In search of the Liberal mindset

[SuperTool]

The big liberal ideas of the 20th century are still here. Social Security, Women's and Civil Rights, Medicare, etc and so on.
Liberals won the battle on those ideas. What ideas did conservatives win on? Low taxes? Yes only so long as they didn't cut spending. The real battle of ideas has been delayed through deficit spending, but when sh!t hits the fan it will be interesting to see whether taxes will be raised or benefits cut, or what combination of both. That will be the battle of ideas. As of now, we are having our cake and eating it too.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: cwjerome

if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

Nah, it'll take more than a presidential win. It's about policies, and a general political shift.

I am fully aware of the enemy. It sits in two places. One which would attack us from without, and one which would use fear to snatch freedom and hard fought for rights.

Right, but I do place a lot of faith in our political mechanism and the people. The external threat is usually a very different animal. The threats within are rarely the conspiratorial evil that some make believe... it's usually general ignorance and random selfishness that we can keep tabs on.

Actually, his post makes your point for you. Notice his complete and total inability to see beyond a single election.

I note failure to see trouble in the making and the inability to see beyond the significance of a single election.

People I have supported have sometimes won, and sometimes lost. It has never been a real issue to me. Issues themselves matter.

There are fundamental changes happening. I keep referring to the matter of the desire of this administration to hold citizens without charge, trial or legal representation. Perhaps that detail is not troublesome to you, but I find it disturbing. Perhaps you will one day practice law, and these trivialities may matter. Maybe not?

Perhaps this evil trend will reverse itself in the next election, but undoing damage is not always easy.

 

[cwjerome]

My point isn't so much that the Libs are trying to make the USA into the old Soviet Union, but that their methods (like repititious posting of narrow concretes) hasn't worked and won't work. People initially bought their left-wing pragmaticism but those ideas have essentially failed- hence the conservative shift. The worst part is they have no alternative... they cannot properly wrap their arguments into long-term principles because such concepts would be laughed off the stage.

By forgoing their fundamental conceptual base, the liberals attempted to achieve their goals not by proud philosophic claims, but by slow rot... a long process of ideological evasion and epistemological corruption. It worked for a while, and the welfare state grew... but unhappy with the results, people have begun to trend conservative.

Their concrete-bound, pragmatic approach was doomed to failure. When you basically believe that principles are unprovable, impractical, or non-existent, it tends to destroy the ability to integrate ideas, deal with sbtractions, and see long-term. Abstractions they claimed were "simplistic." They denounce political concepts as "labels," "myths," and "illusions." They occasionally threw out a tired, cynical remnant of their former idealism when the occasion demanded it, but they resist any attempt to truly identify their views. Doing so would spell disaster in the open marketplace of ideas, but now it's not even that conscious: It seems they are afraid to let THEMSELVES know that what they advocate is statism... which can only lead to authoritarianism.

 

[Rainsford]

It just wouldn't be a new year without another post from cwjerome about the decline of liberalism. But while his words are plentiful, his reasoning has nothing backing it up.

Consider, if you will, the repeated and overwhelming history of liberals winning, very recently I might add. Liberals are, by definition, both progressive and radical (to some extent). Liberals have always embraced ideas that the conservatives of the day shoot down as naive, or misinformed, or downright dangerous. cwjerome uses the example of liberals attempting to embrace the USSR and China as potential friends or at least global partners, while the conservatives wanted to either have nothing to do with them or destroy them if possible. Without putting too fine a point on it, which ideology eventually won out?

And that's not the only example of liberal ideology becoming mainstream, our history shows a steady liberalization of society. The big changes in society were at one time radical liberal causes. Society has, as a whole, become more liberal. 30 years ago, nobody talked openly about being gay. Now we're discussing giving gay partners full marriage rights. Sure, that got shot down recently, but I would bet dollars to donuts that gay marriage will be legal before too long.

Notice that I'm not talking about liberals vs conservatives, today's conservatives openly embrace ideas that in past times would have been considered far left-wing. Issues like women voting and equal rights for blacks, among others, were pretty radical at the time, and it was only over quite a while that they gained widespread acceptance. I don't want to go into too much detail here, but many liberal causes become mainstream and very popular given enough time.

Liberals and conservatives are two sides of the same coin, and each serves a valuable purpose. cwjerome is correct about one thing, at least, when he says that liberals often are much more "cause" oriented than conservatives, who might tend to have more of an ideological framework. But I don't think this is a new development, that is what liberals do. Martin Luther King, who we celebrate a week from today, was a radical liberal to the core. He had one cause that he put what must have seemed to many as an unnecessary amount of work into it. But he exemplified what I would call the "liberal mindset", and that is that some things need to be changed. Society isn't perfect, and certain issues need work.

