DB: Why Democrats Are Smiling

[techboy]

Likewise the definition of a liberal is somebody who looks for new solutions rather than old solutions.

That's not the commonly used defintion when talking about politics. If we used the status quo/new ideas split still, the "conservative" position would be "pro-choice", since that's the status quo, and the "liberal" position would be pro-life.

It may have been true once, but "liberal" and "conservative" for U.S. politics are now set, and a liberal is not the same as a classical liberal.

Any other opinion requires creative use of terminology in unorthodox manners, and I'm not interested in playing word games.

"Liberal" has a set meaning today.

[Monrovia_Redskin]

Jefferson wouldn't promote a war on drugs. Mainly marijuana/hemp, since he grew the stuff. So, he wouldn't waste trillions on a war on drugs that goes nowhere. Does that make him liberal? He had slaves too. That doesn't sound very liberal.

[Predicto]

"Liberal" has a set meaning today.

No, it really doesn't.

I can guarantee you that when you ask Me what a liberal is, I will give you a very different answer than, say, NavyDave will.

[techboy]

No, it really doesn't.

I can guarantee you that when you ask Me what a liberal is, I will give you a very different answer than, say, NavyDave will.

Answers will vary slightly from person to person, but the general understanding is there. No one is going to call Nancy Pelosi a conservative.

Only in a world where FDR and Milton Friedman followed identical policies could liberal and classical liberal be the same thing.

Keep in mind, I'm talking about common usage, here. Asking members of Code Pink or NavyDave is not going to get you common usage.

[Predicto]

Answers will vary slightly from person to person, but the general understanding is there. No one is going to call Nancy Pelosi a conservative.

Only in a world where FDR and Milton Friedman followed identical policies could liberal and classical liberal be the same thing.

Keep in mind, I'm talking about common usage, here. Asking members of Code Pink or NavyDave is not going to get you common usage.

Yes, but your definition of "classical liberal" is relevant only in the context of the times in which it arose. Laissez-faire was a powerful argument against merchantilism, but no one is advocating for a return to mercantilism (well, almost no one). The arguments have changed.

Put another way, you can't reaaly say that a "classical liberal" would have been on one side or another of a particular issue, if it was an issue that they could not possibly ever have envisioned in their times.

Thus, the Economist magazine, as you say a powerful voice for "classical liberalism," favors a carbon tax to control CO2 emissions, and favors government intervention in health care (in fact, it favors decoupling healthcare from employment entirely), and favored Obama over McCain, and favors a host of other things that you would view as "modern liberal" rather than "classical liberal."

[techboy]

Thus, the Economist magazine, as you say a powerful voice for "classical liberalism," favors a carbon tax to control CO2 emissions, and favors government intervention in health care (in fact, it favors decoupling healthcare from employment entirely), and favored Obama over McCain, and favors a host of other things that you would view as "modern liberal" rather than "classical liberal."

And Friedman apparently advocated a flat lump sum payment by the government to those making under a certain income. There will almost always be variances with any specific example, but the general still holds.

I'm pretty sure I can tell a difference between The Economist and Mother Jones or The Village Voice.

[Burgold]

I sometimes wonder what's more difficult.

For me to accurately define me or for you to accurately define me. Both are fraught with the danger of inaccurasy.

[Predicto]

And Friedman apparently advocated a flat lump sum payment by the government to those making under a certain income. There will almost always be variances with any specific example, but the general still holds.

I'm pretty sure I can tell a difference between The Economist and Mother Jones or The Village Voice.

Of course you can tell the difference. But neither would be "classic liberalism."

Moreover, you find Predicto agreeing with the Economist's take much, much more often than he ever agrees with Mother Jones or the Village Voice, yet I am viewed as a flaming far-left loon by a lot of people on this site. To me, the Economist is a voice of practical liberalism in the modern-day sense (with a few exceptions) while Mother Jones is better described as leftist, or as leftist/progressive.

Which just goes to show you that the term "Liberal" does NOT have a set meaning today. It has a meaning that varies depending on the quesiton being asked, and the person answering the question.

[skinfan133]

Jefferson was a liberal. Classic Liberal.

very good! guess which ideology both modern conservatism and liberalism stem from. GASP. Classical Liberalism, which is NOT synonymous with today's liberalism.

