DB: Why Democrats Are Smiling

[SnyderShrugged]

I thought this was a thread about smiling Democrats?

[nonniey]

I thought this was a thread about smiling Democrats?

Yeah, so. We're talking about Stalin now aren't we? :evilg:

[SparkleMotion]

This thread needs an enema.

Enter Hayek...from the essay "Why I am Not a Conservative." Bear in mind that when he uses the term liberal, he means it in the classical sense as "the party of liberty." This was written in the 60s, so the term libertarian had not yet been widely adopted, but that is what he is describing when he says liberal.

The picture generally given of the relative position of the three parties does more to obscure than to elucidate their true relations. They are usually represented as different positions on a line, with the socialists on the left, the conservatives on the right, and the liberals somewhere in the middle. Nothing could be more misleading. If we want a diagram, it would be more appropriate to arrange them in a triangle with the conservatives occupying one corner, with the socialists pulling toward the second and the liberals toward the third. But, as the socialists have for a long time been able to pull harder, the conservatives have tended to follow the socialist rather than the liberal direction and have adopted at appropriate intervals of time those ideas made respectable by radical propaganda. It has been regularly the conservatives who have compromised with socialism and stolen its thunder. Advocates of the Middle Way[4] with no goal of their own, conservatives have been guided by the belief that the truth must lie somewhere between the extremes - with the result that they have shifted their position every time a more extreme movement appeared on either wing.

The position which can be rightly described as conservative at any time depends, therefore, on the direction of existing tendencies. Since the development during the last decades has been generally in a socialist direction, it may seem that both conservatives and liberals have been mainly intent on retarding that movement. But the main point about liberalism is that it wants to go elsewhere, not to stand still. Though today the contrary impression may sometimes be caused by the fact that there was a time when liberalism was more widely accepted and some of its objectives closer to being achieved, it has never been a backward-looking doctrine. There has never been a time when liberal ideals were fully realized and when liberalism did not look forward to further improvement of institutions. Liberalism is not averse to evolution and change; and where spontaneous change has been smothered by government control, it wants a great deal of change of policy. So far as much of current governmental action is concerned, there is in the present world very little reason for the liberal to wish to preserve things as they are. It would seem to the liberal, indeed, that what is most urgently needed in most parts of the world is a thorough sweeping away of the obstacles to free growth.

This difference between liberalism and conservatism must not be obscured by the fact that in the United States it is still possible to defend individual liberty by defending long-established institutions. To the liberal they are valuable not mainly because they are long established or because they are American but because they correspond to the ideals which he cherishes.

Read the rest here:

http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

But what does Hayek know? He's just a libertarian nut who has no place at this table of linear thinking and false dichotomies.

[JMS]

Enter Hayek...from the essay "Why I am Not a Conservative." Bear in mind that when he uses the term liberal, he means it in the classical sense as "the party of liberty." This was written in the 60s, so the term libertarian had not yet been widely adopted, but that is what he is describing when he says liberal..

Yeah libertarians, socialists and conservatives are all polar oposites? I guess that guy lived before Ronald Reagan came to power and libertarians and conservatives were two of the three pillars that held up his political machine along with evangelicals. Somebody else should tell Hayek that socialism is the moderate left leaning philosophy and conservatism is the moderate right leaning philosophy and neither represents a political pole.

I love modern political science with it's two and three dimentional political spectrum. Where extreamists and evil doers only occur on the left.

[SparkleMotion]

Yeah libertarians, socialists and conservatives are all polar oposites? I guess that guy lived before Ronald Reagan came to power and libertarians and conservatives were two of the three pillars that held up his political machine along with evangelicals. Somebody else should tell Hayek that socialism is the moderate left leaning philosophy and conservatism is the moderate right leaning philosophy and neither represents a political pole.

"Since the development during the last decades has been generally in a socialist direction, it may seem that both conservatives and liberals have been mainly intent on retarding that movement."

Is that not a perfectly reasonable explanation of libertarian support for Reagan?

What are the poles then? Communism and fascism? Their similarities are much greater than their differences.

[JMS]

"Since the development during the last decades has been generally in a socialist direction, it may seem that both conservatives and liberals have been mainly intent on retarding that movement."