If anyone thinks the liberals aren't necessary, just read through the history books and see how many times you see a (at the time) liberal cause changing society for the better. You'll lose count after a few chapters. But liberals aren't the whole picture either, conservatives keep them in check and make sure our system actually works. At least that's how I see it.

Here's a quick summary. Without conservatives, we'd probably end up with too many special interests and causes bleeding everyone dry. To some extent, this is what happened in California. But without liberals, we'd never make any progress. Face it, we're becoming more liberal each day. The liberals are winning, the conservatives just can settle for making sure it doesn't get out of hand.

 

[flawlssdistortn]

The lack of "idealogical framework" you speak of is not necessarily proof that the left has no legitimate perspective. I'd say it's a fundamental idea that there are many shades of grey to a situation, and that people don't easily know "what's best" for someone else. I would describe this demeanor with the word "humble" whereas the the idealogues such as Rush Limbaugh would use the term "weak" or "indecisive." The Bush campaign opted for the childish term "flip-flop."

So from that point of view I say this - I have not read as many history books as the OP, and my writing is not nearly as eloquent, and If we had a fact contest, he would probably win. But I am a thinking person who has my own ideas, I read the paper and listen to NPR when I can, and I believe I can filter out propoganda when I come across it. And when I read posts like these, that make sweeping generalizations in a tone that is totally sure and confident, with a narrative style that most of the public would just gobble up... (I mean really, this kid could make a sh!t sandwich sound like a gourmet BLT) When I read stuff like this, it's only instinct for me to do a double take and then look for a way to dismantle it. Cwjerome, unless you are some PHD in history or international politics, I don't believe you are qualified to come out with as many radical and "complete" perspectives as you do. Honestly, your "knowledge" of "the way things are" is just too complete. You have no questions, no pensive theories? Just statements? I dont know what book you read...

So I dont know how it's a criticism to not automatically declare some political philisophy. And I dont believe that liberals really have a "secret agenda", and that lack of a complete idealogy is just a cover.

 

[cwjerome]

Rainsford, a lot depends on how you use the terms. A liberal 150 years ago is not the same as one today. There is a difference between POLITICAL liberalism and being liberal-minded (change oriented, etc). Our progress is the natural flow of a "classical liberal" Western democracy based on enlightenment ideas... not some radical Libs plotting social change. You just can't used the modern terms of liberal and conservative so recklessly. It reminds me of the evening news referring to the hard-line communists in the USSR as "conservative"!!

The weirdest part of your post is the 2nd paragraph talking about which ideology won out in the cold war. I've talked to red-faced, quasi-communist professors who weren't that bold in their perversion of history. That's a big fat WOW

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Somewhere along the line, things changed. I'm fascinated by the endless string of editorials and links from the left-wing google-mongers here, because the attitude of today's liberal seems vastly different than the attitude of yesterday's liberal wingnuts from the 30s, 40s, and 50s. I guess the only way for them to become a power in the marketplace of ideas was to sell out. That worked for a while... but it's becoming painfully obvious that the gig is up because they have no ideological base to stand on. (Hence the political decline of liberalism in the past 10-20 years).

Whereas the crusading spirit that advocated a planned society, and talking in terms of abstract principles, theories, and noble ends was the norm, today modern leftists concern themselves with single, concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment projects and demands without regard to the larger context, costs, or consequences. Notice the same hardened Libs continuously posting links that supposedly "prove a point"... but that's the problem. They're all pragmatic, extremely narrow evaluations of a singular situation. "Bagdad Police Chief Killed" and So-and-So lectures Bush" etc....

Such a strategy may win a few brownie points here-and-there with some people. But what is never developed is the old-fashioned ideological framework. This is the Catch-22 the Left is in today. They can abandon the broad social reforms of their predessesors (because most people will reject the philosophical foundation outright), but eventually their asymmetrical strategy to "smuggle" this society into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting the whole of these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or their underlying base to be exposed crumbles and fails... just as their political influence has deteriorated recently.

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't, and it's almost sad to see them spinning their wheels so furiously in a dead-end road to nowhere. They went from getting their idealistic machinations skewered 50 years ago, to a guerilla campaign of pragmaticism that saw their polices fall short and be rejected today. So much failure, no wonder they tend to be neurotic types

Basically, they are doomed to repeat their past frustrations and will continue to collapse. During the cold war, they proclaimed their love for mankind while being bored by the rivers of blood pouring from the Soviet Union and China. Ranging from intellectual evasion to glowing tribute towards Communists, they pointed their little barbs at the US for reasons of "injustice," "exploitation," "repression," and "persecution." Today, they are no different. They pour out range-of-the-moment, pragmatitic arguments (as evidenced here on P&N) against the USA, while generally remaining silent -and in most ways oblivious to- the nature of our enemy. The more things change, the more things stay the same... once again doomed to be on the wrong side of history.

