What's a liberal?

[Ghost of]

DeTocqueville was also extraordinarily prescient about the kind of unique threat that is posed to the American ideal of liberty.

I'm too lazy to look up the specific lines

[luckydevil]

Tocqueville was also extraordinarily prescient about the kind of unique threat that is posed to the American ideal of liberty.

"Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom."

Sigh

[Guest "VT Alum" SkinsHokie Fan]

This is a real good thread on this and I think Ghost did a good job in his first reply in laying out the differences

To me the things I observe with the modern liberal in America is a real distinct anti-corporate-ness. One of my real good friends considers himself liberal and basically despises anyone that is rich or has sought to make himself money.

Lucky seems to have put it right- it seems more about equality then liberity, economically speaking, but people are more able to make their own choices in personal matters (sexual preference, abortion)

I consider myself fairly conservative and have been since I was 9 without any real influence from parents or teachers. I just read the newspaper and read books and formed my beliefs before the Clinton-Bush election of 1992.

Over the years though I have softened up on my social stands (I dont have problems with abortions anymore and I dont care what a gay person does) but have also gotten more firm on my economic issues (free trade, change in tax strucutre)

On this board the term liberal is basically thrown around to describe someone who wants gov't intrusion into business, does not want to see America as the pre-iminent global power and holds more faith in international institutions such as the U.N, rather then our own soverign American gov't.

[Prosperity]

Renegade- neither Liberals nor Conservatives really care about being free, they both want to get their goals accomplished at the cost of others.

Conservatives don't want you to have religious freedom, they don't want you to have abortions, or basically anything that they think is immoral based on their moral codes, usually Christian.

Liberals want everyone to have equality, (minimum wage, free health care, etc) but they will punish the wealthy to reach their goals.

Libertarian want everyone to be free, even the people that want to screw you over.

[Ghost of]

Ok, found the de Tocqueville quote:

"I do not fear that they will meet with tyrants in their rulers but rather with guardians." A government led by such men, he said, "does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till [they are] reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

[Prosperity]

Ghost, I think we have learned form history that a strong central government is a key to success, while a small uncentralized government can only fail. (ie Article of Confederation)

[Ghost of]

Liberty

Ah, but I think a strong central government works only in the sense of guaranteeing that there's no in-fighting and that national security is preserved.

BUt there are thousands of examples of the negatives associated with an overarching federal power.

It's interesting to think of how the Southerners viewed themselves as members of their state before the Union. Our outlook is completely different than it was for Americans 140 years ago.

[Die Hard]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Ok, found the de Tocqueville quote:

"I do not fear that they will meet with tyrants in their rulers but rather with guardians." A government led by such men, he said, "does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till [they are] reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

Hey Ghost, if you're going to be discussing philosophies - as you did in an earlier thread - please elaborate on the exact philosophy and concept.... and discuss your thoughts on it.

But to quote Tocqueville in saying "I fear leaders... because it supresses the people and ultimately controls them" doesn't provide much insight or value.

[Ghost of]

I contributed some decent posts earlier in the thread and I did discuss matters of political philosophy and principle. So I'm not sure what you're getting at, unless you want me to go back to that other thread.

Ipso res loquitur. Perhaps you miss his point, it's not mere generality. He did not fear that Americans would embrace a Hitler or Saddam type of tyrant, but that it would fall prey to the promises of security and welfare--in modern parlance, the Nanny State. Or put another way, not Big Brother but Big Mother.

This is an entirely different sort of tyranny, one that relies less on brutal force to impose the will of the one or the few, but more on subtle manipulations of fears, the desire for equality in outcome and a willingness to be well-housed and well-fed if it but staves off the vagaries and misfortunes of a free life for a time.

If you want to get more detailed, a Big Brother would enforce a law through intimidation and terror, while artificial emotional imagery and language is used to create a consensus in the population that embraces or even demands onerous regulations, social conventions and laws.

But I thought Alexis stated it more elegantly.

[BG]

I thought I'd add something.

What is most important about understanding liberal views and philosphies is understanding their roots.

My understanding is the liberalism has all of it's roots in progressivism. However, it's been somewhat skewed since then. Not that the progressives had the perfect views on society and politics, but obviously, society and rights have changed dramatically since then.

Here's a snippit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Progressivism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Progressive is a term often used by those on the political left to describe their beliefs. This term is preferred by many over the more traditional label in American politics, liberal, because of the association of liberal with the centrist politics of many Democratic Party politicians (such as Al Gore) in recent years. The term progressive is thus used to avoid confusion between the politicized term liberal and genuine philosophical views focused on social change. Progressive is viewed by some (and it technically is) as a loaded term, as it may imply that those opposed to "progressive" views are automatically regressive.