Is that not a perfectly reasonable explanation of libertarian support for Reagan?

?? Well that might have been true in the 1960's. When the last liberal President of the United States LBJ was in power.

But the libertarian party was founded in 1970 about two years after LBJ left office.

And Ronald Reagan came to power in 1981. When Conservatives had been in power pretty much solidely for a decade. So exactly why would conservatives and libertarians gang up and join forces if they represented "polar extremes" on the political spectrum?

Likewise when Reagan and Bush had been in power for 12 years, I didn't see any fracturing between conservatives and libertarians.

What are the poles then? Communism and fascism? Their similarities are much greater than their differences.

Communism is an example of an extreme left philosophy. Fascism is an example of an extreme right philosophy. They used similar tactics to achieve and maintain power, but they were fundimatally oposites in their justification and goals.

[SparkleMotion]

?? Well that might have been true in the 1960's. When the last liberal President of the United States LBJ was in power.

But the libertarian party was founded in 1970 about two years after LBJ left office.

And Ronald Reagan came to power in 1981. When Conservatives had been in power pretty much solidely for a decade. So exactly why would conservatives and libertarians gang up and join forces if they represented "polar extremes" on the political spectrum?

Reagan's anti-government message appealed to those who think government intervention is fundamentally detrimental in most cases. It wasn't a conscious decision to join forces, it was a point when the conservative and libertarian points of the triangle were close to each other. Bush's presidency was a point where they were farther apart. Now, they're being pushed closer together in opposition to the Obama administration.

communism is an example of an extreme left philosophy. Fascism is an example of an extreme right philosophy. They used similar tactics to achieve and maintain power, but they were fundimatally oposites in their justification and goals.

I would argue that the main justification and the main goal for each of those groups was power itself. They may have gotten people on their respective sides using different messages, but the end result was tyranny in both cases. As we all know, actions speak louder than words.

[Destino]

I thought this was a thread about smiling Democrats?

I just clicked "last page" and was thinking the same thing. haha

[PeterMP]

What marks both Karl Marx's Communism, and Lennin/Stalin's Communism extreme left movements, if you chose to break them appart, is that both were trying to creat a new form of government. Something that the world had never seen before. A better form of government. Marx and Stalin only differed on tactics, not strategy.

Fact is Marx was a theorist, he didn't need to concern himself with tactics.

Facism was a new kind of government too.

[deejaydana]

I thought this was a thread about smiling Democrats?

It's wincing (from a distance and with the right pair of glasses it looks like smiling).

[deejaydana]

Can someone explain to me, in plain English, what this line means (taken from the text of the original post:

"The sure-to be-a loser side appears to have all the soldiers and the reasonable-sounding side, and the one that can win, appears to have well, not much going on."

I've read it over three times and it comes off as absolute jibberish to me....

[PeterMP]

Can someone explain to me, in plain English, what this line means (taken from the text of the original post:

"The sure-to be-a loser side appears to have all the soldiers and the reasonable-sounding side, and the one that can win, appears to have well, not much going on."

I've read it over three times and it comes off as absolute jibberish to me....

The side that can't win general elections (the extreme right) has the people that are willing to work for the cause (soldiers).

The side that can win and sounds reasonable (the moderates) don't have anything else going for them needed to actaully win electios (i.e. money or organization).

[JMS]

Facism was a new kind of government too.

Actually not so much. The objective of the Nazi's was to create the THIRD REICH..... Not the First Reich. The First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire, the Second Reich was the German Empire before the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1918. Hitler wasn't trying to create something new, he was trying to recreate that which was lost.

Likewise Musilini too was trying to recreate an empire. The Roman empire. Musilini saw himself as a new Roman Emperor.

Both Fascist movements doctrine were rooted in History.

[JMS]

Reagan's anti-government message appealed to those who think government intervention is fundamentally detrimental in most cases. It wasn't a conscious decision to join forces, it was a point when the conservative and libertarian points of the triangle were close to each other. Bush's presidency was a point where they were farther apart. Now, they're being pushed closer together in opposition to the Obama administration.