You, my friend, suffer fools a lot more patiently than I! Good post! It says a lot that I would never be kind enough to tell them!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
Some of the same things can be said about any group that isn't currently sitting on top. As always the real success will come when everyone realizes the truth is always in the middle. Black and white is an artificial creation. Lib or Con, it doesn't matter as long as you come together in the middle.

Truly!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Zedtom
A very scholarly essay, I must say. However, the impression is given that conservative thinking is a no-compromise take on society.

The attitude of, "I'm right, and you're an idiot" is pure Rush Limbaugh. This world will always move forward with input from all sides and opinions. The state of American politics may be conservative now, but to discredit liberal causes with a wave of the hand is naive.

I am a moderate- liberal on many issues, very conservative on others. Never will I assume that my adversaries are out of touch.

To create a polished gem stone from the rough, first you must use course cutting methods - working finer as the radiance is exposed! I think we are at about five grit with liberals today.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: Snagle
if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

i know the GOP did well in the senate and in general liberalism is in a downturn at the moment, just sayin

I don't think he would have looked like a jackass posting this.

A win for Kerry would not have been a win for liberalism. Many were voting against Bush, and not for Kerry.

Liberalism has been on the decline since McGovern's disasterous run in 1972. That is 32 plus years. TO say liberalism is in a downturn is an understatement.

The very reason that it is in "downturn" is because the underlying ideology has been roundly rejected. The OP is right. The libs are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Thirty years of liberal policy has created a society that lives on the very edge of starvation, with only drugs providing any marginal income and they have been left with little pride. The dole does that to people. More socialism, anyone?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Megamorph
nice post

:thumbsup: The goal of today's liberal is to turn the United States into the old Soviet Union. Centralize all of the power of local, state, and federal governments. Oversee all aspects of people's lifes from personal to business. In the name of the State, redistribute people's wealth and resources.

I suggest all the liberals read Jim Roger's Investment Biker: Around the World with Jim Rogers and his sequel book. He toured the entire world for several years and documented many of the failures of the Soviet Union. Time and again the reason was due to socialism. There was no incentive for the common man to better himself since the government either took care of his very basic needs, then took whatever else he had. "Equality", right?

The problem with today's liberals is that they are hellbent on control of other people's lives and property. Thankfully, the majority of our nation has some common sense.

Most people that I've met that verbalized their undying desire for equality wanted it to begin at the very next socio-economic level below them! Sort of like most people I've met who were for gun control, traveled with at least three armed security guards. Strangely, many of both groups professed themselves to be liberals!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: Snagle
if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

i know the GOP did well in the senate and in general liberalism is in a downturn at the moment, just sayin

I don't think he would have looked like a jackass posting this.

A win for Kerry would not have been a win for liberalism. Many were voting against Bush, and not for Kerry.

Liberalism has been on the decline since McGovern's disasterous run in 1972. That is 32 plus years. TO say liberalism is in a downturn is an understatement.

The very reason that it is in "downturn" is because the underlying ideology has been roundly rejected. The OP is right. The libs are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Thirty years of liberal policy has created a society that lives on the very edge of starvation, with only drugs provide any marginal income and they have been left with little pride. The dole does that to people. More socialism, anyone?

At some level you are confusing liberal policy with political power plays. When these policies were instituted by liberals, they were intended to rectify such things as the economic and social consequences of racial discrimination. That was not a fiction. Lynchings and extreme poverty were the norm for the "awesome people". I know. I was born in the South and saw it first hand. The intent of the Liberals of the day was to help people out with social programs who had no hope otherwise. Get a job? When no one would give you one? Easier to make bricks without straw if you know the reference.

The intent was good, but human nature being what it is meant taking advantage of the system by some, and a dependency on the system. Politicians in the Democratic party used these people as a voter base, since most people vote in their best interest, and that is where the problem lies.

The liberals DID some good, however their ideas were corrupted into something else.

Conservatives don't get a pass here, so they should not feel so superior. Their philosophy was also hijacked into one of greed and pseudo patriotic pride.

It's a shame, because both sides had a number of good ideas, and were not unlike in intent, but in method. Both wanted a better America. Now both sides try to animalistically devour the other, and the common man be damned.

 

[cwjerome]

Cwjerome, unless you are some PHD in history or international politics, I don't believe you are qualified to come out with as many radical and "complete" perspectives as you do.

flawlssdistortn, I'm just a lowly middle school teacher, doing 7th grade geography and 8th grade US history for at-risk kids in the "ghetto"

But I can pretend I'm a PHD in international politics!

 

[KevinH]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
The problem with today's liberals is that they are hellbent on control of other people's lives and property.

Wow, just wow.

Smoking, SUVs, raising taxes because the government spends money better than you do.... his point makes sense.

yea, except that his point applies to conservatives just as much as liberals, nowadays. abortion, gay marriage, censorship...

touche...

