When Did Being Liberal Become A Bad Thing?
77
I am a self described Liberal. I believe in the power of government to do good without infringing of individual rights. I believe in protecting our environment, regulating the market and defending a woman's right to choose. I believe in equal opportunity for all and believe our public schools should be like cathedrals and our teachers should make six figure salaries. So, when did these views, classfied as liberal, become such a bad thing in America?
When you look back through American history, Liberals have been at the forefront of change in America. Our founding fathers were liberals in the classical sense. Washington, Adams, Madison, Jefferson and the other founders were moving away from a centralized government to form a government of the people. Sure, they weren't perfect, but their ideals were liberal and the liberal values that formed America changed the world.
Lincoln was a liberal. Yes, he was a Republican. But Republicans in Lincoln's time were considered the liberal party. Despite Lincoln's upbringing and the world around him, Lincoln put forth the ideals of equal opportunity for all and his legacy lives on today.
Teddy Roosevelt was a liberal. How do we know? Because one of his greatest legacies was the busting up of corporate monopolies. TR took down this country's greatest corporations in order to help the common man. Need more evidence, TR was the first political environmentalist and is the reason why so much of America's natural resources are well preserved today.
Franklin Roosevelt was a liberal. FDR guided this country through the Great Depression and the Second World War, all from the seat of his wheelchair. FDR's policies lifted millions of the elderly out of poverty and provided healthcare to millions as well.
Throught American History, it has been Liberals that have brought real change to America. Liberals founded this Country, ran the Underground Railroads, fought for civil rights, fought for woman's rights, protected the environment and fought for the common man. It was liberals that created the middle class and it is the liberals who defend the middle class today.
 | Amazon Price: $9.14 List Price: $9.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $21.82 List Price: $34.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $15.50 List Price: $32.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $16.99 |
So I will ask again, when did beng a Liberal become a bad thing? I have to give the Republican Party credit here. The Republican Party has spent the better part of the last thirty years branding the term "liberal" as weak, anti-American and elitist. Liberal has been branded the same as a "communist" or "socialism."
And it has worked. It has worked so well that even many liberals today are running away from the term and themselves. They are trying to call themselves "progressives" or portray themselves as moderates. In doing so, they are leaving the very values that used to be at the core of the Democratic party and is perhaps the greatest reason that the Democratic Congress today is full of hapless leaders with no guts. It is hard to fight for something you are trying to run away from.
We need Liberals to stand up once again and fight for true American values. We need to protect the environment. We need to bring real change to race relations in this Country. We need real change in the Healthcare system. We need to fix entitlements so that they work for all Americans. Only a true liberal can bring these changes and the Republicans genuinely do not believe in these policies and the "progressives" are too busy trying not to upset anyone. Where is my FDR? Where is my JFK? I hoped that Obama would have been this leader and still have hope. But the progressives are driving him away from himself. Stay strong Mr. Obama. Remember the example set by Jefferson, Lincoln, TR and FDR. If you stay true to core liberal ideals, you will make change we all can believe in.
My Latest Hubs
- The Right Wing Excuse on Racism
On February 26, a 17 year old African American male named Trayvon Martin was shot and killed as he walked to a family member's home from a convenience store where he had just bought some candy. The man who shot him, George Zimmerman, admitted to... - 7 weeks ago
- Mitt Romney – The Presumptuous Presumptive Nominee
Former Massachusetts Governor and Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney won the Iowa Caucus by a commanding 8 votes and the New Hampshire primary by some 15 percent of the vote. Romney has taken on an interesting campaign tactic in this... - 4 months ago
- Loss of Liberty: Detaining Americans Without Trial
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been... - 5 months ago
|
The Cause: The Fight for American Liberalism from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack O
Current Bid: $18.98
|
|
Putting Liberalism In Its Place by Paul W. Kahn (2004, Hardcover)
Current Bid: $10.00
|
|
NEW - The Death of Liberalism
Current Bid: $12.76
|
|
Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism by Sean...
Current Bid: $1.00
|
|
Freedom's Power: The True Force of Liberalism by Pau...
Current Bid: $3.99
|
|
The Israeli Fate of Jewish Liberalism, Robert J. Loewenberg, Edward Alexander
Current Bid: $5.50
|
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (1)
- Funny (1)
- Awesome (7)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting
CommentsLoading...
Thanks for the comment. It is sad that good hearted liberals and conservatives alike are being drowned out by the idealogs in both parties.
Yeah, let's get back to the good ole days when a liberal was a liberal and a conservative was a conservative.
We got to vote them all out next election. That is the only thing that will bring real change and correction to this madness. We have to speak up with the pen and our ballots.
The democrat controlled congress had a low 15% rating last year, but hardly any one in congress was voted out, except for some spineless republicans. What does this mean. We don't approve of them, but we vote them back in?
If we all keep voicing our voice, we may be able to change things. The media won't help, so we have to do it by the internet and the by voice.
Keep on Hubbing.
Being liberal isn't at all a bad thing - why would it be?
My point is that in American Media, it is considered to be a bad thing. Even Liberals are trying to change their name.
Thanks for reading.
that's daft (of the media, not you) - as far as I'm concerned "liberal" is a positive attribute.
Me too. But it is amazing what the Repulican Party has done to the word liberal in America. Have to give them credit.
I'm liberal, and proud...
Me too.
Obama is liberal too, so you are all together.
I just can't buy into it.
Where is a good place to find the meaning of liberals that you guys claim you are? I like learning these things. Doen't mean I will convert, but I like knowledge. Appears that I can't find the definition from the media or other places. Give me a good meaning for liberal and a place to find it.
Me Too! Some have started calling themselves progressives. I still prefer liberal.
I'm not sure Obama is a liberal. At least I haven't heard him use the term. He seems pretty centrist to me, similar to Clinton. A fair number of liberals are beginning to be suspicious of him, wondering whether he meant everything he said in the campaign. So far we haven't seen many dramatic or major changes.