Progressive is used in place of liberal to best describe philosophical ideals that are opposite and contrasted to those held by conservatives. Political ideas that advocate rapid social change are likely to be progressive, while conservative ideas tend to reflect an adherence to established norms and support for (or furtherance of) the status quo. Continuing logically, by this spectrum, a philosophy that advocated reversing course to previous standards would be regressive, though this term is rarely used. Instead, the term reactionary is more frequently used to describe those who wish to return to previously established convention.

This is particularly useful when dealing with philosophical positions, since the liberal tradition has very particular and fixed Enlightenment connotations that may not necessarily have any useful meaning in the left political scene.

The term has its origin in American politics in the early part of the twentieth century. During this period, known as the Progressive Era, which saw the brief rise of the U.S. Progressive Party, many reforms were enacted. Some third-party presidential candidates ran for office during this time under the Progressive Party label, notably Robert M. La Follette, Sr.. The Progressive Party of Canada also briefly rose to prominence in the 1920s.

Use of this term around the world

Australia

The term "progressive" is also popular in Australia, since many liberals are not Liberals; that is, they do not support the centre-right Liberal Party of Australia. "Progressives" usually support either the Labor Party, the Democrats or the Greens.

Canada

The term "progressive" is also popular in Canada, since many liberals are not Liberals; that is, they do not support the centrist Liberal Party of Canada and should not be confused with the Progressive Conservatives.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/pr/progrsvsm.html

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

progressivism

in U.S. history, a broadly based reform movement that reached its height early in the 20th cent. In the decades following the Civil War rapid industrialization transformed the United States. A national rail system was completed; agriculture was mechanized; the factory system spread; and cities grew rapidly in size and number. The progressive movement arose as a response to the vast changes brought by industrialization. 1

Urban Reform

Progressivism began in the cities, where the problems were most acute. Dedicated men and women of middle-class background moved into the slums and established settlement houses. Led by women such as Jane Addams in Chicago and Lillian Wald in New York City, they hoped to improve slum life through programs of self-help. Other reformers attacked corruption in municipal government; they formed nonpartisan leagues to defeat the entrenched bosses and their political machines. During the 1890s, reform mayors such as Hazen Pingree in Detroit, Samuel Jones in Toledo, and James Phelan in San Francisco were elected on platforms promising municipal ownership of public utilities, improved city services, and tenement housing codes. Urban reformers were often frustrated, however, because state legislatures, controlled by railroads and large corporations, obstructed the municipal struggle for home rule. 2

Reform on the State Level

Reformers turned to state politics, where progressivism reached its fullest expression. Robert La Follette’s term as governor of Wisconsin (1901–6) was a model of progressive reform. He won from the legislature an antilobbying law directed at large corporations, a state banking control measure, and a direct primary law. Taxes on corporations were raised, a railroad commission was created to set rates, and a conservation commission was set up. 3

In state after state, progressives advocated a wide range of political, economic, and social reforms. They urged adoption of the secret ballot, direct primaries, the initiative, the referendum, and direct election of senators. They struck at the excessive power of corporate wealth by regulating railroads and utilities, restricting lobbying, limiting monopoly, and raising corporate taxes. To correct the worst features of industrialization, progressives advocated worker’s compensation, child labor laws, minimum wage and maximum hours legislation (especially for women workers), and widows’ pensions. 4

Reform on the National Level

As progressives gained strength on the state level, they turned to national politics. Little headway was made, however, since conservatives controlled the Senate. Some progress was made against the trusts during Theodore Roosevelt’s administration, and Congress passed two bills regulating railroads, the Elkins Act (1903) and the Hepburn Act (1906). The exposés of business practices by the muckrakers aroused public opinion. The Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act were passed (1906) to eliminate the worst practices of the food industry. Although Roosevelt supported the progressive drive for regulation of corporations and for social-welfare legislation, Congress remained adamant. 5

Roosevelt’s successor, William Howard Taft, was a determined opponent of progressive reform; in 1911 progressives, whose ranks had been swelled by middle-class professionals, small businessmen, and farmers, formed the National Progressive Republican League to prevent Taft’s renomination. When this failed, progressives united in a third party (see Progressive party) and nominated (1912) Roosevelt for President. Although Roosevelt was defeated, the new President, Woodrow Wilson, sponsored many progressive measures. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 reformed the currency system; the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act (1914) extended government regulation of big business; and the Keating-Owen Act (1916) restricted child labor. 6