Jefferson was a revolutionary who created an entirely new form of government. You can't get much more liberal than that. Jefferson was the father of American liberal ideology, just like Alexander Hamilton was the father on the Right.

that's completely ass backwards. you obviously have no idea how ideology in this country has evolved over the years. Do you even know what Hamilton believed in?

edit: after reading the second portion of this thread: you are all missing the point! I don't care what Jefferson is labeled as by you, I can say with as much certainty is as possible that Jefferson would align himself with today's libertarians rather than with either today's "conservatives" or "liberals". That is the direction the Republican party should return to, a more libertarian aproach mixed with fiscal conservatism. That party would literally be unbeatable in elections for a long time.

[ace8842]

This Republican civil war thing is being so overblown by CNN and MSNBC it is ridiculous. This was a local election that got screwed up. Instead of having Republicans actually run against each other, a very liberal Republican, more liberal than the Democrat actually, was chosen by a few people. Hoffman was a virtual unknown with little charisma and not the greatest charm or appearance, yet he got 45% in 3 weeks time! Had Scozzafava not been on the ballot, he would have won possibly, or had she not endorsed Owens. This was just a message to the RNC to not endorse candidates who support Obama's stimulus bills or union check card. While conservatives will support Republicans who are moderate, they won't support a candidate who had a more liberal voting record than 46 other Dems in New York! Otherwise, we end up with traitors like Arlen Specter. The big message here is in NJ and VA, with millions voting, 2/3 of independents voted Republican, that is significant. Owens won because tons of money from the RNC and DNC got pushed against Hoffman. It was a fluke due to local politics.

[JMS]

Jefferson a liberal?....hmmm, maybe it wasn't him who quoted my sig after all....Maybe it was George Jefferson.

You want a good list of early liberal American Presidents. Check Mount Rushmore. Everyone was a liberal.

All of the Greatest American Presidents either Republican or Democrat were liberals. There has been exactly 1 great American President from my perspective who was a conservative. That would be Ronald Reagan.

[Predicto]

very good! guess which ideology both modern conservatism and liberalism stem from. GASP. Classical Liberalism, which is NOT synonymous with today's liberalism.

that's completely ass backwards. you obviously have no idea how ideology in this country has evolved over the years. Do you even know what Hamilton believed in?

As I said before, the battles were different then, the issues were different then. People who want to "claim" Thomas Jefferson for their modern day political stances are kidding themselves.

[skinfan133]

As I said before, the battles were different then, the issues were different then. People who want to "claim" Thomas Jefferson for their modern day political stances are kidding themselves.

go back and read my edit, you can consider that a response.

I'm not claiming Jefferson as a definition of those like me, but rather I base a lot of my political stances off him.

[JMS]

No, why would I care to try again?

I actually do think Reagan erred and swung..."neo-con" in many things he did.

you really should try to understand whom you are speaking with if you think that referencing reagan will bother me even a little.

Not many folks would consider Ronald Reagan a Neo conservative...

The Neo Conservatives were Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Bill Crystal, Richard Pearlman, and Charles Krauthammer. They weren't guys typically associated with Reagan. ( Pearlman did serve as an assistant sec of defense under reagan).... Rather the neocons were typically guys who hooked up with the soft squishy brained former Nixon advisors like Cheney and Rumsfeld who Ronald Reagan excluded from government during his terms in office.

[JMS]

very good! guess which ideology both modern conservatism and liberalism stem from. GASP. Classical Liberalism, which is NOT synonymous with today's liberalism.

The term liberal actually predates "classic liberal" which came into existance in the 19th century. Thomas Jefferson was definitely a liberal. He was also an early example of a Classic Liberal.

As for TODAY's Liberal etc. That's a hollow question. All the issues have changed. But while the issues have changed, what made Jefferson a liberal, and what makes a liberal today hasn't changed.

A liberal is by definition someone who looks for a new solution to a problem. A conservative by definition is someone who looks for a previous known solution to a problem... someone who wants to go back to a solution which worked before.

That's the paradyme. The yin and yang of progress. All new ideas, democracy, republics, anti slavery, civil rights are tracked back to liberals. Conservatism is credited for ensuring what the liberals come up with, actually functions.

[JMS]

No, it really doesn't.

I can guarantee you that when you ask Me what a liberal is, I will give you a very different answer than, say, NavyDave will.

And yet we do have websters dictionary which defines both liberal and conservative.

[JMS]

And Friedman apparently advocated a flat lump sum payment by the government to those making under a certain income. There will almost always be variances with any specific example, but the general still holds.