Obama isn't as Liberal as FoxNews would like.
To me, Liberal is more about social policies that particular politicians. There was a time when politicians fit the mold, they are just a few these days. Everyone has moved to the center, which is fine, but it leaves the rest of us behind.
Thanks for your comments.
Liberalism became a Bad Word when It ws revealed that they are hypocrites and liars ,just like the rest of our so called elected officials . They pander to money just like all of em . And I find progressive to be a dichotomy In terms ,because when I think of progress It means we are moving forward and of late I see nothing to Indicate we are moving forward either globally or locally ! . And I like you bgpappa believe In equal oppurtunity for all , but you can,t mandate It and some point ya gotta earn It too ! I consider myself more right of center but hardly hard core right . But I am changing to Independent . And lets face It Democrats have had a bad 09 so far ,between Burris Blagojevich and the usual cast of dummies It Is not a good year to be democrat so far !And how about some of em paying their taxes too like you and I
Well, I agree that the Democratics in Congress and the Blogo and Burris make it hard to identify with them. I like Obama thus far, but we will see. My whole point is all of these people have left true liberal values. Reagan might not have liked Tip O'Neil, but he respected him. This current crop derserves none.
Thanks for your comment.
"Liberalism became a bad word when it became revealed that they are hypocrites and liars just like the rest of our so called elected officials."
That is a gross overstatement which slanders the many good, honest, public spirited politicians in both political parties. We read about the Blagosevishes and DeLays but we shouldn't let that jaundice our view of our government. Criticism should be accompanied by suggestions for improvement. What do you think of campaign finance reform or perhaps government financing of elections, for example?
To rekindle a faith in liberalism, read J S Mill's famous essay "On Liberty". Liberty afterall is of the same root. Mill regards freedom of thought and expression as fundamental to a proper democracy. Or government has become secretive and double dealing. We spy on citizens, torture, create secret prisons, hold people without trial, etc. All of this is absolutely contrary to the traditions of "liberal democracies". Long live the ACLU, Amnesty International and Human Rights!
Branca you are an Idiot ! It Is the ACLU ,Southern Poverty law center and like organizations that give liberalism the bad name It has . There was some guy wearing an ACLU Tshirt at the local drugstore a year back or so ago ,I confronted him about some of their less then honorable stands . And then I ran him out of that store It was one of my proudest moments and I do not mind saying that I would knock out Anthony Romero too ! I am all for free speech and freedom of thought but I find that organization completely dispicable ! Yes we do commit some of those sins you mentioned and I do not like It either . But some of these guys are giving you the right to espouse the drivel you are putting up here . try doing this In China ,or the Middle East you would have that questionable head of yours lopped off !
And to Ralph Deeds I would love to see some reform . I am still giving our President a shot unlike some of these people here. However I can only judge people by what they do not by what they say , Because a persons actions tell me who they are. And right now I see duplicity and subterfuge . I mean Ralph a truly good person will need to come forward and do the dirty work here ,because that Is what LEADERS do ! They do the dirty work that Is called leading by example . And I do not care which party they come from I just want some damn Integrity which Is a commodity apparently In short supply ! For one the minute anybody Is Implicated In a scandal they lose office and the right to vote on anything ! And It might be time for even more stringent term limits ,people do not want to give up the privilege and power that come with their positions !
Its a great debate. I take offense to being called a hyprocite out of hand. Usually takes people five minutes before they start calling me names. Lets keep the debate respectful, you know like Rush does.
To answer a previous question, I am all for campaign finance reform. I think the process should be shortened - two years is just too long and costs too much money. I think there should be a cap on Congressional races as well.
Just curious, what do you find despicable about the ACLU and the Southern Policy Law Center? Are you a member of the KKK. Have you participated in lynchings or burned black churches? Please cite stands taken by these organizations with which you disagree.
bgpappa nobody has called you a hypocrite that I have read . I have simply said that those who are considered of the liberal persuasion In public office are every bit as culpable as those we currently rail against . Liberalism has some nice Ideals but they do not pass muster In the real world . Because as
bgpappa nobody has called you a hypocrite that I have read . I have simply said that those who are considered of the liberal persuasion In public office are every bit as culpable as those we currently rail against . Liberalism has some nice Ideals but they do not pass muster In the real world . Because as I have said many times mans heart Is duplicitous at best . And give a person a little power and Influence and you have our current state .
Fair enough point. I think we should rail against corrupt liberals just as much as conservatives. Those people are not liberals or conservatives, just corrupt. Corruption has no political party.
I appreciate the great comments.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I am liberal too.
Thanks.
Vladmir God will forgive you !
I know she will
Thanks for your comments.
Ralph Deeds absolutely I am a member ! I mean obviously anybody that goes after Boy Scouts and benign crosses It Is certainly a noble venture ,right ? And the Southern Poverty Law Center tried to get a rancher In Arizona simply because he detained Illegals on his PROPERTY until the authorities came to get them ,but I suppose you feel a man does not have the right to protect his property correct ? And you are a prime example of why liberalism Is a bunch of hypocrites because you Immediately try to label me as some sort of Hitler when I take a stand In opposition to yours . I thought liberals were open minded , I guess tolerance Is selective !
all ideas are welcomed tony. But both sides have their fair share of hyprocrites.
Not according to Ralph !