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: Snagle
if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

i know the GOP did well in the senate and in general liberalism is in a downturn at the moment, just sayin

I don't think he would have looked like a jackass posting this.

A win for Kerry would not have been a win for liberalism. Many were voting against Bush, and not for Kerry.

Liberalism has been on the decline since McGovern's disasterous run in 1972. That is 32 plus years. TO say liberalism is in a downturn is an understatement.

The very reason that it is in "downturn" is because the underlying ideology has been roundly rejected. The OP is right. The libs are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Thirty years of liberal policy has created a society that lives on the very edge of starvation, with only drugs provide any marginal income and they have been left with little pride. The dole does that to people. More socialism, anyone?

At some level you are confusing liberal policy with political power plays. When these policies were instituted by liberals, they were intended to rectify such things as the economic and social consequences of racial discrimination. That was not a fiction. Lynchings and extreme poverty were the norm for the "awesome people". I know. I was born in the South and saw it first hand. The intent of the Liberals of the day was to help people out with social programs who had no hope otherwise. Get a job? When no one would give you one? Easier to make bricks without straw if you know the reference.

The intent was good, but human nature being what it is meant taking advantage of the system by some, and a dependency on the system. Politicians in the Democratic party used these people as a voter base, since most people vote in their best interest, and that is where the problem lies.

The liberals DID some good, however their ideas were corrupted into something else.

Conservatives don't get a pass here, so they should not feel so superior. Their philosophy was also hijacked into one of greed and pseudo patriotic pride.

It's a shame, because both sides had a number of good ideas, and were not unlike in intent, but in method. Both wanted a better America. Now both sides try to animalistically devour the other, and the common man be damned.

Mostly in agreement with your post. However, unless you are a lot older than you seem you didn't: "Lynchings and extreme poverty were the norm for the "awesome people". I know. I was born in the South and saw it first hand." Not much of that done in the last 50 years. I am old enough to have seen that and when it happened, it was rare. I never actually saw any of that or even personally heard of any of it actually happening in any area that I lived in and I lived throughout the south. I may have traveled in different circles than you did. The south was very rough back then. I think the north was as well. I've heard about the Union killings in the northern cities.

I did see a guy get his guts cut out in front of a trailer house in 1953 though. He was white, his attacker was white. They were both drunk on moonshine and after being cut, he washed his intestines in a water stream from a faucet and chased down and killed his attacker. Moonshine was the real problem sort of like drugs today. Everyone down here has a meth lab in the woods behind the house. It was on sunday and I was a bit young to realize at first what was happening.

I did see fountains that said "white only" as well as bathrooms. Schools were segregated as well. My Dad worked in a saw mill and worked with a mixed crew. None of them went to brick homes and sat in recliners when their labors were done. There was a lot of equality at the lower economic levels. Extreme poverty may have been the norm for me and mine. I never questioned that some people in town had better houses. I thought my life was better, but my Dad must have suffered terribly. He probably understood more about social and economic stratification than I did then! He certainly seemed happy enough though. Most people either don't understand that few people in the south back then were wealthy or they choose to ignore it.

I would agree that both sides had good ideas. The intent was good. Most of the ideas have made our country better. The dole as a procurement vehicle for bloc votes doesn't get the wave though. It was cruel and the results are dismal. It did serve a purpose and there is no denying that. I just wish it could have been done better. Back then, most people had too much pride to accept tips in restaurants, leave alone charity. Much of that pride has been destroyed and hand outs are the norm in too many lives. The problem with handouts, federal or otherwise, is that there can never be enough to properly care for the recipient as the money has to be surplus to the productive economy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: Snagle
if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

i know the GOP did well in the senate and in general liberalism is in a downturn at the moment, just sayin

I don't think he would have looked like a jackass posting this.

A win for Kerry would not have been a win for liberalism. Many were voting against Bush, and not for Kerry.

Liberalism has been on the decline since McGovern's disasterous run in 1972. That is 32 plus years. TO say liberalism is in a downturn is an understatement.

The very reason that it is in "downturn" is because the underlying ideology has been roundly rejected. The OP is right. The libs are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Thirty years of liberal policy has created a society that lives on the very edge of starvation, with only drugs provide any marginal income and they have been left with little pride. The dole does that to people. More socialism, anyone?

At some level you are confusing liberal policy with political power plays. When these policies were instituted by liberals, they were intended to rectify such things as the economic and social consequences of racial discrimination. That was not a fiction. Lynchings and extreme poverty were the norm for the "awesome people". I know. I was born in the South and saw it first hand. The intent of the Liberals of the day was to help people out with social programs who had no hope otherwise. Get a job? When no one would give you one? Easier to make bricks without straw if you know the reference.