Progressivism’s Legacy

America’s entry into World War I diverted the energy of reformers, and after the war progressivism virtually died. Its legacy endured, however, in the political reforms that it achieved and the acceptance that it won for the principle of government regulation of business. Most of the social-welfare measures advocated by progressives had to await the New Deal years for passage. 7

Bibliography

See G. E. Mowry, The California Progressives (1951, repr. 1963); A. S. Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era (1954, repr. 1963); S. P. Hays, The Response to Industrialism (1957); R. B. Nye, Midwestern Progressive Politics, 1870–1958 (1959, repr. 1965); R. Hofstadter, The Age of Reform (1955, repr. 1963) and The Progressive Movement, 1900–1915 (1963, repr. 1986); G. Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism (1963, repr. 1967); D. A. Shannon, ed., Progressivism and Postwar Disillusionment, 1898–1928 (1966); A. Davis, Spearheads for Reform (1967); R. H. Wiebee, The Search for Order (1967); D. Kennedy, ed., Progressivism (1971); B. M. Stave, ed., Urban Bosses, Machines, and Progressive Reformers (1971); J. D. Bunker, Urban Liberals and Progressive Reform (1973); M. McGerr, A Fierce Discontent: Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870–1920 (2003).

[TheDiplomat]

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

This site has like every political party in america listed.

Thought i'd list the interesting ones.

Pot Party - The Pot Party is exactly what you'd expect -- a bunch of marijuana legalization advocates ("mandate pot growing") ranging in age -- seemingly -- from late teens to middle aged. In fact, their current tag line seems to be: "A movement to pretty much legalize marijuana." One profile of a Pot Party leader boasts that he won High Times magazine's "Bong-of-the-Month" Award. Unlike the denials of a certain recent national politician, these people quite obviously, proudly and regularly inhale. No real candidates fielded to date (but they did endorse an unsuccessful candidate in 2000 for the Green Party's nomination for US Senator from California). They also seem to be actively involved in an online fantasy government entitled the USA Parliament (official description: "A coalition of US voters based on votes cast, where 1/100th of the votes cast elects one of the one hundred members of parliament"). The party currently has state chapters formed in California, Illinois and Virginia.

U.S. Marijuana Party - The US Marijuana Party (USMJP) is -- as you would expect -- a marijuana legalization entity espousing generally libertarian views. "The civil rights of Americans have been compromised by the war on drugs. Because the vast majority of citizens who use any illegal substance use only marijuana, the war on drugs is basically a war on marijuana. If you can pull the plug on the war on marijuana, you end the war on drugs as we know it. You shut down the prison industrial complex, and you restore the liberties that have been eroded because of this futile war on marijuana," explains the USMJP. The party -- which already has chapters formed in several states -- is seeking marijuana legalization on a state-by-state basis. The USMJP is seeking to field candidates in the various state to raise the public profile of the drug debate -- but none fielded to date on any ballots under the party banner. The USMJP was founded in 2002.

Knights Party - The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is a white supremacist, anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic group founded shortly after the Civil War by former CSA General Nathan Forrest. Over the years, the KKK spread a reign of violence and terror across the South -- although the Klan's power has virtually disappeared over the past forty years. At various points in history -- most prominently in the late 1800s, the 1920s and the 1950s-60s -- the KKK actively participated in electoral politics by backing various Democrats and Republicans (examples included Indiana Governor Warren McCray, Alabama Governor John Paterson, and 1924 Presidential candidate William McAdoo). Most recently, former KKK national leader David Duke ran for office several times in the 1980s and 1990s. In 2003, the KKK is trying a new approach: creating its own political party. The Knights Party is headed by Pastor Thomas Robb, the leader of a prominent Klan faction (the Klan is fragmented in the modern era into lots of small, rival splinter groups). The party -- which is openly associated with the KKK (which it described as "America's Largest, Oldest, and Most Professional White Rights Organization") -- espouses a white supremacist line and a staunch view against foreign immigration into the US. No known candidates fielded yet under the Knights Party banner.

[Prosperity]

you missed the really weird ones

Light Party - The Light Party is is a generally liberal party -- falling somewhere between the Greens and New Age feel of the Natural Law Party -- and seems strongly centered around of party founder "Da Vid, M.D., Wholistic Physician, Human Ecologist & Artist" (he was also a write-in candidate for President in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004 -- and seems to be the only visible leader of the party). ...but the party does sell a nice CD of relaxing New Age music.

