WWTBAM Bored

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

John F. Kennedy, Sept. 14, 1960

Yes, things certainly were different back in the 60's.

Sir_Galahad wrote:Yes, things certainly were different back in the 60's.

It is probably not fun to be you these days, sirge.

I hope your outlook improves.

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who has never learned to walk forward.

I'm just sayin'...

peacock2121 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:Yes, things certainly were different back in the 60's.

It is probably not fun to be you these days, sirge.

I hope your outlook improves.

Me too. But I doubt it will.

Sir_Galahad wrote:Yes, things certainly were different back in the 60's.

I was in a speech class, and the teacher was a conservative -- very smart, and a very good teacher. The subject of liberal or conservative came up, and he made somebody look up the definitions in the classroom dictionary.

When the student finished reading both of them, the teacher laughed and said, "A liberal wrote those!" Both seemed to me to be fairly written, but I would probably agree with him today.

Anyway, I bet the dictionary was published in the early 60s, and I agree with SirG.

Oddly the Global warming craze and the irrational fear of Carbon Dioxide, so popular with "liberals" seems destined to walk us back to a pre-industrial society and starve the poor.

peacock2121 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:Yes, things certainly were different back in the 60's.

It is probably not fun to be you these days, sirge.

Actually, Pea, I have been blessed with being an optimist. I can see silver linings even in the darkest of storms. And I will plow ahead even under the toughest of circumstances. I am not one, however, that blindly believes the hype, hope and bullshit that has been permeating the air the last 18 months. I am not one to sit around waiting for the government to fix my problems. I will make my own luck. If I fail, I will learn from it and try a different path until I succeed. So, the fact that this country is in a tailspin both economically and morally will not deter me from my endeavors.

Full Article Here.

Couple of excerpts if you don't care to read the whole thing:

Now that "progressive" is widely used as a euphemism for "liberal," there is a natural tendency to link the progressives of the early 2000s with the Progressives of the early 1900s, like Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey. The problem is that while the modern center-left is the child of mid-century Roosevelt-Truman-Kennedy-Johnson liberalism, it is only the grandchild -- or perhaps grand-nephew or grand-niece, twice removed -- of the Progressives of the 1900s.

Hubert Humphrey, liberal, championed integration and federal enforcement of civil rights. Woodrow Wilson, Progressive, resegregated Washington, D.C. The Warren Court liberalized abortion and censorship laws. The early 20th century Progressives campaigned to outlaw alcohol and outlaw abortion and many of them favored eugenic sterilization of the "feeble-minded." New Deal liberals celebrated Americans of immigrant stock. Progressives like Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were horrified by "hyphenated Americans." Roosevelt and Truman inherited a disturbing progressive fondness for executive prerogative but by the 1960s and 1970s civil libertarianism and a renewed interest in checks on the imperial presidency became part of the liberal tradition.

Today's center-left Americans can find a usable past in the liberals of the New Deal and Civil Rights eras. They will search in vain for philosophical ancestors among the snobbish, nativist, technocratic, authoritarian, segregationist Progressives of the early 20th century.

The older Anglo-American tradition of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, of the Founders and John Locke, is called "liberal" with good reason. "Liberal" comes from the Latin word for "free." The antithesis to liberalism is servility. A liberal society is one in which everyone is free and nobody is a serf or slave.

Because liberalism refers to a particular kind of social order, and does not depend on any implied relationship of the present to the past or future, liberals can be either progressive or conservative, depending on whether they seek to move toward a more liberal system or to maintain a liberal system that already exists. For that matter, liberals can be revolutionary, if creating or establishing a liberal society requires a violent revolution. Liberals can even be counterrevolutionary, if they are defending a liberal society from revolutionary radicals, including anti-liberal revolutionaries of the radical right like Timothy McVeigh or Muslim jihadists.

I did a search and found both a serious definition of conservatism: http://www.conservative-resources.com/d ... ative.html

and a serious definition of liberalism: http://www.conservative-resources.com/d ... beral.html.

They are both extremely long, so I'm not going to post them here. But I will say that this little item in the liberal definition is one that I disagree with strongly:

The fourth principle in the definition of liberal is a belief in the benevolence of government and of human beings. Modern liberals believe that human nature is essentially good, and that if an individual is corrupted it is usually the fault of some social or economic injustice.

I've seen enought to know that human nature is not essentially good (see the James Madison quote below).