The intent was good, but human nature being what it is meant taking advantage of the system by some, and a dependency on the system. Politicians in the Democratic party used these people as a voter base, since most people vote in their best interest, and that is where the problem lies.

The liberals DID some good, however their ideas were corrupted into something else.

Conservatives don't get a pass here, so they should not feel so superior. Their philosophy was also hijacked into one of greed and pseudo patriotic pride.

It's a shame, because both sides had a number of good ideas, and were not unlike in intent, but in method. Both wanted a better America. Now both sides try to animalistically devour the other, and the common man be damned.

Mostly in agreement with your post. However, unless you are a lot older than you seem you didn't: "Lynchings and extreme poverty were the norm for the "awesome people". I know. I was born in the South and saw it first hand." Not much of that done in the last 50 years. I am old enough to have seen that and when it happened, it was rare. I never actually saw any of that or even heard of any of it actually happening and I lived throughout the south. I may have traveled in different circles than you did. I did see a guy get his guts cut out in front of a trailer house in 1953 though. He was white, his attacker was white. They were both drunk on moonshine and after being cut, he washed his intestines in a water stream from a faucet and chased down and killed his attacker. Moonshine was the real problem sort of like drugs today. Everyone down here has a meth lab in the woods behind the house. The south was very rough back then. I think the north was as well. It was on sunday and I was a bit young to realize at first what was happening. I did see fountains that said "white only" as well as bathrooms. Schools were segregated as well. My Dad worked in a saw mill and worked with a mixed crew. None of them went to brick homes and sat in recliners when their labors were done. There was a lot of equality at the lower economic levels. Extreme poverty may have been the norm for me and mine. I never questioned that some people in town had better houses. I thought my life was better, but my Dad must have suffered terribly. He probably understood more about social and economic stratification than I did then! He certainly seemed happy enough though. Most people either don't understand that few people in the south back then were wealthy or choose to ignore it.

I would agree that both sides had good ideas. The intent was good. Most of the ideas have made our country better. The dole as a procurement vehicle for bloc votes doesn't get the wave though. It was cruel and the results are dismal. It did serve a purpose and there is no denying that. I just wish it could have been done better. Back then, most people had too much pride to accept tips in restaurants, leave alone charity. Much of that pride has been destroyed and hand outs are the norm in too many lives. The problem with handouts, federal or otherwise, is that there can never be enough to properly care for the recipient as the money has to be surplus to the productive economy.

I am up there, but I have never actually witnessed a lynching. I was in Arkansas and there was a black man who was murdered, and although it wasn't called a lynching, it was widely remarked that he was "uppity" and had it coming to him. The intent and result were the same as if the KKK had done it, and it was widely suspected that someone of that mindset did the crime. The poverty I saw first hand. After I left the SOuth, we visited my grandparents and I would spend the summer there most years. When I was very young, my grandmother suggested I play with the "awesome people" down the road. Now in this context I believe you understand when I say that wasn't a racial slur, but just what black people were called, sometimes with but often without malace. Now I whenever I went I was given a bag of food to take. Being young, I really didn't care that the only furniture they had was pretty much made of old crates and such, or that the windows were broken, or the clothes had holes in them. I was a kid, who had other kids to play with. This went on a couple summers, and I figured out why I was sent. I asked my grandfather why he just didn't take the food to them himself. His answer is that they could take it from a child, but a man has his pride, and it wouldnt do to have him take it.

Maybe my grandma was a liberal

Seriously, I think the best course for the country would be to quit the bashing and concentrate on how the general situation can be improved. A marriage of both philosophies might be more productive than either alone.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: Snagle
if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

i know the GOP did well in the senate and in general liberalism is in a downturn at the moment, just sayin

I don't think he would have looked like a jackass posting this.

A win for Kerry would not have been a win for liberalism. Many were voting against Bush, and not for Kerry.

Liberalism has been on the decline since McGovern's disasterous run in 1972. That is 32 plus years. TO say liberalism is in a downturn is an understatement.

The very reason that it is in "downturn" is because the underlying ideology has been roundly rejected. The OP is right. The libs are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Thirty years of liberal policy has created a society that lives on the very edge of starvation, with only drugs provide any marginal income and they have been left with little pride. The dole does that to people. More socialism, anyone?

At some level you are confusing liberal policy with political power plays. When these policies were instituted by liberals, they were intended to rectify such things as the economic and social consequences of racial discrimination. That was not a fiction. Lynchings and extreme poverty were the norm for the "awesome people". I know. I was born in the South and saw it first hand. The intent of the Liberals of the day was to help people out with social programs who had no hope otherwise. Get a job? When no one would give you one? Easier to make bricks without straw if you know the reference.

The intent was good, but human nature being what it is meant taking advantage of the system by some, and a dependency on the system. Politicians in the Democratic party used these people as a voter base, since most people vote in their best interest, and that is where the problem lies.