I didin't use the term Hitler, but if the shoe fits. A private citizen protecting his property is one thing. "Detaining" aliens is something that should be left up to the appropriate authorities. You are the one who called liberals "hypocrites and liars" I didn't make any such blanket condemnations of conservatives. And you went on to villify the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center both of which, in my opinion, are bulwarks of our democracy. The ACLU has provided legal support to conservative as well as liberal causes. And the Southern Poverty Law Center has pursued many worthwhile causes like this one
New SPLC Report: Three Leading Anti-Immigration Groups Share Extremist Roots Three Washington, D.C., organizations most responsible for blocking comprehensive immigration reform in 2007 are part of a network of groups created by a man who has been at the heart of the white nationalist movement for decades, according to a report issued today by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The Nativist Lobby: Three Faces of Intolerance describes how the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and NumbersUSA were founded and funded by John Tanton, a retired Michigan ophthalmologist who operates a racist publishing company and has written that to maintain American culture, "a European-American majority" is required.
"These groups have infiltrated the mainstream by presenting themselves as legitimate commentators, when, in reality, they were all conceived by a man who is convinced that non-white immigrants threaten America," said Mark Potok, director of the SPLC's Intelligence Project. "They have never strayed far from their roots."
The report examines how Tanton, who still sits on FAIR's board of directors, founded the racist Social Contract Press and has corresponded with Holocaust deniers, white nationalist intellectuals and Klan lawyers for decades — correspondence documented by his own writings stored at a University of Michigan library.
It also shows that FAIR has been aware of his views and activities for years.
FAIR, whose members have testified frequently before Congress, has hired as key officials men who also joined white supremacist groups. It has promoted racist conspiracy theories. And it has even accepted more than $1 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation devoted to proving a connection between race and intelligence, the report found.
FAIR has been designated as a hate group by the SPLC.
The report also examines how the Center for Immigration Studies — which bills itself as a scholarly think tank — began its life as a FAIR program and continues to produce dubious studies furthering FAIR's anti-immigration agenda. It's a vision described by Tanton in a 1985 letter in which he wrote that CIS would produce reports "for later passage to FAIR, the activist organization, to remedy."
Similarly, NumbersUSA, a group that has achieved dramatic policy successes, began its life as a Tanton foundation program, the report found. NumbersUSA Executive Director Roy Beck has even been described by Tanton as his "heir apparent." He also edited The Immigration Invasion, a book by Tanton and a colleague that was so raw in its immigrant bashing that Canadian border authorities have banned it as hate literature.
Here is a link to the ACLU's amicus brief in the case challenging the Boy Scouts' discrimination against gays and lesbians. I agree that the Scouts should not discriminate based on sexual orientation or religion. That's hardly the kind of message an organization like the Boy Scouts should be sending to our young people.
http://www.aclu.org/scotus/1999/22393lgl20000329.h
It so happens that I don't agree with every position taken by the ACLU. I take their cases one at a time. The same for the SPLC. I'm not familiar with all their issues, and I may disagree with some, but from what I've seen their program is a good one which mainly consists of opposing lynching, discrimination against minorities in the courts, fighting to protect the voting rights of minorities, and arguing for the humane treatment of undocumented immigrants.
Well It may shock you to know I do not delve Into those areas because I do not read hate literature nor am I white ! I only know that anytime I hear anything the ACLU does It Is always to the detriment of most Americans and they seem more concerned about how alleged terrorist are treated then about the victims they ln their wake ,so pontificate all you want . Most of America would agree with me !
Well, you're dead wrong about ACLU. You should look into the kinds of cases they have pursued. You might be surprised. You demonstrate your prejudice and ignorance when you say "anything the ACLU does is always to the detriment of most Americans." ACLU has been one of the most effective guardians of your freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Here's a link to a video that you may wish to watch. Do you think the Boy Scouts should discriminate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRfhyR6nd6Q
And most of the world agrees that somebody should be paying attention to how ALLEGED terrorists are treated. Our treatment of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib has done more to help recruit terrorists than any other single thing, except perhaps for Bush's one-sided support of Israel's terrorism against Palestine.
I am not Interested In your video , What I do know Is 3 years ago they defended a child In Florida who told his teacher to $#@! off ,and they suspended him. They took the city of Los Angeles to court because they had the nerve to have a cross on their City Insignia for the last 130 or so years . And they also recently did that to the City of La Mesa locally here who had to relent because they knew the City did bot have the money In the local coffers to defend themselves and they ceased that oppurtunity knowing that . Not to mention they are taking the Christmas out of Christmas at every oppurtunity ,I am sure they,re parents are very proud of them ! Meanwhile I get to explain this to my grandkids , So Ralph do not even begin to tell me the virtues of the ACLU . They make me sick ! Oh and by the way , how did the terrorist treat Daniel Pearl ? As I recall It was not real pretty.
You have a closed mind. You are prejudiced and make blanket disapproving statements based on one or two cases with which you disagree. You are unwilling to consider information that conflicts with your uninformed view. We are both wasting our time.
You have wasted plenty of mine !
I agree that the ACLU tends to take minority posititions in direct contravention of the majority. But isn't that a very American thing to do. If nobody defends the minority opinion, is it still a democracy? And yes, they have fought for rights of alleged terrorists, but if we just kill them without due process, don't we become the very thing the terrorists claim we already are? Just food for thought. Thanks for both of your comments.
Interesting
The word libral has been convoluted over time. Our Founding Fathers would be considered libertarian in todays lingo. They were hardly liberal. Their view was you take care of yourself - not government taking care you.
I don't know if you noticed but liberals have been taking over. Europe is full of liberal governments and America is next. But then look at the riots in Iceland, France, England, Greece, and so on. Those governments made promises they could not keep just as America has been doing for years. Will that happen here?
Did you know FDR pushed us deep into the depression by taxing business up to 70%. By they way, what happen to all that money I put into Social Security? When I need it it won't be there.
I don't mind liberals, but If you want to take care of someone who won't work because it makes you feel good don't drag me into it. It's a personal thing - not a government thing. Spend your own money, not mine. But most liberals don't feel good spending their money like the Clintons, Al Gore, Al Sharpton, and yes Obama too.
Oh yea! Well dictate to the world and fix it - Right, look how screwed up everything is?