First off, Reagan's smaller less obtrusive governemnt did indeed resonate with Libertarians, but my point is it obviously also resonated with Conservative Republicans. Thus Libertarians and Conservative Republicans are not polar oposites, as your triangle political spectrume would suggest.

Likewsie it certainly was a conscious decision to join forces. The Libertarian party endorsed Reagan, you can't get much more conscious than that. Likewise Libertarians supported Bush Sr, just like they did Bush Jr.

I would argue that the main justification and the main goal for each of those groups was power itself. They may have gotten people on their respective sides using different messages, but the end result was tyranny in both cases. As we all know, actions speak louder than words.

Yes hinesight is 20/20. However both of their messages resonated with conservatives and Libertarians alike. Thus they are not political polar opisites if the same message appeals to both.

[JMS]

SparkleMotion[/b]"]

I would argue that the main justification and the main goal for each of those groups was power itself. They may have gotten people on their respective sides using different messages, but the end result was tyranny in both cases. As we all know, actions speak louder than words.

I would disagree with you. I think the entire premise of the OP was that the break between the Fiscal conservatives, Social Conservatives, and Libertarians is why the Democrats are smiling. It's fratricide time among these traditional GOP allies. The Social Conservatives are killing off their own allies.

[jbooma]

It is stupid. History has shown that the next congressional elections will return the GOP to power, and the country, as a whole is becoming more conservative.

The idea that Republicans are "finished" is absurd. Even if they become more loony on the social issues most people don't pay enough attention for that to hamper them.

They are rebounding very strongly without any apparent unified leadership. Once a leader is established the Democrats are going to find themselves out in the cold again very quickly unless there is an incredible economic turn around.

Bingo if unemployment is between 7-10 again this time next year then the republicans will sweep the elections. Va just voted for a republican governor for the first time in about 12 years. What people forget is it isn't the lefts or rights that ultimately decide an election it is the independents and those in the middle that do. The #1 issue this past election was the economy which is there was sweeping change here in Va.

[JMS]

Bingo if unemployment is between 7-10 again this time next year then the republicans will sweep the elections. Va just voted for a republican governor for the first time in about 12 years. What people forget is it isn't the lefts or rights that ultimately decide an election it is the independents and those in the middle that do. The #1 issue this past election was the economy which is there was sweeping change here in Va.

Virginia is a very very conservative southern state. Even our democrats who win here are conservatives. I don't know if Virginia is the litmus test for the nation, The fact the two senate seats and two congressional seats that have come up since the obama elections have all gone to democrats could easily be just as deterministic.

[jbooma]

Virginia is a very very conservative southern state. Even our democrats who win here are conservatives. I don't know if Virginia is the litmus test for the nation, The fact the two senate seats and two congressional seats that have come up since the obama elections have all gone to democrats could easily be just as deterministic.

Sorry JMS but with what Warner has done for the state it has been leaning more left in past years. It wasn't that the repulican that won the election was shocking it was by how much which made people start to worry. Dems are hurting themselves if they don't think there will be change next year if there is no improvement. If giving everyone a rebate to buy a car is the best idea this government has to fight this recession then we are in trouble.

[JMS]

Sorry JMS but with what Warner has done for the state it has been leaning more left in past years.

I wouldn't call Mark Warner a liberal. I would call him a moderate who did a good conservative job of reducing spending and raiseing a few taxes to bring the Virginia budget problem into order. Mark Warner who while governor saw Virgnia voted best run state by the State Governors association? He didn't have one social program to his name as Governor of Virginia. He cut Government spending.

Likewise who are the Democrats who have won office in Virginia. Pro life Tim Kaine and Jim Webb? I would argue neither is much of a liberal by national standards.

Remember Chuck Robb? He was voted the democrate most Republicans would like to see become President on several occasions.

That's the type of Virginia Democrat we normally vote into office. Very conservative Democrats.

It wasn't that the repulican that won the election was shocking it was by how much which made people start to worry. Dems are hurting themselves if they don't think there will be change next year if there is no improvement. If giving everyone a rebate to buy a car is the best idea this government has to fight this recession then we are in trouble.

? Spending a Billion dollars to create 20 billion worth of stimulus you mean? That was an incredible smart and very popular plan the cash for klunkers bill.

