General discussion

Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim ..

and scolding, creed. And not one conducive to happiness.

The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect. Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver.

On Jan. 3, 1936, FDR announced that in 34 months his administration had established a "new relationship between government and people." Amity Shlaes, a keen student of FDR's departure from prior political premises, says, "The New Deal had a purpose beyond curing the Depression. It was to make people look to Washington for help at all times." Henceforth the federal government would be permanently committed to serving a large number of constituencies: "Occasional gifts to farmers or tariffs for business weren't enough." So, liberals: Smile -- you've won....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202012.html

George Will nailed it again and since he too is aware of the full faith and allegiance to "peer reviewed studies" held by the radical left it is quite difficult for any of them to refute the findings (which are not Will's but those of liberal academics).

Enjoy.
Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim ..
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim ..
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Nonsense, EdO.

Liberalism is based on people like Locke, Rousseau, and Hume, not FDR. Liberalism is the foundation of our Democracy and Republic -- look at the four faces on Mount Rushmore, liberals all. Far from being grim, liberalism is optimistic, looking to the future and trying to change the things about the present that don't work, to make a better tomorrow. Conservatism, OTOH, looks to the past and tries to preserve the status quo --and the advantages of the privileged. And reactionaries (firmly in control of today's GOP) try to return to the perceived glories of the past that wasn't so glorious except for that same privileged few.

What we have here is the classical conservative approach -- define your opponent as a straw man who he's not, and then bring the torch. Unfortunately, it's an effective technique when addressing folks without much understanding of history or political science. After all, it worked for 60 years in Russia, and 12 so far here!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Yeah, right. Looks to thej future...

Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide." - James Burnham

- Collapse -
Proof you don't read Dave

No one said liberalism ws based on FDR. READ what was actually stated.

As to the faces on Mt Rushmore I have already shown you the fallacy of your empty argument as they are most definitely NOT liberals by any comparison to what a liberal is today. Not a single one of them was a socialist. (Had the Roosevelt been FDR rather than Theodore one of the four would have made the socialist cut but he wasn't and didn't.)

Look around you (try opening your eyes first) and it is undeniable that this particular LIBERAL STUDY that finds Conservatives to be happier than liberals in general (going back many many years so today's examples can't be all laid off to that new liberal oriented psychiactric ailment P.E.S.T.).

As I said, since the studies and data ghathering is the work of a very liberal group of academics it is rather difficult to deny it and your effort to do so is rather weak but does manage to point to the validity of the "unhappy liberal" findings.

Maybe you are a liberal because you don't really understand what a liberal is. It is SDS all grown up Dave, that you should be able to associate with.

- Collapse -
Classical liberalism like that found in Locke, Rousseau, and

Hume is not found in the Democrat party or among liberals. It is found among Rupublicans and Conservatives. That's the real irony of today.

- Collapse -
Not at all true, KP.

Classic liberalism is for the rights of the ordinary individual, not the power elite, whether that be a monarch or CEOs. The Republican party is morally bankrupt, concerned only about the rich and powerful, not about ordinary people. Just look at the stats on average family incomes that just came out -- they rose under Clinton, and fell (for the first time since Bush the First) under Bush the 2nd.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Democrats the respecters of individual rights?

Baloney. Anti-gun laws, political correctness,INCOME TAX, regulation of everything, etc. Clearly the party of government.

- Collapse -
Government is WE THE PEOPLE, EdH.

That's one of the fundamental errors of today's Republican Party, and demonstrates how it's abandoned its founding principles. Reread the end of the Gettysburg Address, by the greatest REPUBLICAN President in history (and arguably the greatest ever) and try and correlate that with the neocon dogma of government as enemy of the people! Actually, though, our current Republican goverment, of, by, and for the wealthy, is indeed the enemy of ordinary people. Again -- just look at the rising average incomes under the most recent Democratic President, and contrast that with the falling average income under the current Republican government -- while the incomes (and share of the national wealth) of those at the top continues to grow. Never mind Republican rhetoric -- as the good book says, "by their fruits shall ye know them!"

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
"We the people" does not mean...

"Dictatorship of the proletariat."

Please don't try to tell me that Lincoln was a liberal. He wasn't.

Funny that you give Clinton kudos for economic advances-- that did not occur until the GOP took over Congress and foiled Clinton's agenda. What exactly did Clinton do that produced such good results? Raise taxes?