The counter to that on the conservative description is one that I do agree with:

The fourth principle that defines conservatives is their suspicion of power and their hatred of big government. In his First Inaugural Address, President Ronald Reagan declared,


"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"6

[18] And yet, what separates conservatives from anarchists is their reluctant concession that government is a necessary evil, as without it the good are often at the mercy of the evil.

[19] "What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" asked James Madison. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."7 Alas, men are not angels, and conservatives know as Madison did that we are imperfect beings and easily corrupted. For this reason, conservatives believe power must be spread out and decentralized, with adequate checks and balances to ensure that government does not devolve into tyranny.

The path of today's liberalism is filled with good intentions littered with ill-advised rules and regulations, contradicting and incorrect analysis of situations and issues and most importantly with unintended and often catastrophic results. of the solutions they do manage to implement. I agree with most of the ideals of liberalism, but not the naieve, simplistic and often self serving solutions they propose.

Unfortunately conservatives haven't done any better.

danielh41 wrote:I did a search and found both a serious definition of conservatism: http://www.conservative-resources.com/d ... ative.html

and a serious definition of liberalism: http://www.conservative-resources.com/d ... beral.html.

They are both extremely long, so I'm not going to post them here. But I will say that this little item in the liberal definition is one that I disagree with strongly:

The fourth principle in the definition of liberal is a belief in the benevolence of government and of human beings. Modern liberals believe that human nature is essentially good, and that if an individual is corrupted it is usually the fault of some social or economic injustice.

I've seen enought to know that human nature is not essentially good (see the James Madison quote below).

The counter to that on the conservative description is one that I do agree with:

The fourth principle that defines conservatives is their suspicion of power and their hatred of big government. In his First Inaugural Address, President Ronald Reagan declared,


"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"6

[18] And yet, what separates conservatives from anarchists is their reluctant concession that government is a necessary evil, as without it the good are often at the mercy of the evil.

[19] "What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" asked James Madison. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."7 Alas, men are not angels, and conservatives know as Madison did that we are imperfect beings and easily corrupted. For this reason, conservatives believe power must be spread out and decentralized, with adequate checks and balances to ensure that government does not devolve into tyranny.

Given all of the above, what do you think the role of government should be on moral issues, particularly that of abortion?

I"m sure people here are sick of hearing about this, but I really wish we could get away from the whole either/or mindset of liberal and conservative. Neither term has any meaning any more. If you can't get into Jerry Pournelle's chart:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedi ... elle-chart

Try David Nolan's, the man who helped start the American Libertarian Party:

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

In any case, two dimensions are in this case better than one. Maybe I'll invent a three-dimensional grid for political thought.

mrkelley23 wrote:I"m sure people here are sick of hearing about this, but I really wish we could get away from the whole either/or mindset of liberal and conservative. Neither term has any meaning any more. If you can't get into Jerry Pournelle's chart:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedi ... elle-chart

Try David Nolan's, the man who helped start the American Libertarian Party:

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

In any case, two dimensions are in this case better than one. Maybe I'll invent a three-dimensional grid for political thought.

You're assuming that there is more than one dimension to it. A number of examples out there (and in here) would seem to refute that.

mrkelley23 wrote:I"m sure people here are sick of hearing about this, but I really wish we could get away from the whole either/or mindset of liberal and conservative. Neither term has any meaning any more. If you can't get into Jerry Pournelle's chart:

Neither has meaning to whom? For me, and I think of these terms in their simplest form. Conservatives want a smaller government and less government intervention in their lives while the liberals want bigger government and more government programs. The liberals want more government mandated entitlements (nationalized health care, for example) while conservatives want the freedom to make their own choices.

As far as I'm concerned the Constitution was written not so much as an instrument to define what the government can do but more of an instrument defines what the government cannot do. And, I am watching the slow disintegration of these outlines. Re-read the pre-amble. This clearly defines what the government's role was intended to be. It clearly states "to promote the general welfare..." That, in my opinion, does not mean provide for everyone's needs. It means (IMO) to give people the opportunity to make their own way. Yes, I do believe that there are certain sections of society that need assistance and government programs are fine in that respect (Medicare, for example). But not to promote cradle to grave "entitlements" which, IMO, is what liberalism is all about.

You may not agree with how I see it, but that's how I see it.

Sir_Galahad wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:I"m sure people here are sick of hearing about this, but I really wish we could get away from the whole either/or mindset of liberal and conservative. Neither term has any meaning any more. If you can't get into Jerry Pournelle's chart:

Neither has meaning to whom? For me, and I think of these terms in their simplest form. Conservatives want a smaller government and less government intervention in their lives while the liberals want bigger government and more government programs. The liberals want more government mandated entitlements (nationalized health care, for example) while conservatives want the freedom to make their own choices.