Prohibition Party - "If you are a reform-minded conservative and a non-drinker, the Prohibition Party wants you," exclaimed an official party message in 2002. The Prohibition Party -- founded in 1869 and billing themselves as "America's Oldest Third Party" -- espouses a generally ultra-conservative Christian social agenda mixed with anti-drug and international anti-communist views. The party's strongest showing was in 1892, when John Bidwell received nearly 273,000 votes (2.3% - 4th place). Long-time party activist Earl F. Dodge has run as the Prohibition Party's presidential nominee in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and again in 2004. Dodge received just 208 votes in 2000 -- the party's worst electoral showing ever. The party also fields a few local candidates from time to time -- but 2002 was the first time since the 1860s that the party failed to field any candidates for any public office. An additional party-related organization is the Partisan Prohibition Historical Society, a group of party activists (somewhat independent of Dodge's control) that want to turn Prohibition Party policy into law. The anti-Dodge folks -- led by new National Chairman Don Webb -- seem to have wrested control of the party by fall 2003, and have now demoted Dodge to just be the party's "provisional" nominee for President. This is largely a matter of semantics, as Dodge will continue to run as the party's nominee and the party will back him if he secures ballot status in some states. If he doesn't gain ballot status, the party vows to hold a new nominating convention in Spring 2004 to pick a new ticket. Howeverm all of this in-fighting could result in the party being Presidential nominee on the ballot for the first time since 1872.

[Prosperity]

Holy crap look at this:

Libertarian National Socialist Green Party - Politically correct Nazis? These Libertarian Green Nazis are either the strangest conglomeration of diametrically opposed political ideologies of a political party I have ever seen -- or one of the most wry political practical jokes found anywhere on the net (I'm not certain which conclusion is correct, but I strongly suspect the latter). This party purports to be comprised of atheist, peaceful, pro-gay, pro-drug legalization, anti-racist, environmentalist Nazis who acknowledge the Holocaust likely occurred (but are neutral as to its justification) and oppose the government sponsored killing of Jews, Christians & gays and the disabled. The LNSGP "rejects Judeo-Christian moral standards, victim mentality political behavior, capital-centric value systems, and authority." While membership is open to anyone regardless of their race or sexual orientation, individuals who openly profess a belief in either Judaism or Christianity are denied party membership. Articles, platform, FAQ and graphics. Worth a visit -- even if only to decide for yourself if this is a joke or if it is serious. In the past -- and as an indicator that the LNSGP is probably a practical joke -- the LNSGP's site had sections dedeicated to claims of participation in a public service project named the "Jewish Community Brothership" (to "Communicate the modern interpretations of Nazism and its implications for Jews in today's multicultural Reich") and some links to very bizarre "news" articles (example: "Nazi Moon Bases Established in 1942").

:rotflmao:

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Liberty

Holy crap look at this:

Libertarian National Socialist Green Party - Politically correct Nazis? These Libertarian Green Nazis are either the strangest conglomeration of diametrically opposed political ideologies of a political party I have ever seen -- or one of the most wry political practical jokes found anywhere on the net (I'm not certain which conclusion is correct, but I strongly suspect the latter). This party purports to be comprised of atheist, peaceful, pro-gay, pro-drug legalization, anti-racist, environmentalist Nazis who acknowledge the Holocaust likely occurred (but are neutral as to its justification) and oppose the government sponsored killing of Jews, Christians & gays and the disabled. The LNSGP "rejects Judeo-Christian moral standards, victim mentality political behavior, capital-centric value systems, and authority." While membership is open to anyone regardless of their race or sexual orientation, individuals who openly profess a belief in either Judaism or Christianity are denied party membership. Articles, platform, FAQ and graphics. Worth a visit -- even if only to decide for yourself if this is a joke or if it is serious. In the past -- and as an indicator that the LNSGP is probably a practical joke -- the LNSGP's site had sections dedeicated to claims of participation in a public service project named the "Jewish Community Brothership" (to "Communicate the modern interpretations of Nazism and its implications for Jews in today's multicultural Reich") and some links to very bizarre "news" articles (example: "Nazi Moon Bases Established in 1942").

:rotflmao:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: This has to be a satire check out some of their beliefs.

You have to check out this link from the LNSGP site.

http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/

too freaking funny, check out the hanging out section, I think I just pissed my pants.

[luckydevil]

Ghost, I think we have learned form history that a strong central government is a key to success, while a small uncentralized government can only fail. (ie Article of Confederation)

Federalist propaganda

[Ancalagon the Black]

Evidence, lucky? I'm willing to be educated here.