I believe in personal responsibility. What do you believe in?
Thanks for the comment. I believe in personal responsibility as well. But I don't believe in leaving a majority of the people behind on necessities like healthcare. I don't believe personal responsiblity will clean the environment. I don't believe personal responsibility will get the economy moving again.
The handouts certainly won't get he economy moving because the money will go to unproductive people. Productivity it what keeps the economy healthy.
On health care - I don't want government run health care. Every country with social health care has failed its people.
Why do you think so many come to the US for operations and special procedures. Their governments tell them they're not qualified. But in reality, their governments can't afford the cost because they spend too much in administration and mismanagement. Their technology is lagging behind because there is no incentive for research and their health institutions are paid by the government. They have no profits to put into research.
The evening news will tell you all about how Americans are buying their drugs from Canada. But they won't tell you more Canadians come to the US to buy their drugs. Why, because the Canadian government won't pay for the latest and greatest. If they need a drug that only Glaxo manufactured, then they have to come here for it.
I have a couple of friends who live under Canadian health care. When one of their wives took ill he had to wait over 2 weeks to get her to a doctor. He was highly distressed needless to say.
When we get national health care it will become political just like everything else government touches. Look at Social Security, Medicaid, the school system, the tax system, and the debt our politicians have put us in.
Granted, our health care is not the best it can be but I can't imagine depending on government run health care. They know nothing about health care. It's like going to an auto mechanic for an ear infection.
Do yourself a favor. Do a little research and see how much in taxes countries with social medicine collect. I don't remember the exact figure but I think the Netherlands collects over 70% for example. Now look around you and get rid of 70% of your belongings and keep 30%. How productive can you be, what can you buy with 30% of your earnings? Then ask yourself why Europe is a non-productive state. They're worse off than we are and have been for years.
Nothing is free and we will pay a high price for minimal care.
Is this what you want? I don't want to wait to see a doctor. I don't want the government telling my doctor what treatment I should have. And, I don't want to pay for your if you are able but not working (which is now greater than 30% of the US population).
PS. when I say "you" take it as the plural form not the singular. ;)
Enjoy the day!
Pappa: thanks for the read. I'm not a liberal, but can appreciate anyone's view, even if it's different from my own.
Tony and Joey: Ditto.
Thanks for the comment. Waiting two weeks for an appointment, how is that any different than today. See my blog: Fix the HMO system. Personal story.
In regards to handouts, why is the right ok with handouts to corporations and the uber rich? If the government is going to give out money, I want some. I work, I work hard. My dad was a janitor and my mom a teacher's aide. I worked my way through law school and have the debt to show for it. Why I am less worthy for a handout than Lemon Brothers? Just food for thought. I appreciate the debate though.
Amy, thanks for the comment. I think a good place to start to fix the problems of the day is respectful debate.
Could it be that branding alone constitutes why people do what they do, including political parties?
After all, the definition of political party is an organization to gain political power. Which in turn seperates a people from oneness from the get-go.
A thought provoking hub.
Thanks for the comment.
Eh, it's just a term. What it means is really up to any given individual. It's like how Republicans are labeled "conservative", even though historically federal debt, federal deficits, and overspending go up during republican admin's, even though they accuse democrats of "tax and spend" policies. It's all orwellian doublespeak if you ask me.
Thanks for the comment. I couldn't agree more. But the Republicans are better at branding the term "tax and spend liberal" than the Dems.
Ha. Yeah. Republicans have that whole P.R. machine thing locked down tight.
I disagree with your assessment that being a "liberal" means "believing in new ideas" or anything of the sort. Simply put, in my opinion, being a liberal means believing that government should make choices for people because they're (mostly) not responsible for making decisions for themselves. It means big government without any thought whatsoever as to who's going to pay for all of the bloated idealogical social services.
Honestly, "free" healthcare, "free" education and all those other social services sound GREAT on the surfice - but WHO'S GONNA PAY IT ALL? I don't think anybody ever thinks about that.
Look, the folks begging for all the social services are largely the folks who don't pay any Federal taxes to begin with. It's time our country (Republicans, Democrats, Liberals and self proclaimed Conservatives) begin to understand what PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY means. It's not the government's job to give you a house, give you unemployment benefits for a year (go find a job), and give you all kinds of things. In our "liberal" founding father's days, if you didn't build your own home you didn't have a home. If you didn't hunt or grow food you didn't eat. Sure friends would help, but nobody stood over their shoulder and made them hunt extra food to give to the people too lazy to go hunt for themselves.
Sometimes bad luck happens to good people, and vise-versa. I understand that. I understand there are alot of people without jobs... but you know what? There are alot of people WITH jobs, and there are alot of people finding jobs. If 500,000 people lost their job last week, 450,000 more people found a job.
Life is what you make of it, and we all have the right to the pursuit of happiness. We all have equal rights and equal opportunities. With that being said, nobody is guaranteed anything. If you're working at McDonald's because you made poor choices, why do I have to pay your way (free social services, welfare, you don't have to pay taxes) along with my own? Because I made good choices? That's not fair. That's not equal.
Personal responsibility.
/RANT
i completely agree. liberal and proud, right here.
I am totally against corporate handouts period.
The community reinvestment act started some of this mess for loans to those who could not afford to pay them back. Barney Frank said Freddie Mac and Fannie May would back them (with tax payer money).
Let the banks fail. Other banks eager for business would step up to fill the void.
Seems to me the Democrates are trying to control all they can. The Republicans have lost their way and have been appeasing the Democrates.
Everyone quicky blames Bush but that is only part of the story. True, he signed a lot of legislation the Dems wanted but Congress is more responsible. They write the regulations and can pass the laws without the Presidents signature.
Ultimately its the peoples fault for putting the politicians in office. In the last election the people decided to stay the course.
