Is social liberalism dead?

[gbear]

So long as we are talking about the ills of social liberalism...darn that political movement that brought us civil rights, womens suferage, and stopped children fomr being our industrial workforce. Darn them!

Seriously though, I wonder if people thought social liberalism was dead when the progressive party started to lose power?

My next question is now that they have power, and it is rapidly being left without checks, how does the Republican party appease both the Christian Right and the more secular/socially liberal side of its own party? Will the primary elections just become the battles? In 4 years, is it a Bucanon/Ashcroft or a Mccain/Arnold/Gulianni ticket?

[Destino]

Originally posted by ntotoro

The Democrats have been catering too much to the fringe left and the progressive secularists. This is why they can't get ahead in other areas of the country. Until their mainstream does so, they'll never appeal to people with more traditional values and beliefs.

Nick

And what exactly do you think is going to happen to the GOP? You think power causes parties to shift to the center? The longer the GOP holds power the further right they will go. Many conservatives are very unhappy with the Arnolds of the party supporting stem cells and the like already.

As the GOP goes right they will drag democrats kicking and screaming towards the center. How else do you think the GOP wound up supporting big goverment and massive spending? Think there was a meeting somewhere in which they just decided it was a good idea? The GOP moved becuase they had to. The democrats will be forced to make similar changes.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Destino

Social liberalism is not dead at all and despite the needs of conservatives to define it by things like gay marriage or even the more laughable "immorality" it's not.

There will always be a need for the people champion, and not matter how much the right wing hates to admit it, their side will eventually get too deep in bed with the wealthy and be drummed once again out of office. The republican time in power is short still when compared to 40 years of democratic congressional power. As time goes by more of those crazies the GOP has been hiding in the basement will come out into the light as the democrats chase their back into the shadows.

ahh, the fool's folly...

[Baculus]

I think there has to be an understanding of two meanings of "Social Liberalism":

1. Big Government spending - Bush is a social conservative in this aspect

2. Lassiz faire in private and invidual matters

That is why many folks are often described as being socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

Even though the U.S. is a "Liberal democracy" espousing such libral ideas such as individual's rights and private ownership, people talk about their hatred of Liberalism. And even though we've made great progress as a society, trying to fix racial issues and inequalities though socially liberal initiatives, now we have folks talking about how social liberalism should be dead.

[ntotoro]

Originally posted by Destino

And what exactly do you think is going to happen to the GOP?

Same, exact thing that happened with the Democrats. If they start to go too far right, people will see that and not be happy. That shift farther left for Democrats is exactly why, over the last 10 years, they have lost control Congress. It's also why Republicans have what is now two terms in the White House after a very popular Democratic President, Bill Clinton, vacated. If the movement starts to go further right, then those closer to the center or swing voters will start to object in greater numbers.

Nick

[Ignatius J.]

As the creator of this thread I am speaking entirely about the interesction of democratic and libertarian ideals. If it's something that both libertarians and dems go for, that's what I'm calling socially liberal.

[codeorama]

Liberatarians are NOT for welfare and government spending, they are for less govt spending.

But libertarians are insistant that the govt stay out of their personal lives.

That's my position. That's why I didn't understand skinsfan1966's post.

[Art]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

As the creator of this thread I am speaking entirely about the interesction of democratic and libertarian ideals. If it's something that both libertarians and dems go for, that's what I'm calling socially liberal.

I don't think you understand what a libertarian is as a democrat and a libertarian share almost no similarities.

[Art]

Originally posted by Destino

Social liberalism is not dead at all and despite the needs of conservatives to define it by things like gay marriage or even the more laughable "immorality" it's not.

There will always be a need for the people champion, and not matter how much the right wing hates to admit it, their side will eventually get too deep in bed with the wealthy and be drummed once again out of office. The republican time in power is short still when compared to 40 years of democratic congressional power. As time goes by more of those crazies the GOP has been hiding in the basement will come out into the light as the democrats chase their back into the shadows.