As far as I'm concerned the Constitution was written not so much as an instrument to define what the government can do but more of an instrument defines what the government cannot do. And, I am watching the slow disintegration of these outlines. Re-read the pre-amble. This clearly defines what the government's role was intended to be. It clearly states "to promote the general welfare..." That, in my opinion, does not mean provide for everyone's needs. It means (IMO) to give people the opportunity to make their own way. Yes, I do believe that there are certain sections of society that need assistance and government programs are fine in that respect (Medicare, for example). But not to promote cradle to grave "entitlements" which, IMO, is what liberalism is all about.

You may not agree with how I see it, but that's how I see it.

Yes, life is so much easier if we can stick a label on someone rather than actually listening to them. Nuance is annoying.

Sir G, you have at least one person in agreement.

The Constitution is all about taking government out of the equation to the maximum extent possible. Let the individual make his or her own way in the world. Success or failure is the individual's responsibility whether that individual is a person or a corporation.

Both modern versions of our main political parties have forgotten that.

I am hoping we will see another conservative (or liberal) candidate that gets it.

Nuance is a nice word, but most big concept ideas are clear cut and don't need the refinement.

Western Europe has been fond of 'nuances' for the last 60 years. I'm not impressed with many of their societal decisions.

Is that what you want?

I do not.

Flybrick wrote:Sir G, you have at least one person in agreement.

The Constitution is all about taking government out of the equation to the maximum extent possible. Let the individual make his or her own way in the world. Success or failure is the individual's responsibility whether that individual is a person or a corporation.

Both modern versions of our main political parties have forgotten that.

I am hoping we will see another conservative (or liberal) candidate that gets it.

Nuance is a nice word, but most big concept ideas are clear cut and don't need the refinement.

Western Europe has been fond of 'nuances' for the last 60 years. I'm not impressed with many of their societal decisions.

Is that what you want?

I do not.

So what do you do with those who fail? Let them starve to death?

Bob Juch wrote:

Flybrick wrote:Sir G, you have at least one person in agreement.

The Constitution is all about taking government out of the equation to the maximum extent possible. Let the individual make his or her own way in the world. Success or failure is the individual's responsibility whether that individual is a person or a corporation.

Both modern versions of our main political parties have forgotten that.

I am hoping we will see another conservative (or liberal) candidate that gets it.

Nuance is a nice word, but most big concept ideas are clear cut and don't need the refinement.

Western Europe has been fond of 'nuances' for the last 60 years. I'm not impressed with many of their societal decisions.

Is that what you want?

I do not.

So what do you do with those who fail? Let them starve to death?

Note how the question BobJ ask conflates "you" with "government". Are the only possible choices government help or starvation?

I am not a liberal.

I am not a conservative.

the end

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Flybrick wrote:Sir G, you have at least one person in agreement.

The Constitution is all about taking government out of the equation to the maximum extent possible. Let the individual make his or her own way in the world. Success or failure is the individual's responsibility whether that individual is a person or a corporation.

Both modern versions of our main political parties have forgotten that.

I am hoping we will see another conservative (or liberal) candidate that gets it.

Nuance is a nice word, but most big concept ideas are clear cut and don't need the refinement.

Western Europe has been fond of 'nuances' for the last 60 years. I'm not impressed with many of their societal decisions.

Is that what you want?

I do not.

So what do you do with those who fail? Let them starve to death?

Note how the question BobJ ask conflates "you" with "government". Are the only possible choices government help or starvation?

conflates

I like that word.

Sir_Galahad wrote: . . .

Neither has meaning to whom? For me, and I think of these terms in their simplest form. Conservatives want a smaller government and less government intervention in their lives while the liberals want bigger government and more government programs. The liberals want more government mandated entitlements (nationalized health care, for example) while conservatives want the freedom to make their own choices.

. . .

The contradictions are immense. SirG is one of the few people calling himself a conservative who says he wants smaller government and less government intervention in his life and means it. Everyone who voted for Bush in 2004 may have SAID s/he wanted those things, but her/his vote demonstrated clearly that s/he really wanted the exact opposite -- more government employees, more intervention overseas and at home, more dependence on foreign oil, more monstrous national debt, more intrusion (Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc.), and anti-choice (overturn Roe V. Wade).