[luckydevil]

Evidence, lucky? I'm willing to be educated here.

Maybe some other time

I am focusing on my history(1865- now) final right now

[Ancalagon the Black]

Tell your professor that he can't coerce you into doing something like that.

[Redskinette_Vic]

Minus one post that was out to start something nasty

Ouch...especially in a thread where everyone is trying to be objective

Sorry, guys. I never intended for my post to start something nasty, but in re-reading it I realize I did sound harsh.

My best friend is as liberal as I am conservative and we constantly debate the issue of government protection - protecting the enviroment/endangered species v. protecting those who are guilty of heinus crimes v. NOT protecting the innocent unborn under the guise of a 'woman's right to choose'.

So in my opinion, a fundemental difference between liberal and conservative is in their beliefs on who/what is offered government protection. But my post should have stated that, instead of a flip commentary.

(That'll teach me to post after several nights of no sleep as Little Skins Fan gets 6 new teeth in one week... sigh!)

[luckydevil]

Just wanted to add

I hope my pro anti-federalist stance isn't construed as anti-government( or pro-anarchy- though I am greatly sympathetic of that viewpoint).

It's just pro-localism and decentralization.

Tell your professor that he can't coerce you into doing something like that.

:laugh:

[Die Hard]

Originally posted by Redskinette_Vic

(That'll teach me to post after several nights of no sleep as Little Skins Fan gets 6 new teeth in one week... sigh!)

Should we add that to the Rules and Guidelines?

[gbear]

One further aspect of liberalism is the belief that government can accomplish some big projects in a better way than the free market. This can be both a cost arguement and a willingness to take on a large project.

There are plenty of examples to both support and refute this assertation:

Pro:

Medicare's experiments with privitizing

Natural Monopolies and energy prices

Getting to the moon

ect.

Con:

Lack of new energy grid enhancements

Growing entitlements (scope creep)

ect.

[NavyDave]

Liberals

Every kook group is under that tent

ELF

ACT Up

NAMBLA

Pro Abortion which desentizes youth and diminshes the value of life since its selfishly an inconvience to the guy and chick involved.

And people forget that planned parenthood was the racist organization whose goal was to decrease the birthrates among blacks in the inner city. Heck you can still go inside DC and find a planned parenthood in every neighborhood. Guess thats to offset the liquor stores and the results of a friday night with gin or colt 45.

Anti Gun as we have seen with cigarettes and the gay agenda, it wouldnt stop with the assault rifle liberals use incrementalism to eventually fulfill their agenda (see the failed experiment in DC) which is why the smart thing to do is not give them an inch.

Dislike of military options to promote peace

The solution to anything is to create a government program that never solves the problem and even if it does the program still isnt killed.

Everything is a right.

I still dont see the right in the constitution to infanticide, free education, civil rights status for a communicable disease or deviant lifestyles.

Liberals tend to side more with socialists, communists from Europe and when its pointed out the claim freedom of expression to cloak their anti american views.

Liberals hate having to deal with a moral foundation which points out what is right and wrong.

Death penalty, liberal DC doesnt have it do you want to live there?

Tax the achievers and then explain you know how to put their money to better use.

Yet we see wasteful spending on pork barrell projects that dont benefit the nation. The solution would be running it like a business or transform it like Rumsfeld has the military and by that I mean eliminating reduncy, wasteful spending streamlining and reducing the "RiceBowling" in some departments.

[gbear]

NAvy, you still think Planned PArenthood is racist for being in the inner city?

Are you serious? Their mission, as I've stated earlier,is to provide reproductive medical care to those who would otherwise not have access to it. That's why they don't set up shop in white suburbia where the average income is such that those there can get the care they need elsewhere. They set up shop in the urban centers where the poor are.

[Die Hard]

Hey Dave, question:

You condemn abortion as a means of birth control - which is fair, I happen to share that same belief and I practice it in my own day-to-day affairs - but you know that if it wasn't controlled in some capacity.... we'd have uneducated mothers with families of 10 children starving their children to death.

And under your system, we all know they would because you aren't necessarily a socialist advocating welfare.

In which case the children die and the mother gets arrested.

What's your solution exactly?

Because as I see it... you don't really have one.

(1) You want to prohibit abortion

(2) You don't believe the state or it citizens for pay for the children or families.

So what's the solution?

Because the way I see it... you have an opinion about the matter... but you really don't want to get involved with the circumstances.