Destino,

No one doubts a shift back to the left will come in time in this country. The right has largely only had control for most of 10 years. Marginal control in many cases, but, still, control. The fact that the country is clearly sending a message to the left with how statewide elections and national elections are turning out in recent years is eventually going to shift.

The problem liberals have is not that there isn't a need for the people champion. It's that there are no people who need championing, and the left has decided to champion them anyway. They rode the good work of 40 years ago to 40 years in power. People are turning off the left and their people's champion efforts in almost every key social issue that our nation is dealing with.

The issues they left has adopted don't resonate as equal rights issues did years ago. No matter how hard the left tries to equate what blacks went through with what gays are going through, it rings hollow, because, most of us know there's a difference. The left will only return to power when they realize they need to be there to fight the good fight, but, no good fight exists, so, they need to turn to other issues.

Once they get out of the divisive issues and focus on issues both sides will agree to, they'll take back control, and the right will have to find a way to fight back. Whether that's another two years or 50 more, I can't say. It all depends on the left getting smart and right now, that doesn't appear likely.

[Ignatius J.]

Here's some common ground:

Gays should be allowed to do what they want. Also, they should be allowed hospital visits with thier significant other. The law should be transparent to sexual orientation.

We differ on this issue in the following way: many dems feel that attacks on gays should be classified as hate crimes. I agree with the libs here, but most dems do not. However, on the issue of whether gay couples should be guaranteed the same rights as dems, we see eye to eye.

Patriot act: Pretty clear.

Abortion, same. In fact this whole paragraph from the lib site is pretty much right down our alley:

We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other forms of birth control. Specifically, we condemn the vicious practice of forced sterilization of welfare recipients or of mentally retarded or "genetically defective" individuals. We call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies. We equally oppose government laws and policies that restrict the opportunity to choose alternatives to abortion.

Drug War: you go to the far left and you'll find plenty who agree with the libs.

This may be a small set, but I believe it is important. It's a philosophical point that if what I do doesn't hurt you, you shouldn't be able to tell me how to do it.

You are right that there's a whole lot of stuff that I totally disagree with the libertarians on. But there are some places where we see eye to eye.

[Skinsfan1966]

Originally posted by codeorama

Maybe I'm wrong, but every thing you have listed falls under fiscal liberals IMO.

I am against nearly everything you have listed.

To me, a social liberal is someone who doesn't care what someone's sexual preferance is or what religion someone is or what someone is doing among conscenting adults in the privacy of their own home, so long as no one or no one else's property is damaged.

That's my opinion on being a social liberal, not using government to prop people up.

social liberals tinker with social structure, why do you think they call them social programs

[Skinsfan1966]

Originally posted by Baculus

Social security has NOTHING to do with your theories. You didn't even any indication how Social Security has created this situation.

I wrote a 168 page masters thesis on this exact subject.

Social security was originally intended to provide a safety net for the elderly and infirm. The unintended consequence was that it liberated grandparents.

In a nutshell for thousands of years the family unit consisted of children parents and grandparents, this remained true largely until the 40's (when social security started to get traction). In a matter of 3-4 generations we went from a society where grand parents lived with their children to a society where we see grandparents on holidays.

The consequences are profound...

I could go on for pages and pages...168 of them at least.

Social liberalisim has had some horrible effects.. unintended yes

but still really profound.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Skinsfan1966

The unintended consequence was that it liberated grandparents.

Social liberalisim has had some horrible effects.. unintended yes

but still really profound.

This would have happened with or without SS. The cost of living has more to do with the family split then does any example you can drag out and blame on social liberalism.

Take todays 401k's as an example. Do you think they would exist if Social Security wasnt' around? I say they would have come around much sooner. If you think 700 bucks a month liberated old folks, wait until you see the next generation.

[Skinsfan1966]

Originally posted by Destino

This would have happened with or without SS. The cost of living has more to do with the family split then does any example you can drag out and blame on social liberalism.