Read David Leonhardt's article in this morning's NYTimes and inform yourself--
Thank you for the comments.
My only response is that Republicans had eight years, six with complete power, to make "personal responsibility" the law. Instead, we got the biggest increase in Federal Power in history. We got Big Brother legalized. We tortured. Every child was left behind. The deficit ballooned and spending went out of control. It didn't work.
Nobody, including liberals want government to control everything. But healthcare and education are too important to leave to the "free" market.
Thanks for the comments.
Great Hub, bgpappa.
Looking from the outside, the whole thing is very confusing. Liberal and socialist appear to be interchanged in the US, depending upon who is the easiest target at the time. The problem seems to be that everybody is fighting for the middle ground - a similar trend is happening with Europe.
When I think about the Liberal Reforms at the beginning of the 20th century, and see how the word has been bastardised to mean something completely different, it makes me angry. I am with eovery on this one - I have nothing against 'old school' conservatives, and that term has also lost all meaning, becoming interchangable with capitalist.
Obfuscation and fear are the order of the day.
Thanks for the comment. Its amazing how the term liberal has morphed into socialism in America. The Republican PR machine.
I have nothing against conservatives either. Many of my friends identify with conservatism. But they are not idealogs who refuse to accept certain truths. For instance, that the market should be trusted to fix itself right now. That being said, they want the government to fix it and get out. Fair point of view.
Seems to be the product of soundbite-driven, shallow media pundits and slick politicians. Why waste time attacking an argument when it is much easier to create a convenient strawman?
I used to have the greatest respect for US journalists, as uncompromising old hacks who would not waver from their search for truth. Now, they are all too busy trying to take pictures of Britney Spears without underwear. European journalists are falling into the same lazy habit. William Randolph Hearst would be proud.
I couldn't agree more about journalists. Written a few hubs about that. Thanks for the comment.
I am one of those people that no longer identify as a liberal, though many of my values coincide with "liberal values", so I'm the kind that you are talking about.
The problem that I have with identifying as a liberal is beacuse we have forged into a cultural climate where once you are labeled something you are no longer allowed to have divergent viewpoints. This pressure comes from both conservatives and liberals alike. I, like mdvaldosta, believe in personal responsibility. However, I don't think that offering free education and basic health care to people is negating the entire concept of personal responsibility, but rather focussing on our social obligation to one another as fellow Americans. But I also, don't believe that we, as tax payers, should be responsible for others who got in over their head credit-wise, to buy a house they could not afford or a new Hummer or boat. Which many of my liberal friends do believe is our social responsibility. And I have been castigated by my liberal friends for suggesting that it's not only the banks and the mortgage lenders fault for the crumbling of our financial system, but also the fault of the people who chose to buy a house that they would not be able to afford in 5 years time. So I would not say that it is just the media's fault for the way that liberals are portrayed (and yes the Republicans have a really good PR campaign), but also the way that liberals act to each other when they don't tow the political line.
I moved to the middle and choose to reclassify myself, because only by denying the label was I able to free myself in order to have my own thoughts and opinions and not those dictated by my political leaning.
Good comment. I have to agree that Liberals are just as guilty as exterme idealogy as conservatives. (See Barbara Boxer) I like what Boxer says most of the time, but hate how she says and how she argues for it. Same with Pelosi and Reid.
I miss the old liberals, FDR, JFK, LBJ. There were unapologetic about it.
Thanks for the comment.
Good comment. I have to agree that Liberals are just as guilty as exterme idealogy as conservatives. (See Barbara Boxer) I like what Boxer says most of the time, but hate how she says and how she argues for it. Same with Pelosi and Reid.
I miss the old liberals, FDR, JFK, LBJ. There were unapologetic about it.
Thanks for the comment.
Thanks to everyone, this is a great discussion.
In the late 1800s just before and during the industrial revolution self described Liberals took a populist view of America. These "Liberals" were mainly democrats. Go back even further than that, to the Early 1800s, and the term "Democrat" was actually an insult used to describe people that pandered to the lowest rungs of society, promising government money for votes in return. Go forward to the 1920's and the term "Liberal" was replaced with the term "Progressive"
Now, progressivism was much more insidious, because progressives were pro-slavery, and wanted to bring the institution back. They were pro-socialism. They were supportive of Mussolini, and other fascist revolutionaries. and they wanted to force Americans away from a "negative" constitution, which limits government, to a "Positive" constitution which would say "This is what the government has to give you." That would eliminate the first, and second amendment immediately, and diminish the rest soon after.
So, when liberal democrat politicians describe themselves as "Progressive" be very afraid.
Thanks for the comment. Can't say I agree with you, but it is an interesting point.
That's just history.
ok. Some revision, some omissions, some truth. Example of omissions, the party shifts that occurred in the 1940s with the defection of the dixiecrats from the Democratic Party and they eventually joining the Repulican Party.
But again, I appreciate your comments.
So can I say anything yet, or do I still have to wait in line, or did I just miss my shot?
Say your peace golden.
I forgot already.
I hate when that happens.
Very good synopsis. I really agree here, though the stigma will be hard to overthrow. I think morality at large has been the fodder that's been tossed around instead of true politics, perhaps Americans hold their values at such a high level they don't see everyone's as a whole. I don't really know, but true liberalism is the best way to run a government. I only hope Obama brings that to America.
Thanks for the comment
If you have an hour to spare, this lecture by professor George Lakoff is very informative as to how politicians use words to influence public opinion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM
Me, I'm just another bleeding heart, card carrying, arrogant liberal elitist hoping for the best and fearing the worst.
aren't we all.
That's a fascinating YouTube video, HC.
I enjoyed this. Thanks for writing it.
Thanks for reading.
I will probably be shunned by some from the hub dome for this.
Neither liberals or conservatives have been good for this country.
