever voted for the Tory or Reform parties, but I would have supported the Democrats from 00 to 08. Not in 10 though, and probably not in 12 either.

 

[Ropey]

A classical liberal is one who historically has wanted limited government interference in ones' lives. The term "liberal" has evolved over time, but I think it is perfectly consistent for one to call themselves a "classical liberal" if they believe in limited government power.

It was and is clear.

In Canada I vote Conservative. In America I would vote Independent and throw away my vote to register my distaste for both parties.

As I am voting independently on this forum.

I've only ever voted for the Tory or Reform parties, but I would have supported the Democrats from 00 to 08. Not in 10 though, and probably not in 12 either.

I said the same thing, but I'm not so sure anymore. At that time, yes.

Now if I knew then what I know now? Independent.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Would you vote for a liberal?

Talk about a push-poll question!

 

[jillian]

What is your objection to the phrase "classical liberal" Jillian?

A classical liberal is one who historically has wanted limited government interference in ones' lives. The term "liberal" has evolved over time, but I think it is perfectly consistent for one to call themselves a "classical liberal" if they believe in limited government power.

well, i didn't want to derail your thread. but thanks for inviting my comments.

the term classic liberal is made up". it is what some people say now, but that isn't true. it's simply a means of vitiating liberal accomplishments. liberalism is simply what it always has been in most instances. the new deal was liberal. certainly no one would say the new deal was a 'small government' program. the EPA was liberal. certainly no one would say that is a small government program. OSHA is liberal. the great society program was liberal. anti-discrimination laws were liberal. desegregation was liberal.

none of those things were "small government".

the founders weren't "liberal". they were radical. they overthrew a government and would have been killed as traitors had they failed. but they were of their age... aristocrats who denied women the vote and who kept slaves. but unlike the people today who read the constitution as if it were a fundamentalist's bible, they understood that they couldn't foresee the future. had they truly believed in small government, there would be no general welfare clause; there would be no commerce clause. they knew government would grow into what the people needed.

what they did had nothing to do with "small government". that is a fallacy in the same vein as people who think they're "constitutionalists" while not understanding anything about constitutional construction.

liberal means that you want to advance society. conservatism means you want to keep change from happening. today's conservatives are reactionaries who want to return to the status quo ante which existed before those liberal advancements like anti-discrimination laws and social security.

thanks for indulging me on this.

The term "liberal" comes from the word "liberty." The original liberals were those who argued against the absolutism of government power, and that man had natural rights which absolved him (and her) from being ruled by kings. Liberal philosophers such as Locke and liberal political economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo championed ideas of individual liberty and limited government power over people's lives. That's why people call themselves "classical liberal."

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been co-opted over time. "Conservatives" were not liberals in the classical sense. Conservatives as understood in the past were those who wanted to "conserve" society, and often the power structures of the monarchy or ruling classes. This is why in Europe, conservative parties and movements are often associated with the monarchy.

In America, the term "conservative" can mean conserving the original intent of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, which was a fairly liberal document in the classical sense in that it imbues rights and makes the individual sovereign. But "conservative" in America also means those wishing to conserve society, as it does in older societies. This is especially true in the South, where conservation of the white power structure and the suppression of blacks by government force was seen as necessary to keep the social order. This is why there is relatively greater emphasis on law and order issues in the South than in other parts of the country.

Modern liberals also believe in liberty, but in other ways from the intent originally articulated by Locke, Smith, et. al., i.e. liberty from hunger or discrimination, etc., whereby government power is used to "liberate" the individual from the hardships of life. This is why modern liberals espouse issues such as government involvement in health care and affirmative action laws.

in terms of the study of philosophy, i certainly agree with you. but i think liberalism as it exists in this country, which is what the right bemoans grows out of the idea that there is a social contract. that we, as children of the enlightenment, have an obligation not only to ourselves, but to the world we live in.

people on the right like to say the founders believed in "small government". but that simply isn't the case. they believed in a strong centralized government. were that not the case, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation. there would be no constitutional clauses to allow government to do things that are necessary to benefit the welfare of society or regulate commerce between the states.

what is interesting to me is that the party representing liberal thought used to be the republican party. the party of lincoln. then the republican party became the party of intellectuals who had a sense of noblesse oblige and wanted to act for the benefit of society. that started to change after the new deal and absolutely changed after the civil rights laws were enacted.

so when i see the phrase 'classical liberal" used by people who don't believe in government, i know that is a way to discredit liberal accomplishment. i think you'll also find the phrase used by people who would have voted against the civil rights act and would have required a constitutional amendment to do away with jim crow laws.

so, while i see your point from an intellectual/philosophical standpoint. from a realistic standpoint, well.. i've said my piece.

the thing i don't understand... and perhaps you can explain it to me. is how you can consider voting for a party that thinks someone like christie is too liberal? i don't see you as being represnted by the party of michelle bachmann and eric cantor.