I would agree with you though, If the Democrats allow the Republicans to dictate the sucess or failure of thier programs, as has been going on now for a year; Then the democrats will be in trouble regardless of their sucesses. I think that's the real issue.

[Baculus]

I would disagree with you. I think the entire premise of the OP was that the break between the Fiscal conservatives, Social Conservatives, and Libertarians is why the Democrats are smiling. It's fratricide time among these traditional GOP allies. The Social Conservatives are killing off their own allies.

Yep. The SoCons aren't interested in compromise. Many of them see libertarians as the enemy, or "liberal," as it is, and moderate fiscal conservatives who are socially permissive in their views? RINO traitors.

I am very confused by the SoCons, because I am not sure what they want for this country. Can any social conservatives tell us what you desire for American society?

[Baculus]

Actually not so much. The objective of the Nazi's was to create the THIRD REICH..... Not the First Reich. The First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire, the Second Reich was the German Empire before the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1918. Hitler wasn't trying to create something new, he was trying to recreate that which was lost.

Likewise Musilini too was trying to recreate an empire. The Roman empire. Musilini saw himself as a new Roman Emperor.

Both Fascist movements doctrine were rooted in History.

Right. The traditionalism evident in both German and Italian fascism are one of the reasons why they were ultimately "right-wing" movements, even if they had some "leftist" roots. I have written this in past discussions, but we have to remember that conservatives were some of the earliest "socialists" in England. "Tory conservatism" was seen as a defense of a sort of community socialism, such as shared land enclosures.

It is really hard to nail down some ideologies, because they are moving targets.

[JMS]

I am very confused by the SoCons, because I am not sure what they want for this country. Can any social conservatives tell us what you desire for American society?

Social conservatives are without a doubt the best organized component of the alliance Ronald Reagan first assembled. I don't think they are the largest of the groups though. I think Fiscal conservatives and libertarians make up sizeable components too.

[JMS]

It is really hard to nail down some ideologies, because they are moving targets.

I totally agree that if you try to define the philosophies ( conservative and liberal ) by the issues of the day; as we do so often today; then you get lost pretty quickly over a few generations.

However the forward thinking or backward thinking paridym does stand up across the centuries and even the Millennium.

Kato a conservative Roman senator who opposed Julius Ceasar was branded a conservative because he favored a traditional view of the Roman Republic and opposed the change Ceasar was trying to introduce.

I also think that knowing the true meanings of the terms rather defuses the political brands and artificial camps drawn up around the terms. Most people would agree that new ideas are not the work of the devil, and that returning to solutions proven to have worked in the past is not always a bad idea either.

Knowing the true meanings of the terms is rather empowering of a more open discussion not based on pre judgments.

Coarse so many of our schools don't seem to teach the bare basics it takes to reason and communicate consitantly any longer. The Two and three dementional political scales are examples of these efforts. Scales which don't distinguishe between Communists and Nazi's but rather groups all evils into a single quadrant to be avoided. Such that any movement away from your current beliefs can be labelled towards evil.

[Baculus]

I totally agree that if you try to define the philosophies ( conservative and liberal ) by the issues of the day; then you get lost pretty quickly over a few generations.

However the forward thinking or backward thinking paridym does stand up across the centuries and even the Millennium.

Kato a conservative Roman senator who opposed Julius Ceasar was branded a conservative because he favored a traditional view of the Roman Republic and opposed the change Ceasar was trying to introduce.

I think conservatism is often a mind-set more than anything else. That is why forty years ago some conservatives were trying to ban short skirts and rock-and-roll, and now they have a short-skirted Sarah Palin and guitar-playing Ted Nugent as their representatives.

Knowing the true meanings of the terms is rather empowering of a more open discussion not based on pre judgments.

Precisely.

[Baculus]

Social conservatives are without a doubt the best organized component of the alliance Ronald Reagan first assembled. I don't think they are the largest of the groups though. I think Fiscal conservatives and libertarians make up sizeable components too.

Even though Reagan said that libertarian was at the heart of American conservatism, I really fail to see why any libertarians would make alliance with some of these folks, especially since some of them have authoritarian tendencies. But of course, we have to go back a few generations (to the FDR years) to see the roots of this alliance.