The liberals DID some good, however their ideas were corrupted into something else.

Conservatives don't get a pass here, so they should not feel so superior. Their philosophy was also hijacked into one of greed and pseudo patriotic pride.

It's a shame, because both sides had a number of good ideas, and were not unlike in intent, but in method. Both wanted a better America. Now both sides try to animalistically devour the other, and the common man be damned.

Mostly in agreement with your post. However, unless you are a lot older than you seem you didn't: "Lynchings and extreme poverty were the norm for the "awesome people". I know. I was born in the South and saw it first hand." Not much of that done in the last 50 years. I am old enough to have seen that and when it happened, it was rare. I never actually saw any of that or even heard of any of it actually happening and I lived throughout the south. I may have traveled in different circles than you did. I did see a guy get his guts cut out in front of a trailer house in 1953 though. He was white, his attacker was white. They were both drunk on moonshine and after being cut, he washed his intestines in a water stream from a faucet and chased down and killed his attacker. Moonshine was the real problem sort of like drugs today. Everyone down here has a meth lab in the woods behind the house. The south was very rough back then. I think the north was as well. It was on sunday and I was a bit young to realize at first what was happening. I did see fountains that said "white only" as well as bathrooms. Schools were segregated as well. My Dad worked in a saw mill and worked with a mixed crew. None of them went to brick homes and sat in recliners when their labors were done. There was a lot of equality at the lower economic levels. Extreme poverty may have been the norm for me and mine. I never questioned that some people in town had better houses. I thought my life was better, but my Dad must have suffered terribly. He probably understood more about social and economic stratification than I did then! He certainly seemed happy enough though. Most people either don't understand that few people in the south back then were wealthy or choose to ignore it.

I would agree that both sides had good ideas. The intent was good. Most of the ideas have made our country better. The dole as a procurement vehicle for bloc votes doesn't get the wave though. It was cruel and the results are dismal. It did serve a purpose and there is no denying that. I just wish it could have been done better. Back then, most people had too much pride to accept tips in restaurants, leave alone charity. Much of that pride has been destroyed and hand outs are the norm in too many lives. The problem with handouts, federal or otherwise, is that there can never be enough to properly care for the recipient as the money has to be surplus to the productive economy.

I am up there, but I have never actually witnessed a lynching. I was in Arkansas and there was a black man who was murdered, and although it wasn't called a lynching, it was widely remarked that he was "uppity" and had it coming to him. The intent and result were the same as if the KKK had done it, and it was widely suspected that someone of that mindset did the crime. The poverty I saw first hand. After I left the SOuth, we visited my grandparents and I would spend the summer there most years. When I was very young, my grandmother suggested I play with the "awesome people" down the road. Now in this context I believe you understand when I say that wasn't a racial slur, but just what black people were called, sometimes with but often without malace. Now I whenever I went I was given a bag of food to take. Being young, I really didn't care that the only furniture they had was pretty much made of old crates and such, or that the windows were broken, or the clothes had holes in them. I was a kid, who had other kids to play with. This went on a couple summers, and I figured out why I was sent. I asked my grandfather why he just didn't take the food to them himself. His answer is that they could take it from a child, but a man has his pride, and it wouldnt do to have him take it.

Maybe my grandma was a liberal

Seriously, I think the best course for the country would be to quit the bashing and concentrate on how the general situation can be improved. A marriage of both philosophies might be more productive than either alone.

We unloaded hay from one house before we moved in. It was the best house I remember. My dad could fix anything, so the windows were all good. My Mom could hand sew, so the clothing may have looked funny, but it was in good repair. My shirts sometimes still had the brand of the flour that the bag had once contained. When food was short, there were squirrels and Polk Salad - black berries too. I do remember some issues of so called rape where black men were jailed where white men would have not been questioned. That was in the city, far from us. The only hangings I remember were the ones in western books and on the cowboy radio programs. I don't deny history, just the degree presented as fact in today's media. Speaking personally, I think we have come a long ways.

 

[miketheidiot]

Such a strategy may win a few brownie points here-and-there with some people. But what is never developed is the old-fashioned ideological framework. This is the Catch-22 the Left is in today. They can abandon the broad social reforms of their predessesors (because most people will reject the philosophical foundation outright), but eventually their asymmetrical strategy to "smuggle" this society into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting the whole of these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or their underlying base to be exposed crumbles and fails... just as their political influence has deteriorated recently.

This is the most profoundly stupid thing I have ever seen you write, and that says a lot.

First of all, I don't see where you get the part where people with reject the democrats socio-economic policy (which is very conservative to say the least, which may be its biggest problem), however at least one poll has shown a vast majority of americans to be in favor of the current welfare state and majorities to be in favor of expansions of the welfare state into healthcare. The expansion of the "welfare state" the people truely oppose is that which the republicans and other "conservatives" offer, corporate welfare.