They have proven themselves incapable of working together for the common benefit of the people. They act like unruly siblings and they generate a great wake from their political power boats but the boat doesn't move forward.
It was under the guidance and control of a Democratic Majority Congress and a Republican President that this country beached their boat with an economic meltdown.
Over the last 40 years the Democrats and the Republicans have traded power advantages. Neither advantage helped the people or the country. The booms that you will use as a retort was usually the cause of the bust that followed it.
Since the oil crisis in the 1970s, none of the Democrats or the Republicans had any foresight into taking care of the crisis then and preventing the current crisis. They never tried to provide the necessary resources that an expanding population would require in the future. In the past twenty years, the US population went from under 200 million to over 347 million people. Yet, the resources such as water, power, roads, and fuel were not addressed. Conservation was the only interest in those resources. Conservation is an interim action at best, because you can't keep dividing a static volume with an increasing denominator.
As a result of the oil crisis of the 1970s, the US Auto Indusry lost is leadership and prestige in the auto market. The economic meltdown may well obliterate the US Auto Industry for good.
In the last 40 years the Supreme Court has been more active than they should have been and the Congress has been less effective than it should have been. The Supreme Court handles landmark decisions that make massive changes in the country. They should act slowly and wisely because of their impact. The Congress on the other hand, needs to make dynamic changes in the country to keep it on course. The need to make changes every year to provide for the future. Clearly, Congress has failed at their job.
It doesn't matter whether this failure was at the hands of the Democrats or the Republicans. It is still a failure and the failure is that of Congress for not working as a single body.
There have been some fleeting moments of success in the last 40 years but that was a rare exception. Nothing has changed in the last 40 years as evidenced by last years Democratic Congress and Republican President and their inability to handle the gas crisis of last summer and the economic crisis that became critical mass just before the election.
They took weeks to decide on an expensive $750 billion dollar bailout which accomplished nothing. Congress spent precious weeks grilling the auto executive that were begging for $30 billion to keep their industry from going bankrupt. This was an issue that had hundreds of thousands of jobs and many supplier companies in jeopardy. Congress refused to give them anything because the auto industry wss not a good risk. Yet, they gave the first $350 billion to the financial industry without any investigation or grilling.
The executives of the financial industry really appreciated it. They gave themselves over $3 billion dollars in bonuses and threw or tried to throw some expensive gatherings (parties) until the dollars hit the proverbial fan. Now Bank of America won't tell who got these bonuses or why.
Now that bailout money is pretty much gone and Congress and the country don't really seem worried about what happened to it. The only thing we know is that it made no positive impact on the economy.
Now we are going to have the Democratic Congress and the Democratic President throw another $787 billion dollars into the economy.Any guess whether that money is going to make a difference to the economy?
That is 1.5 trillion dollars total, sounds more like double or nothing.
The way that I see Congress working is aa a single body. It would be like a team play on Jeopardy. Congress as the team would have one answer for the Jeopardy question. One voice out of the 535 members, if they get it right then every shares in the win. If they get it wrong then everyone shares in the loss. It would be ridiculous to argue about which part of Congress made the mistake.
The President's responsibility is to keep Congress honest and force decisions to be made when Congress stalls.
The problem today is that people are loyal to their party but their party is not loyal to them. Registering with a party, immediately cashes in your vote. Then the party spends all of their time and money on convincing the unregistered voters because these are the critical votes they need to win the election. One party know how many registered votes they already have and they also know how many registered votes the other party has. A little simple arithmetic and they know how many independent votes they need to win.
It wasn't the political parties that caused the country to get to this pathetic state. It was Congress and its incompetence, its corruption, its ulterior motives that caused the end result.
There should be no pride in being a loyal Democrat or Republican. When the team loses it doesn't matter which player caused the game winning play.
California is a prime example of the failure of the two party system. It took the California Congress 106 days past the deadline to pass a budget that punishes the tax payer with higher taxes. The taxes in California are the highest in the country and the budget deficit is the highest of any state in the country.
The Congress created this deficit, not the people. but it is the people that have to pay for the acts or inactions of their Congress.
I wouldn't want to live on the difference between the ineptness of the California Congress versus the US Congress.
Electing Congress should be like picking an All Star Team. Pick the best candidate without regard to their current team. Pick from Row A or Row B dependent of the person and their accomplishments. You don't pick them all from A or B.
Ask not which party to blame, there is blame enough to go to both parties.
I guess I just don't understand this hub.
I'm a left-leaning Liberal but, in the true meaning of liberal, I can take positions contrary to the Democratic conventional wisdom from time to time.
The more time goes on, the less I can understand anyone reasonable calling themself a conservative, mostly because what it means to be a conservative has been turned on its head in recent decades (MORE government interference in daily lives, MORE intervention overseas, MORE military growth and pointless, expensive government growth - in complete contravention to a few good classically conservative principles). The GOP has become a party of sneering losers, who have nothing contribute to policy and instead snipe from the sidelines, keeping their base injected with fear and distracted by overblown and manufactured fantasies.
It's an easy time to be a liberal. Not so a few decades ago when the definitions were different, but easy for a thinking person to be a liberal now.
I agree that the political parties have let everyone down. My point was the democratic party has moved away from liberal values because they are too weak to stand up for them. Instead, they do nothing but blame the other side. Republicans have moved away from conservative values, and do nothing but blame the other side as well.
Thanks for the comments.
Live Longer I have to agree that George W and the veep really made being liberal look palatable ,but there at this time this country Is In the beginning stages of social upheaval ,so they had better make good . I am neither liberal or staunch conservative . I do see some reasoning on both sides .However If I may ,Iceland was a fairly liberal country and we see how that worked out !
Issues Veritas-- I think that's a Hub and not a comment. lol I'm going to keep my comments to the article because I'd think I might otherwise write a Hub too!
It's not so much being a liberal that is the bad thing. It's the way people use the label. Personally, I have to say I'm a liberal in some issues and a conservative in others.