Actually that is completely untrue... cost of living in 1946 was almost unchanged from 1939 yet the trend starts there...

[Destino]

Originally posted by Skinsfan1966

Actually that is completely untrue... cost of living in 1946 was almost unchanged from 1939 yet the trend starts there...

Why you think the cost of living in that time period disproves my theory that the eventual rise in cost of living would have created a need for the elderly to obtain a source of income post retirement?

The start of the trend is irrelevent. It would have been needed eventually as proven by today's need of a seperate source of income on top of SS. The fact is families can't afford to care for their parents in many instances. The cost of living has gone up, the income for the majority of americans hasn't increased enough to match it.

[luckydevil]

The cost of living has more to do with the family split then does any example you can drag out and blame on social liberalism.

Many conservatives have made the argument that rise of broken families( family split) has a lot to do with the rise and creation of many social programs( particularly programs created during the Great Society).

[Skinsfan1966]

Originally posted by Destino

Why you think the cost of living in that time period disproves my theory that the eventual rise in cost of living would have created a need for the elderly to obtain a source of income post retirement?

The start of the trend is irrelevent. It would have been needed eventually as proven by today's need of a seperate source of income on top of SS. The fact is families can't afford to care for their parents in many instances. The cost of living has gone up, the income for the majority of americans hasn't increased enough to match it.

So according to you they created social security because at some point in the future the cost of living was going to outstrip family resources?

The liberation of grandparents (giving them a post retirement income) has been part of the cause of a higher cost of living.

Dont mistake what I am saying...we cant go back now...society has been changed, you cant undo these things

[Art]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

Here's some common ground:

Gays should be allowed to do what they want. Also, they should be allowed hospital visits with thier significant other. The law should be transparent to sexual orientation.

Why, exactly, should sexual orientation be transparent in our laws? We legislate against all sorts of sexual orientations for any number of reasons. It is often suggested a rapist is genetically predisposed toward being a rapist. Being that he's born that way, should we punish their crimes, or simply ask the victim to understand he can't help himself?

If homosexuality is born to someone, obviously, pedophilia is as well. So, while we currently define the age of consent differently, can't we just agree, there's no real harm in sex between an adult and a six-year-old, because, afterall, the adult shouldn't have law impact his sexual orientation, right?

Obviously not. Obviously we deem sexual behavior in many forms to be something we require laws to control. In the case of homosexuality and marriage benefits, though, we're not even talking about control. As a society we have placed a value on hetrosexual relationships. We deem those good and normal, just as in ancient Greece, the only true love was between a man and a boy, while women were for making children.

Societal norms define the issue and, our society deems it special to bring a man and a woman together. As yet, we haven't adopted the deviancy of homosexuality, despite tremendous effort by the left. This, of course, is good. Most of our laws are based on the majority judgement about what's good for society.

What's right for society. Until someone proves a gay person is born so, no one is taking any rights from them as they maintain all of their rights guaranteed them as a citizen. They've just chosen to go a different path, knowing they lose some benefits according to those more in line with societal norms.

With hope, you're not suggesting we chuck the foundation of law to simply allow one sexual perversion you happen not to mind additional legal benefits not accorded to other sexual perversions you don't like as much, right?

We differ on this issue in the following way: many dems feel that attacks on gays should be classified as hate crimes. I agree with the libs here, but most dems do not. However, on the issue of whether gay couples should be guaranteed the same rights as dems, we see eye to eye.

The very issue of hate crimes is another issue where liberals and Democrats have missed the boat. They essentially say a crime against a minority is worse than a crime against a white person. On its face, this is a terrible concept. Most people are against it. Why? Because a crime is a crime. And to most, it's hard to appreciate the argument that crime against one race is a greater crime than the same crime against another.

I'm not sure the Patriot Act is yet an appropriate social issue as it's not been shown to be a social detriment. The rest is interesting, but not all that moving.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Skinsfan1966

So according to you they created social security because at some point in the future the cost of living was going to outstrip family resources?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that with or without social security the need for the elderly to have a independent source of income would have presented itself.