Second of all, you insinuate that the welfare state is in some way evil or immoral, as do many of your kind, without offering any basis. What exactly are the principles behind the opposition to the welfare state, besides greed, assuming their are any?

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't, and it's almost sad to see them spinning their wheels so furiously in a dead-end road to nowhere. They went from getting their idealistic machinations skewered 50 years ago, to a guerilla campaign of pragmaticism that saw their polices fall short and be rejected today. So much failure, no wonder they tend to be neurotic types

Sometimes it is better to be moral and lose than to be evil and win, because even if you win, your still evil.

Basically, they are doomed to repeat their past frustrations and will continue to collapse. During the cold war, they proclaimed their love for mankind while being bored by the rivers of blood pouring from the Soviet Union and China. Ranging from intellectual evasion to glowing tribute towards Communists, they pointed their little barbs at the US for reasons of "injustice," "exploitation," "repression," and "persecution."

Fix your own house before you go criticizing others, particularily when your just as bad, and especially when you can't do sh!t to fix the problem, and what you do will just make their problem worse (which is what happened and continues to happen)

Today, they are no different. They pour out range-of-the-moment, pragmatitic arguments (as evidenced here on P&N) against the USA, while generally remaining silent -and in most ways oblivious to- the nature of our enemy. The more things change, the more things stay the same... once again doomed to be on the wrong side of history.

I think my three previous statements cover this. Congratulations on taking the time to post thisthough I might have to create a new thread on this. Thanks.

EDIT: i was to tired to read the replies. Lame, i know, but classes start up again in 6 hrs and I should sleep. Good night.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: Snagle
if 60,000 votes wouldve went the other way in ohio you would look like a jackass posting this.

i know the GOP did well in the senate and in general liberalism is in a downturn at the moment, just sayin

I don't think he would have looked like a jackass posting this.

A win for Kerry would not have been a win for liberalism. Many were voting against Bush, and not for Kerry.

Liberalism has been on the decline since McGovern's disasterous run in 1972. That is 32 plus years. TO say liberalism is in a downturn is an understatement.

The very reason that it is in "downturn" is because the underlying ideology has been roundly rejected. The OP is right. The libs are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Thirty years of liberal policy has created a society that lives on the very edge of starvation, with only drugs provide any marginal income and they have been left with little pride. The dole does that to people. More socialism, anyone?

At some level you are confusing liberal policy with political power plays. When these policies were instituted by liberals, they were intended to rectify such things as the economic and social consequences of racial discrimination. That was not a fiction. Lynchings and extreme poverty were the norm for the "awesome people". I know. I was born in the South and saw it first hand. The intent of the Liberals of the day was to help people out with social programs who had no hope otherwise. Get a job? When no one would give you one? Easier to make bricks without straw if you know the reference.

The intent was good, but human nature being what it is meant taking advantage of the system by some, and a dependency on the system. Politicians in the Democratic party used these people as a voter base, since most people vote in their best interest, and that is where the problem lies.

The liberals DID some good, however their ideas were corrupted into something else.

Conservatives don't get a pass here, so they should not feel so superior. Their philosophy was also hijacked into one of greed and pseudo patriotic pride.

It's a shame, because both sides had a number of good ideas, and were not unlike in intent, but in method. Both wanted a better America. Now both sides try to animalistically devour the other, and the common man be damned.

Mostly in agreement with your post. However, unless you are a lot older than you seem you didn't: "Lynchings and extreme poverty were the norm for the "awesome people". I know. I was born in the South and saw it first hand." Not much of that done in the last 50 years. I am old enough to have seen that and when it happened, it was rare. I never actually saw any of that or even heard of any of it actually happening and I lived throughout the south. I may have traveled in different circles than you did. I did see a guy get his guts cut out in front of a trailer house in 1953 though. He was white, his attacker was white. They were both drunk on moonshine and after being cut, he washed his intestines in a water stream from a faucet and chased down and killed his attacker. Moonshine was the real problem sort of like drugs today. Everyone down here has a meth lab in the woods behind the house. The south was very rough back then. I think the north was as well. It was on sunday and I was a bit young to realize at first what was happening. I did see fountains that said "white only" as well as bathrooms. Schools were segregated as well. My Dad worked in a saw mill and worked with a mixed crew. None of them went to brick homes and sat in recliners when their labors were done. There was a lot of equality at the lower economic levels. Extreme poverty may have been the norm for me and mine. I never questioned that some people in town had better houses. I thought my life was better, but my Dad must have suffered terribly. He probably understood more about social and economic stratification than I did then! He certainly seemed happy enough though. Most people either don't understand that few people in the south back then were wealthy or choose to ignore it.