SirG espouses the conservative line, that conservatives want the freedom to make their own choices, and he means it and lives it. What the staunchest conservatives want where I live is more government intervention to enforce their choices, less when it interferes with their choices. For example, one person who calls himself conservative invoked every "socialist" planning decision in Colorado for the past century to stop expansion of a nearby automobile junkyard. In the process, he managed to make the automobile recycler look like a villain just for trying to expand his private business, when you would think he'd be treating the guy like a hero -- freedom of choice, private enterprise, and so on. But no, it would have decreased the quality of his view of the mountains. I still shake my head when I think how he got away with it.

Flybrick wrote:The Constitution is all about taking government out of the equation to the maximum extent possible.

Actually, no. That is one interpretation of what the Constitution is. But liberals and conservatives alike use the Constitution to support their own viewpoints. And there's room in there to do so.

From the very inception, the Constitution represented a series of compromises between people who were afraid of a strong central government and people who believed the nation needed a strong central government.

In fact, the most vocal supporters of the Constitution -- the Federalists -- were largely supporters of a strong central government. (Stronger, at least, than the Articles of Confederation had provided.) Many of those who fought bitterly against ratification thought the Constitution gave too much power to the central government. The Antifederalists would be surprised to hear you cite the document as being about minimal government.

That's an oversimplification, of course. There's a lot of 'nuance' there. But any statement that the Constitution is "all about" one thing or another is an even grosser oversimplification. So be careful about making blanket statements about what the Founding Fathers wanted, because some of them violently wanted one thing and some of them violently wanted the opposite.

Bob Juch wrote: So what do you do with those who fail? Let them starve to death?

You'll have to be more specific as to "those." I can't tell you how many times I have failed in one aspect of my life or another (and we're not even talking about my BAM failures ) But, somehow, I managed to scrape by until I could pick myself up, dust myself off and get back on the road, so to speak. But, I learned by my failures and have been pretty fortunate with some of my successes. If you fail personally, there are ways to get back on your feet. But I do not expect the government to stand behind me and provide that nudge (so that I am eternally grateful and give them my vote next election). All I want from government is to efficiently run its own house and give me the opportunity to succeed.

As for companies like the auto makers, I say let them fail. They are in a position they should never have gotten themselves into. Why? Because of the unions. Do you realize they are paying billions of dollars a year for former employees who are no longer productive or working? Do you realize they are paying billions of dollars a year to former employees for continued health care. Is that not the ultimate case of gravy-training? How can you expect a company to survive with programs like that. In my humble opinion, they need a re-organization which will eliminate paying money like that. Do you know the average employee makes about $100 per hour for the Big 3 versus about $45 for Toyota and Honda? How would you expect them to compete in such a competitive market with wages like that? And, yet the unions refuse to renegotiate. What would giving them $25B do? Again, in my opinion, that would only serve to prolong the pain and then they would come back in a few years saying they need another bailout! No, I say let them fail. Let them re-organize to the point where they can be competitive again.

The government cannot possibly be all things to all the people and the end-all be-all to everybody's problems. You have to learn to fail. Failure can be a good thing. It simple was not set up to do and it will fail if it tries to do that. There has never been a society in which such a system worked (as far as I know).

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Flybrick wrote:Sir G, you have at least one person in agreement.

The Constitution is all about taking government out of the equation to the maximum extent possible. Let the individual make his or her own way in the world. Success or failure is the individual's responsibility whether that individual is a person or a corporation.

Both modern versions of our main political parties have forgotten that.

I am hoping we will see another conservative (or liberal) candidate that gets it.

Nuance is a nice word, but most big concept ideas are clear cut and don't need the refinement.

Western Europe has been fond of 'nuances' for the last 60 years. I'm not impressed with many of their societal decisions.

Is that what you want?

I do not.

So what do you do with those who fail? Let them starve to death?

Note how the question BobJ ask conflates "you" with "government". Are the only possible choices government help or starvation?

It wasn't me who did the conflating. Read, "Success or failure is the individual's responsibility whether that individual is a person or a corporation," again. That was an absolute, not qualified with "government". Show me where that's in the Constitution.

Students of history know that communities, either through their churches or secularly, took care of their indigent population fairly well until The Depression overwhelmed their resources. After that ended however, federal social services did not go back to how they had been previously - in any country. Even with the current state of government social services, charitable organizations are needed. The question actually is: Should social services be performed by the government or by charitable organizations? My choice is the former.