What a great hub! I am Canadian. Contrary to popular belief, Canada is NOT run by a liberal government. People think because we have universal health care that we are run by liberals. Republican Americans use our universal health care as an argument AGAINST Democratic values. They think that because wealthy Canadians choose not to wait for certain procedures, and have them performed in the US that our system is broken and bad. They are truly uneducated on the facts. Universal health care provides a basic level of care for everyone. Those who can afford better than basic are certainly free to pay for preferential treatment.
But I digress. It is true that the word Liberal has become a dirty word. In my opinion that stems from our ridiculous need to pigeon hole people and ideas. I love it when people tell me what being liberal means. I have liberal views, but I also hold conservative views. I am a human being with thoughts and feelings on various issues. I believe in personal responsibility, so some call me conservative, but I believe that personal responsibility includes providing for those less able so that makes me liberal... communist even...
LeiahKimball,
My comment to this hub was my comment and not a hub.
Had I wanted it to be a hub, I would have written a hub.
But I see that, rather than a sharing of ideas, some people would shunt unpleasant content than respond to it. Is that a liberal or conservative attribute?
My point is that in the US, you can't discuss liberalism or conservatism in a vacuum. It has to be tied to Democrats and Republicans. It was my intention to point out that the effects of these two ism's has been the reason that we are in the worst economy ever and all of the ism's can't seem to work together to put it back again.
You can talk about your idealogy all you want but actions speak louder than words. Labels such as liberal or conservative are not badges of honor, nor is a label of Democrat or Republican.
We as Americans should support our country by telling Congress and the President why we elected them. Then we should tell them what we need and not the other way around. Frankly, their current and past judgments of what we need have been wrong.
This is not the Confederate War being played with politicians instead of soldiers.
If there is a consensus on this hub that my comments are really a hub and not welcome here, then I would be more than happy to put them in my own hub.
Then you could boycott my hub and its message.
Maybe the US should be divided into two new countries, one red and the other blue. Possibly, a third country called the Gray country, for those people that are neither red nor blue.
Do we have a consensus?
Issues - Your comment is fine, you had a lot to say. Debate is good, whether you agree with my point of view or not, you thoughts are welcomed.
I appreciate your comment Karen. I do not know much about how the Canadian HealthCare system works. Provides a basic level of heathcare for everyone, seems like a good idea to me. Basic level of healthcare, education, social services - seems reasonable.
The Canadian health care system AND THE BANKING SYSTEM are superior to ours! The Canadian banks are all solvent.
bgpappa,
Thanks, I appreciate your comment on debate and inviting different view points.
Your hospitality is very welcome and gracious.
No problem. I believe that liberals and conservatives have valid points of view. I hate how nobody listens to eachother anymore in our political debate. Each side tries to scream over eachother. Mr. Lincoln taught us better than that.
bgpappa.
I agree
Thanks
Couldn't agree with you more bgpappa... on everything you've had to say.My comments about the Canadian Health Care system were in response to joer4x4. His post about why Canadians go south for operations is absolutely wrong. They go because they don't want to wait and they can afford it. Those who can't afford private care, wait their turn. Yes, there are waiting lists for some procedures. There is a basic level provided for everyone - rich poor or somewhere in the middle.Our system is not perfect. We've been under a conservative government for some time now... We do have a shortage of doctors, and in some areas people don't have a family doctor and depend on ER for care. The friend joer4x4 referred to whose wife had to wait 2 weeks, didn't have to wait. She could have gone to an ER and been seen. And Canadians are also free to take out private health insurance for extended benefits.The drug issue he mentioned is not an issue of the system not being able to purchase the drugs. We have more stringent rules than the FDA when it comes to drugs. We do not have universal drug plans by the way. So that argument has nothing to do with universal health care. And finally his statement about there being no money for research is again completely false. We have some of the best research hospitals in the world who have done cutting edge research. I just wish Republicans using the Canadian system to further their case against Democratic policies would do some research first. JMHO
Thanks for the clarification. Not sure why many Republicans (not all) are against providing basic services for everyone. We are the richest country in the world (even still) and have the greatest pool of research and healthcare professionals in the world, yet so many Americans are on the outside looking in. As for me, I have a good job and pay my monthly premiums (almost $400) for me and my family. I still have to wait weeks and months for an appointment. I still pay expensive co-pays for everything, ($30 per appointment, for drugs if covered; $150 for ER visit, $150 for visit on weekend or not during business hours.) Is this really the system the Republicans are fighting for?
Karen Weir, I live across from Windsor and every time I meet a Canadian I ask him or her whether they would trade their Canadian health care system for our private system. I have yet to meet a Canadian who wanted to trade.
bg papa,
This is my first time on the hub and I have to say your article was wonderful. Being a 40 something mother, married to a very old fashion husband in his way, we both have talked about the goverment spending all there time, playing like children fighting over the ball and not paying attention to the game.
I would call myself a liberal in the old sense of the word and would say it is sad that we can't just have our different opinions on what we beleave with out having to label everyone one way or the other.
America was built on people who wanted to be independant and have a say in their lives. And we would not be were we are as a nation if we did not balance our liberal side and our conservative side.
In the last few years the goverment has scared me on how one sided it has become and has forgotten how to balance it self out.
Thanks for the wonerful debate. I have injoyed reading all the comments.
It seems to me that the reason some Republicans don't want basic services for everyone is because they don't understand - seriously... they just don't understand. It's almost like a brainwashing. They don't see that it is in fact cost EFFECTIVE. In reality, the US is more of a "welfare" state than Canada is.
Ralph, I cannot imagine any Canadian truly wanting a totally private system. We take our basic care for granted. I cannot imagine paying co-pays on top of insurance premiums. I don't think twice about booking a doctor's appointment. I have no fear of a critical illness bankrupting my family. Those are just not concerns we even have to consider.