 

[jillian]

Dumbfuck, the term classic liberalism has been taught in college classrooms before your parents had some science experiment with you.

Of course, you didn't attend college so you just go around the internet talking out your ass.

I'm sure you have great knowledge about welfare benefits, etc.

Shut the hell up, idiot.

man, i love you uneducated braindead rightwingnuts. you make me feel so validated.

next time you try to wash my windshield as we're getting on the FDR drive, i'll be sure to toss you some change just for the amusement factor.

good advice.

take it.

fucknugget

he's just proving my point.

i'm going to be he's one of those 6th grade educated loons.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Classical?... Yes.

Progressive/Fabian socialist faux "liberal"?...Hell no.

Classical, indeed. I seriously dislike the new liberals these days, they disgust me.

I think they refer to themselves as the "new left" or "progressives" - er socialist...

 

[jillian]

Classical?... Yes.

Progressive/Fabian socialist faux "liberal"?...Hell no.

Classical, indeed. I seriously dislike the new liberals these days, they disgust me.

I think they refer to themselves as the "new left" or "progressives" - er socialist...

no. rightwingnuts do.

 

[Toro]

the thing i don't understand... and perhaps you can explain it to me. is how you can consider voting for a party that thinks someone like christie is too liberal? i don't see you as being represnted by the party of michelle bachmann and eric cantor.

I sympathize with the classical liberals because I used to be one. I grew up reading Ayn Rand, Henry Hazlitt, Frederic Basiat, Ludwig von Mises, etc. I have over a hundred libertarian / classical liberal / free market books on my shelves and maybe two or three "modern liberal" ones. So libertarians - and I don't mean the crazy ones who believe the government was behind 9/11 - tend to feel more comfortable in the Republican party.

I haven't viewed the Republican party as one dominated by libertarians over the past decade though, so I haven't supported them during most of that time. Over the past 10 years, the political right has had no problem subverting individual rights, either in the name of morality or, more likely, in the War on Terror. And I feel very, very uncomfortable around evangelicals, at least those making public displays of their religion in the political arena, either through policy or symbolic gestures. I have no problem with church-going people, but it makes me very uneasy to see a governor publicly pray for rain.

Having said that, the Republicans are ultimately correct about the economic issues going forward. A large portion of the Republican base has been lobotomized by "Voodoo Economics," and that every single tax cut pays for itself and is always good. But they are ultimately correct in that generally less government involvement is better for economic growth. Generally, lower taxes and lower government spending, and less regulation leads to higher growth. The current administration is generally clueless about business and what is needed for business to grow. This recession is NOT Obama's fault, but the administration's policies have been weak and it is out of touch, and they are hurting the economy. And they don't seem to have any credible plan on dealing with the ticking time bombs of SS and, especially Medicare and Medicaid, which will eventually eat the budget. Whatever one might think of the Tea Party - the old people complaining about too much government, but don't touch their Medicare and SS because they've "paid" for it which they patently have not is rank hypocrisy - the general thrust that these entitlement programs must be brought under control is completely correct. And solely raising taxes on the rich is not the answer. At least the Republicans are trying to answer these issues. The Democrats are not. They are in denial.

 

[Mr.Nick]

well, i didn't want to derail your thread. but thanks for inviting my comments.

the term classic liberal is made up". it is what some people say now, but that isn't true. it's simply a means of vitiating liberal accomplishments. liberalism is simply what it always has been in most instances. the new deal was liberal. certainly no one would say the new deal was a 'small government' program. the EPA was liberal. certainly no one would say that is a small government program. OSHA is liberal. the great society program was liberal. anti-discrimination laws were liberal. desegregation was liberal.

none of those things were "small government".

the founders weren't "liberal". they were radical. they overthrew a government and would have been killed as traitors had they failed. but they were of their age... aristocrats who denied women the vote and who kept slaves. but unlike the people today who read the constitution as if it were a fundamentalist's bible, they understood that they couldn't foresee the future. had they truly believed in small government, there would be no general welfare clause; there would be no commerce clause. they knew government would grow into what the people needed.

what they did had nothing to do with "small government". that is a fallacy in the same vein as people who think they're "constitutionalists" while not understanding anything about constitutional construction.

liberal means that you want to advance society. conservatism means you want to keep change from happening. today's conservatives are reactionaries who want to return to the status quo ante which existed before those liberal advancements like anti-discrimination laws and social security.

thanks for indulging me on this.