- Collapse -
Conservatives are concerned about the rights of the

individual. Liberals want to treat people as members of groups that the all powerful state cares for, or controls. Liberals are not concerned about the individual. If you don't see that, you are blind indeed. Who came up with the idea that government could take property from one individual or group, and give it to another? Who came up with the idea of health care as a one size fits all? You are lost in your rhetoric DK.

- Collapse -
That comment validates the George Will Article...

all by itself as if you hadn't done it already with your previous posts.

Tell us about these individual rights the party that knows what is best for all of us and passes laws to prove it has ever protected. Bet you can't name one (other than abortion which penalizes the foetus individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) unless you can somehow bring off welfare as an individual right.

Moral bankruptcy begins and ends with the tax and spend party of big government. It isn't any wonder that some Republicans have also been contaminated (think apples in barrels) but Republicans tend to censure them or remove them from leadership positions while Democrats do the opposite (think Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Schumer, Biden, Byrd et al).

- Collapse -
That's not true. The liberals and Democrats do vigorously

defend our right to access pornography without any restriction. They also defend our children's right to be exposed to it.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Hyperbole that has nothing to do with the article KP
- Collapse -
Who's talking about the article? Those are the individual

rights that modern liberals defend. We've seen it right here several times.

DK started this thread by claiming that liberals defend individual rights. What rights do you say that liberals defend?

- Collapse -
Defense of rights, Hmmm?

Conservatives are doing a bang up job of defending Habeus Corpus right now... Right to a speedy trial, legal searches are a big one too, right?

The issue is who is happier and why. Mr. Will seems to suggest that conservatives are just inherently happier due to party choice. What are your thoughts regarding this subject?

grim

- Collapse -
You may buy the current Dem/left line on illegal searches.

I don't. There are no searches going on. There is a search of voice traffic between the US and selected countries. It's a computer search, and, IMHO, it's perfectly legal and rational.

So that's it on the liberal effort to sustain individual rights? Secure the rights of terrorists and seditious elements within our society? I'm not surprised.

Happy? The conservatives I know are reasonably happy. They are certainly more content than the liberals I know. BTW, I know very few rich conservatives. The wealthy, whom DK constantly attacks, tend to be on the liberal side.

- Collapse -
LOL

have to take your word on rich liberals... I don't know any rich people... How do I get into your country club? Wink

As forSecure the rights of terrorists and seditious elements within our society?... Last time I checked, one is innocent until proven guilty... also, who is being seditious? Anyone who dares to criticize the current administration?

grim

- Collapse -
Ah yes. A war requires a court to approve each and every

action. It's been pointed out repeatedly that different rules apply during war time as has been demonstrated repeatedly by past presidents including Lincoln and FDR.

It's the leftist/Democrat camp that's pushing this current line in an effort to defeat President Bush.

- Collapse -
What liberals really want and really believe is in the great

greatest good for the greatest number, that's John Stuart Mill, not Karl Marx. That's Utilitarianism, not socialism or communism. What liberals want is protection for the many from the few, just like criminal law is supposed to protect the many from the few. But the few in the first instance are corporations and individuals who function marginally within the law but to the detriment of society. And criminal proof is so much more exacting than civil proof (viz O.J.Simpson) that to hamstring the government and civil litigation is to reinforce the position of the already strong.
http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6130-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=159133&messageID=1770469

But all Conservatives are comfortable with are the ideas of the 17th and 18th Centuries as interpreted by themselves. No 19th century liberals need apply. 20th Century liberals? They're socialists, or communists in disguise. What rubbish.

Talk of words into the bottomless pit.

Oh well.

Rob

- Collapse -
Most of what you're saying affirms what I said. Modern

liberals have deserted the values that liberalism once stood for. Liberalism once stood for representative government, and individual liberty. It doesn't bother me if those are '17th and 18th Century' ideas and values. You act as if ideas and values get old and lose their value.

The greatest good for the greatest number is not what America is based on. That may be an English value, but it is not an American one. Americans believe that individual liberty is what produces the best way of life for those who take advantage of it.

- Collapse -
So, Locke and Hume and Adam Smith were not British?

As was Thomas Paine. Washington, Jefferson, et al were too before the Revolutionary War, they were just born in "the colonies". Hume and Adam Smith were Scots which should make them marginally palatable to you but Locke was as English as John Stuart Mill though his father was Scots as you can tell from the name, and liberalism like the US government, the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Political and Financial world in general does not freeze itself in a bell jar just because it would be easier that way. What you propose is a species of Anarchy with no governmental control or interference in the actions of corporations or individual of whom you approve. The US government was an outgrowth of the Enlightenment and 18th Century liberalism as you have acknowledged, hence my previous assertion that it was a liberal democracy on republican lines, but government can't stand still, it faces new challenges and addresses them as well as those who run the government can manage. Teddy Roosevelt was called "The Trust Buster" at the turn of the century because trusts were an economic evil. Regulation of businesses and financial institutions does not all flow from FDR.