.

Are you thinking milton friedman was a liberal? He's the poster boy for conservative economics.

[JMS]

As I said before, the battles were different then, the issues were different then. People who want to "claim" Thomas Jefferson for their modern day political stances are kidding themselves.

The issues and solutions have changed but not how people find their solutions. Where people look for a solution to a problem is where the difference between conservatives and liberals are found.

Jefferson looked for new and improved ways of doing things. That's why he's a liberal. That's what liberal means. synonomous with Progressive it's someone who moves forward not backwards...

liberal - open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

Conservative looks for a solution in the past. Someone when faced with a problem goes back to what has worked for him or society before.

conservative - disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

The issues have changed not the fundimentals of the philosophies.

Without liberals their is no progress, without conservatives nothing would work, for very long.

[JMS]

that's completely ass backwards. you obviously have no idea how ideology in this country has evolved over the years. Do you even know what Hamilton believed in?

Why yes I do. Hamilton believed in a monarchy. Strong central authority.

Which branded him a conservative. Leader of the early conservatives in the United States and a quite effective and influencial one.

edit: after reading the second portion of this thread: you are all missing the point! I don't care what Jefferson is labeled as by you, I can say with as much certainty is as possible that Jefferson would align himself with today's libertarians rather than with either today's "conservatives" or "liberals". That is the direction the Republican party should return to, a more libertarian aproach mixed with fiscal conservatism. That party would literally be unbeatable in elections for a long time.

Actually I think it is you who fundimentally miss the point. Issues aren't important in judging a person's historic politics. Because the issues change. you have no clue what Jefferson would have thought about the war in Iraq, abortion, healthcare reform, tax breaks for he wealthy, or massive deficits. All of the things that frame political views today.

Jefferson wrote and supported the declaration of independence. In his day that's ultra left liberal. In our day it's a value shared across the political spectrum. The only thing that is important is how jefferson formed his opinions, not what those opinions where based on his times.

[alexey]

This just proves that despite what you think you believe at your core and in your heart, you support liberals.

This was a nice warm and fuzzy moment.

Either that or you just really don't understand what liberals are or have stood for which would be far less warm and fuzzy... kind of cool and sharp in fact.

Or maybe not very sharp and certainly not cool :cool:

[SnyderShrugged]

Not many folks would consider Ronald Reagan a Neo conservative...

The Neo Conservatives were Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Bill Crystal, Richard Pearlman, and Charles Krauthammer. They weren't guys typically associated with Reagan. ( Pearlman did serve as an assistant sec of defense under reagan).... Rather the neocons were typically guys who hooked up with the soft squishy brained former Nixon advisors like Cheney and Rumsfeld who Ronald Reagan excluded from government during his terms in office.

I'm not like many folks!

[NavyDave]

They are smiling because they are all cried out and its time to put on the faux face of optimism.

Wow, who didn't see the Liberal Republican endorsing the Liberal Democrat in NY instead of the Conservative candidate?

Enjoy the seat until next year when the Conservative candidate will be more formidable especially if Team donkey continues with policies and actions that the people think put their futures and their children's future at risk

[isle-hawg]

The issues and solutions have changed but not how people find their solutions.

I think you make a good/interesting point throughout this thread and the above quote kind of sums it up IMO.

EDIT:

Using this logic does this make me a liberal or conservative for wanting the govt to balance the ****ing budget and quit borrowing from the Chinese and printing up more money to pay the bills?

Based on Webster's definition it may be liberal because the feds have been borrowing money throughout my lifetime (as the gold standard went out before I was born) and I want them to stop this practice even though it hasn't hurt YET.

Or is it conservative because I strive to live within my means (which has worked for me) and expect my government to do the same?

[Burgold]

I think you make a good/interesting point throughout this thread and the above quote kind of sums it up IMO.

EDIT:

Using this logic does this make me a liberal or conservative for wanting the govt to balance the ****ing budget and quit borrowing from the Chinese and printing up more money to pay the bills?

Based on evidence of the Bush, Bush, Clinton, and Reagan Administrations being fiscally responsible is definately a liberal position. So yes, you have at least one liberal tendency.

[isle-hawg]

Based on evidence of the Bush, Bush, Clinton, and Reagan Administrations being fiscally responsible is definately a liberal position. So yes, you have at least one liberal tendency.

Roger that - then Obama is a fiscal conservative -- even more fiscally conservative than Bush?