I would agree that both sides had good ideas. The intent was good. Most of the ideas have made our country better. The dole as a procurement vehicle for bloc votes doesn't get the wave though. It was cruel and the results are dismal. It did serve a purpose and there is no denying that. I just wish it could have been done better. Back then, most people had too much pride to accept tips in restaurants, leave alone charity. Much of that pride has been destroyed and hand outs are the norm in too many lives. The problem with handouts, federal or otherwise, is that there can never be enough to properly care for the recipient as the money has to be surplus to the productive economy.

I am up there, but I have never actually witnessed a lynching. I was in Arkansas and there was a black man who was murdered, and although it wasn't called a lynching, it was widely remarked that he was "uppity" and had it coming to him. The intent and result were the same as if the KKK had done it, and it was widely suspected that someone of that mindset did the crime. The poverty I saw first hand. After I left the SOuth, we visited my grandparents and I would spend the summer there most years. When I was very young, my grandmother suggested I play with the "awesome people" down the road. Now in this context I believe you understand when I say that wasn't a racial slur, but just what black people were called, sometimes with but often without malace. Now I whenever I went I was given a bag of food to take. Being young, I really didn't care that the only furniture they had was pretty much made of old crates and such, or that the windows were broken, or the clothes had holes in them. I was a kid, who had other kids to play with. This went on a couple summers, and I figured out why I was sent. I asked my grandfather why he just didn't take the food to them himself. His answer is that they could take it from a child, but a man has his pride, and it wouldnt do to have him take it.

Maybe my grandma was a liberal

Seriously, I think the best course for the country would be to quit the bashing and concentrate on how the general situation can be improved. A marriage of both philosophies might be more productive than either alone.

Another comment. One reason that I don't care much for churchy people is the KKK. The church was the base for the KKK. Mostly burbon Democrats too. I hate to whine, but being from Alabama, I caught all sorts of hell for actions of the KKK as I ventured to the northern states later in life. In basic training, there were a lot of black guys from NYC. Fortunately, they only threatened and seldom tried anything. I tried to explain to them that all southern whites didn't belong to the aristocracy and that I had never so much as met a clan member. They just knew that all southerners lived on plantations and had slaves! We had some really exciting flag football games on the weekends during basic.

 

[drewshin]

what you say about the left can easily be said about the right. they've all sold out.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: drewshin
what you say about the left can easily be said about the right. they've all sold out.

"Tru dat"

edit: assuming we're talking about the major political parties

 

[dgevert]

I read through this discussion, and amongst all the conservatives attacking their straw men of the liberal mindset, I am reminded of one eternal fact, that has been true for as long as politics have been around:

Conservatives are morons.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: dgevert
I read through this discussion, and amongst all the conservatives attacking their straw men of the liberal mindset, I am reminded of one eternal fact, that has been true for as long as politics have been around:

Conservatives are morons.

ZING!
dont elaborate too much on that one Tex, might hurt yourself. :roll:

 

[flawlssdistortn]

Originally posted by: dgevert
I read through this discussion, and amongst all the conservatives attacking their straw men of the liberal mindset, I am reminded of one eternal fact, that has been true for as long as politics have been around:

Conservatives are morons.

Look son, by coming out with a statement like that, you lose all credibility and just become another straw man.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: yllus
Firstly and foremost, I'm surprised there are actually people in this forum who can make a post of that length and be the original author. :Q

The attitudes of liberals since 2000 has been that of conservatives during the Clinton years - mostly bitching about the supposed radicalization of the country's current agenda when the reality is little that is awful is really occuring. I guess everyone needs a justification for why their side didn't win. Keep in mind that the voting public is even today still almost perfectly split in half.

Democrats in America today have a few problems. First, their primary social goals are virtually accomplished. Abortion is legal, women are man's equal, the environment isn't being raped, and frankly gay rights aren't the big resounding issue it's made out to be. There's a fair bit of aggrandization of Republicans as the enemies of these issues when there's actually no serious opposition. It gets transparent and comes off as...whiny.

On the other hand, the Republicans have coopted the big ticket issues of the day. If you want an administration that plays hardball with foreign opponents, you naturally look to the conservatives. Ramming through change for Social Security? The Republicans. Cater to the businessman? The Republicans. More money in your pocket? Republicans again, albeit falsely. It's hard to win any voters other than the cadre that'll vote for your side no-matter-what with your major talking points obliterated.

You're right - this is eerily reminiscent of Cold War times. Frankly, trying to understand the enemy in hopes of reasoning with them isn't going any better now than it did then. What's aggravating is that with the fall of the USSR only a decade in the past, people are already rewriting history to make it out to be all about Western imperialism. Communist threat? Whassat? Meh. America has always gotten the job done as needed and I'm sure that that will continue.

:thumbsup: Like the Democrats after the 2002 election, the Republicans are drunk with their victory and can't help rubbing it in just like the OP of this thread and his ilk.