The Great Depression was brought on by the foolishness, avarice, and outright failure of American financial institutions, American businesses, and American individuals. Roosevelt attempted to address these issues. Apparently you and George Will and all the other Libertarian lunatics want to run the clock back to a point when it can all happen again. I can't understand your nostalgia for the conditions that brought the greatest hardship and misery upon this country and contributed in no small way to the Second World War through America's weakness and isolationism. Had America been healthy economically, and not engaged in navel gazing, Hitler would never have dared his adventurism, and Japan would have realized that the US was unbeatable, as indeed Japan should have, given the economic potential here. I can understand the wealthy like the Bush family being attracted to pre-Crash economics, but I can't understand anyone else's. It seems folly of the most extraordinary order to me. But then this forum is full of extremists of the Right so perhaps I should expect it.

Ideas don't lose value, but they are subject to change, evolution, expansion, even improvement. Other thinkers build on them and create new and valuable ideas as well. You can't freeze political philosophy or economics at some point in the distant past and say all subsequent thought is worthless, particularly not at the agrarian level of the 18th or 19th centuries. America changed massively, so much so that there was a Civil War between the agrarian South and the Industrial North. That war wasn't about slavery, it was about governance and those in favor of strong central government and federal supremacy won. That's the Republican legacy, the supremacy of the federal government. That apparently is the legacy you wish to reverse.

A study of the early pioneers of industry shows that having achieved dominance in one or another area of economic life, they assiduously worked to weaken competitors and undermine those coming up in order to preserve their pre-eminence. Is that the "American value" you seek to re-impose. Do you really want to return to the era of Robber Barons and an impoverished and unorganized workforce. The America I cherish ran from 1945 to about 1980. An America that tried to ensure equal opportunity to all. That's the American value I think most important, a reasonably level playing field and equal opportunity for everybody. And apparently that's what is anathema to most of the folks here at SE. It baffles me.

By the way, perhaps you'd like to check out my second cousin's paternal home on-line KP http://www.pamela-rae.com/ You're not the only Scot who's proud of his heritage.

Rob

- Collapse -
You really are an Englishman. I say English, and you say

British. At least you admit that Hume and Smith were Scots. Similarly, Paine, Washington, and Jefferson were Americans. They were not Englishmen. As one who claims to be a historian, that really is a shocking gaffe.

The rest of your post is the usual rant generating a lot of heat, but no light. Mischaracterizations, a misunderstanding of history, and a gross simplification of ideas does not build a cogent argument.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) What rubbish indeed!
- Collapse -
Not rubbish

just another load of babbeling $#@$

- Collapse -
This is what I love about SE

If the exact same thread title had been posted by Rob, DK, Dan, etc., but with the word "Conservatism" substituted for "Liberalism," the poster would have been subjected to "TROLLING!" charges.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Which is what you are charging now, right?
- Collapse -
Wrong

Ed is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else. My point is that those who make the "trolling!!" charges don't seem to subscribe to that belief.

- Collapse -
I have to agree with Josh

I have seen so many threads with tag lines (thread head lines?) that are nothing more than partisan battle cries designed as an invitation to flame democratic whipping boys. I've seen some liberal tag lines that are condemned from the get-go which usually end up censored or sometimes even removed... such as a post started by Rob last week re: a former editor of Harpers who was calling for impeachment. Yes, his post was inflammatory but no more so than many others I've seen here that were left standing.

It easy to point fingers but remember when you point a finger you have three more pointing right back at you.

grim

- Collapse -
Disagree

Just because some one charges "trolling" (usually true) DOESN'T mean that person is saying you have no right to express whatever opinion you wish.

The problem I see is that some think it's okay to express an opinion but not okay for someone to express disagreement or displeasure with that opinion.

If a post gets removed or locked that is a Moderator's decision.

- Collapse -
Perhaps I misspoke....

....when I said "right." I know everyone has a right to post whatever they want, within the TOS. But posts critical of the Right are routinely "called out" while posts critical of the Left are routinely given high-fives.

- Collapse -
Could that possibly be because,

that's where most of those posts come from?

CNET Forums