Originally posted by Skinsfan1966

The liberation of grandparents (giving them a post retirement income) has been part of the cause of a higher cost of living.

Dont mistake what I am saying...we cant go back now...society has been changed, you cant undo these things

I've seen no evidence that the increase in cost of living has been greatly influence by social security. Has it had some impact, maybe. Is it responsible for the level at which we see it today? No.

The rise of consumerism and the notion that ones personal value is measured by ones proffesional success has a lot more to do with it then social security. Like it or not we live in a society where people are in large part measured by their paychecks.

[Destino]

Originally posted by luckydevil

Many conservatives have made the argument that rise of broken families( family split) has a lot to do with the rise and creation of many social programs( particularly programs created during the Great Society).

In some cases they would be correct. Abused woman with no income for example can leave and get welfare.

[panel]

I think bushes veiw on stem cell research hurt him.

[Art]

Originally posted by panel

I think bushes veiw on stem cell research hurt him.

Apparently not, considering the tremendous religious vote that came in. Further, stem cell research is ongoing every day in this country. My wife and I even donated three embryos to the cause.

All Bush has done is limit federal research into the issue by putting a cap on the lines that can be used for such research. This seems like an awfully good balance he struck. He didn't stop research on existing lines on a federal level. He also didn't compromise his beliefs by opening a tremendous new line of research on a federal level.

If, at some point, stem cell research shows any actual promise to cure anything at all, I'm sure Bush, or another president, will revisit the issue. But, as the science is in its infancy, why use federal tax dollars to prop up a controversial science that has no tangible benefit you can point to?

[MrWill]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

Well, my guy lost, sucks for me.

But the even bigger concern on my part is why bush won. It seems that Bush won this election on values, and many of those values are values that I do not agree with. I was hoping that a democratic win would shake up the republican party and bring them back to a contract with america sentiment. Instead, what we saw was a vote for big government. Low taxes, but bigger even bigger spending, and more deficits.

We saw Bush carry states where exit polls seemed to indicate that bush's feelings on gay marriage and abortion and stem cell research were among his top selling points. This was a victory for people who believe in legislating morality.

I worry that the more libertarian wing of the party will be forced to concede that the mandate, if there was one at all, was from the religious right who came out and showed that they are THE powerful voice in american politics right now.

I remember a few conversations on this board, where some spoke of hopes that a party would step in to fill the void for those who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I think this victory will keep that void from being filled for at least another decade. That's not an ideology that represents who america is right now.

The democrats are spinning. If they seriously want to win, they need to pander to the religious right as well.

Is social liberalism dead? or am I misreading this?

I understand where you are coming from. I am a high school teacher......and 4 students asked me who I voted for. When I said Kerry, they said, 'Why?' When I asked them why they would vote for Bush they all replied, 'because he is against gay marriage.' :doh:

I didn't bother to go into the discussion about Bush being a scumbag who follows his own agenda, mainly because I thought it would be a good idea to model responsible behavior by supporting WHOMEVER our leader is. However, it sickens me that the majority of people can't see how transparent GWB really is. And, it is also disgusting to me that the wealthy minority truly OWN the sheep of this land. That being said.......'hail to the chief'.....and I will be waiting with my fingers crossed hoping that GWB, in four years, doesn't have enough time to bring our country to its knees.

One other point....had to edit this in here.....

What kind of guy proclaims to the world that he has won the election before all of the votes are in? There are three possibilities.....a guy who is confident to the point of ignorance......a guy who has no respect for the souls who's votes had not yet been counted.......or a guy who is a @#$%ing cheater. Any of these are characteristics I do not want in the leader of my country.

[luckydevil]

I am a high school teacher

public school?

[MrWill]

Originally posted by luckydevil

public school?

Yeah....as public as you can get (an inner city type school in an out of city district). We get a lot of transfers from NYC.