The term "liberal" comes from the word "liberty." The original liberals were those who argued against the absolutism of government power, and that man had natural rights which absolved him (and her) from being ruled by kings. Liberal philosophers such as Locke and liberal political economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo championed ideas of individual liberty and limited government power over people's lives. That's why people call themselves "classical liberal."

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been co-opted over time. "Conservatives" were not liberals in the classical sense. Conservatives as understood in the past were those who wanted to "conserve" society, and often the power structures of the monarchy or ruling classes. This is why in Europe, conservative parties and movements are often associated with the monarchy.

In America, the term "conservative" can mean conserving the original intent of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, which was a fairly liberal document in the classical sense in that it imbues rights and makes the individual sovereign. But "conservative" in America also means those wishing to conserve society, as it does in older societies. This is especially true in the South, where conservation of the white power structure and the suppression of blacks by government force was seen as necessary to keep the social order. This is why there is relatively greater emphasis on law and order issues in the South than in other parts of the country.

Modern liberals also believe in liberty, but in other ways from the intent originally articulated by Locke, Smith, et. al., i.e. liberty from hunger or discrimination, etc., whereby government power is used to "liberate" the individual from the hardships of life. This is why modern liberals espouse issues such as government involvement in health care and affirmative action laws.

in terms of the study of philosophy, i certainly agree with you. but i think liberalism as it exists in this country, which is what the right bemoans grows out of the idea that there is a social contract. that we, as children of the enlightenment, have an obligation not only to ourselves, but to the world we live in.

people on the right like to say the founders believed in "small government". but that simply isn't the case. they believed in a strong centralized government. were that not the case, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation. there would be no constitutional clauses to allow government to do things that are necessary to benefit the welfare of society or regulate commerce between the states.

what is interesting to me is that the party representing liberal thought used to be the republican party. the party of lincoln. then the republican party became the party of intellectuals who had a sense of noblesse oblige and wanted to act for the benefit of society. that started to change after the new deal and absolutely changed after the civil rights laws were enacted.

so when i see the phrase 'classical liberal" used by people who don't believe in government, i know that is a way to discredit liberal accomplishment. i think you'll also find the phrase used by people who would have voted against the civil rights act and would have required a constitutional amendment to do away with jim crow laws.

so, while i see your point from an intellectual/philosophical standpoint. from a realistic standpoint, well.. i've said my piece.

the thing i don't understand... and perhaps you can explain it to me. is how you can consider voting for a party that thinks someone like christie is too liberal? i don't see you as being represnted by the party of michelle bachmann and eric cantor.

Since when were the federalists never opposed?

Or were you just brainwashed with progressive bullshit?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Serious question.

Would you vote for a liberal for President?

Sure. I voted for Obama because the GOP gave me the choice of him or the 90% Busher and Eskimo Barbie.

If the GOP were to put Michele Whackmann, Dickhead Paul on the ticket next year, guess what? I'm voting Obama again.

If they put Perry on, it's reaaal close but I'll probably go Obama.

Cain or Romney (without any whackjob VP's) and I'm voting GOP.

 

[Cuyo]

Sure, would love to.

Now if only one would run...

 

[Oddball]

in terms of the study of philosophy, i certainly agree with you. but i think liberalism as it exists in this country, which is what the right bemoans grows out of the idea that there is a social contract. that we, as children of the enlightenment, have an obligation not only to ourselves, but to the world we live in.

people on the right like to say the founders believed in "small government". but that simply isn't the case. they believed in a strong centralized government. were that not the case, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation. there would be no constitutional clauses to allow government to do things that are necessary to benefit the welfare of society or regulate commerce between the states.

what is interesting to me is that the party representing liberal thought used to be the republican party. the party of lincoln. then the republican party became the party of intellectuals who had a sense of noblesse oblige and wanted to act for the benefit of society. that started to change after the new deal and absolutely changed after the civil rights laws were enacted.

so when i see the phrase 'classical liberal" used by people who don't believe in government, i know that is a way to discredit liberal accomplishment. i think you'll also find the phrase used by people who would have voted against the civil rights act and would have required a constitutional amendment to do away with jim crow laws.

so, while i see your point from an intellectual/philosophical standpoint. from a realistic standpoint, well.. i've said my piece.

the thing i don't understand... and perhaps you can explain it to me. is how you can consider voting for a party that thinks someone like christie is too liberal? i don't see you as being represnted by the party of michelle bachmann and eric cantor.

So you have a massive cognitive hallucination - complete with all the attendant strawmen, stereotypes and general bigotry - piled up around the classical definition of liberal, to justify your twisted authoritarian re-definition of the term.

That 'splains a lot.

 

[Dragon]

The term itself, "classical liberal," is not made up by the right, but the context in which it is usually advanced -- a suggestion that modern liberals are not liberals, a focusing on a peripheral characteristic of classical liberalism instead of its core beliefs -- is a right-wing distortion of what classical liberalism was.

It was NOT small-government conservatism. It was NOT modern libertarianism, although some points do exist in common there.

Basically, classical liberalism was liberalism as it existed prior to the industrial revolution. Classical liberalism was liberalism appropriate to an agrarian economy still striving to pull itself out of monarchy and feudalism. (Both of which liberals opposed.)

The core value of liberalism, whether classical or modern, has always been liberty -- but the liberty of the common man, not the liberty of the elite, the rich, the powerful. Liberals have always sought to limit and contain the liberty of the elite, the rich, and the powerful so as to protect the liberty and the rights of the common man. In that, it has not changed from the days of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith to modern times.

But in the days of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith, the elite, the rich, and the powerful who could oppress the common man and threaten his liberty usually had hereditary titles and employed the government directly to aid in oppressing his victims. Hence, for example, Adam Smith's advocacy of free market economics: he saw that as an alternative to state-declared monopolies for the benefit of titled nobles, or chartered privileged positions like that of the East India Company. Compared to an economy in which the government enforced the privileges of the elite, the rich, and the powerful, a free market is a liberal dream. But today, having actually seen the effects of a free market and how it breeds its own form of elite, rich, and powerful people who are capable of oppressing the common man without even resorting to government power (not that they've ever been shy about resorting to government power, either), liberals have come to see it in a less rosy light, and to recognize that some modification of the ideal might just be called for. Adam Smith, were he transported to modern times and given a while to catch up on history, would not disagree. If he were alive to write The Wealth of Nations, 21st Century Edition, it would incorporate a lot of socialist-seeming elements that were not in the original. His values were the same as those held by modern liberals, even if his specific ideas, in the specific context in which he wrote them, would not necessarily work in service to those values today.

In today's world, we know that the government is a danger to liberty, and that there are still times when direct government infringement of the people's rights is the clear and present danger that must be fought. Modern liberals like classical liberals insist that government be accountable to the people, governed by law, kept safe through checks and balances, and restrained from committing egregious violations against the common man, such as depriving accused criminals of due process, or violating free speech or the right of privacy, or attempting to establish a government-sponsored religion. In this respect, liberals are now and always have been advocates of limited government.

But in today's world, we also know, having learned the hard way, that government is not the ONLY danger to liberty, and that private agencies -- the elite, the rich, and the powerful, and the corporations that are the principle institutions (other than government) through which they work their oppression -- can be as deadly to the liberty of the common man as the state, or nearly so, and the state is the only institution that we can use to restrain them. And so in that context, where state power is needed to restrain powerful non-governmental threats to liberty, liberals have become advocates of big government. Also, in today's world, we also know that there are public services that can be provided only by government which serve to empower the common man -- relieving the dangers of unemployment, providing medical care that he could not afford on his own, providing free education, and providing information and other resources -- and hence aid liberty, and in this context, too, modern liberals have become advocates of more government that classical liberals tended to advocate. Although conceivably that last was only because they lived in poorer times that could not afford those services, or else the technology didn't exist; let's remember that Thomas Jefferson was a huge advocate of public schooling.

So there it is. Yes, there are differences between modern and classical liberalism but they are trivial. (Except, perhaps, to those who are obsessed with the size and scope of government, who confuse an absence of government with a presence of liberty. It's been truly said that to a man with a hammer, all things look like nails.) In terms of core values, liberalism remains the same now as it was then, and if it has adapted to the times we live in rather than remaining fixated on methods that were appropriate to a time that no longer exists, that only means that we have not been consistently stupid.

And yes, I would certainly vote for a liberal for president. Now if only one was running . . .

 

[Rocko]

The only lib I ever voted for was George W. Bush, and that's because his opponents we're bigger libs.

I would have to vote for Romney, if he's our candidate against Obama.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Classical, indeed. I seriously dislike the new liberals these days, they disgust me.

I think they refer to themselves as the "new left" or "progressives" - er socialist...

no. rightwingnuts do.

What the **** are you talking about??

The SDS/Weather Underground created the term "New Left" and progressives refer to themselves as "progressive."

You ******* dumb?

 

[earlycuyler]

I mean modern, as in Nancy Pelosi Liberal.

No, but I would have a hard time voting for a rabid ideologue with either an R or D after their name.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Classical liberalism goes all the way back to the original Magna Carta in 1215.

One could argue the ideology is older than that...

I suppose the French Revolution was the "first ".....