Good point on the banking regulations too. There is a government program in place here to insure high risk mortgages enabling more people to own homes... it is the CMHC (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation). IMO, the role of government - liberal or conservative, is to regulate. Capitalism is a lovely notion, and if all people were honest and decent we wouldn't need that "watch dog", but let's get real... we need to regulate and safe guard public interests.
Mark Leibovich points out in today's NYT that "socialist" has replaced "liberal" as the slur of choice among the diminishning ranks of the GOP faithful.
Crews Travel,
So you think where the country is today, is a great place to be.
You are correct that the way the government works, is the reason why we are where we are today.
Crews, thanks for your comment. And I agree balance is important.
Interesting read Ralph, the Republican PR machine back at work. They guys really earn their money. But they are fighting a 21 century problem with a 1950s mantra. I am not sure its going to work.
bg
You are right, the Obama 1990s Clinton team is more modern.
Not sure what you mean issues. But if I were a conservative and really had problems with the current policies (which sincere people do) why not just state what you problems are. Why don't they make the simple argument - we owe too much, we can't borrow more. Instead, they are playing their greatest hits - lower taxes, no social services- Obama is a communist. I don't get what their plan is - is it because they don't have one.
And is the Governor of Louisianna really their best hope? Really?
I ask a serious question - Who is the Republicans Obama? What I mean is who is the Republican Party can bring the party together and put forward a campaign that energizes the Country? To say they never had one would be wrong - Reagan.
bg
I am not arguing those comments that you have made, because that is not my issue.
My issue has always been that neither Democrat, Republican, Liberal or Conservative have the necessary solution. But their continual struggle for dominance for their ideals and goals is the root cause of the down slide of the country and a direct result of the current condition of this country.
We elect a Congress and a President not because of their party affiliations but because we expect them to work together for the good of the country.
Voting Row A or Row B is not a good way to elect our politicians. Vote for the person, if they match up with how you want them to act on your behalf.
If you elect someone but they didn't do what they were elected to do, then call them on it and don't re-elect them, no matter what they promise. Candidate promises should be a contract with the people that elect them.
Democrats - JFK
Republicans - Reagan
Tie score
Good point Issues- Vote for the person, I agree.
bg
common ground, Thanks
If only our political leaders, on both side, tried to find common ground. Thanks for your input.
Thanks, maybe your next hub might be "Finding the Common Ground".
Have a great day
Republicanism has become a religion. Some friends only believe certain things because other Republicans believe them. I hope this doesn't or already hasn't happened to Liberals though.
Obama is trying. But it takes two to tango.
Pdesigns and Ralph, I deleted the double post.
A hub on finding common ground, what is the fun in that. I would rather be part of the problem, not the solution.
I did write another post based on one of my own questions raised here though, it speaks to common ground.
The only people who think 'liberal' is a bad word are the right wing radio crackpots who would lead us to believe that everybody thinks like they do....Jesus was a liberal.
I hate to say this because I don't want to offend, but I truely believe the general masses cannot work together to come up with a workable solution. I believe that Americans are a bit too inherantly selfish and self-serving to educated themselves on the entire issue so they can make a sound judgement together. Everyone would be fighting instead of resolving. I'm conservative, can you tell?
I don't think that is a conservative or liberal thought. I think it is the reason why we have a Representative Democracy. In theory, the masses send people to educate themsevles on the issues and decide what is the right thing to do. We know that right now it doesn't really work that way.
But you point raises the issue: Since the masses cannot come together; which is better - Darwin or government regulation. Little bit of both is probably the answer.
Thanks for reading.
Wow, lot of comments so I will just say nice pictures you got posted here. :)
thanks. I think the comments are better than the original post.
Thanks for reading.
The Germans voted for 'change' in the 1930's and elected Adolf Hitler. See what we are in for?
I am liberal hear me roar.....:) I found this hub to be respectful and it provided a clear understanding to what the true meaning of being liberal is all about, I give it a thumbs up Bg !!!!:)
John, A bit drastic don't you think?
Thanks AEvans.
Drastic, but true. No?
John my friend we are not in Germany and we are not going to exterminate thousands of people , or have numbers written on our hands, it is a little extreme. Please enlighten us on what you are trying to say as I am truly curious. :)
I did not say we were in Germany nor did I say anything like that would happen. I was implying that the Germans wanted change, and they got it. They got change alright, bad change. I think all this 'change' talk is gonna end up very bad. I think what Obama stands for and what he supports is gonna to bring bad change. Everyone has an opinion :)
John, it is a fair opinion to think that the change Obama is going to bring will be bad for the Country and you are most certainly entitled to it. I just found it odd to compare this change with Hitler. But yes, Hitler was elected by about 40% of the people.
As for change, Has Obama really changed anything yet? He is spending as Bush did, fighting wars like Bush did. Thus far, and I am willing to give him more time, very little has changed.
John, thanks for your comments.
Yea, I was looking for that now I understand John what you were saying. I too am going to give him some more time as change cannot happen overnite, although we would like it too, so I do agree with BG .
Your right, he hasn't changed anything yet. To reply on your comment "He is spending as Bush did": Bush did spend, but was it wasteful? No, it wasn't. During his presidency, the economy wasn't great, but it wasn't bad. I am not saying Obama screwed the economy, I am saying that he is a wasteuful spender. You think setting aside $248 million dollars for furniture in the new Homeland Security Headquarters is not wasteful? Or a $246 million dollar tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film? How is all this wasteful spending gonna help this economy?
Also, didn't I hear Obama wants to send MORE troops overseas?! I thought he wanted to pull out???
--John
PS - GTG to bed :) Will reply tomorrow. Its great chating with ya!
Well I think the spending you referred to was in the inherited budget but I could be wrong. Whether the spending is wasteful or not is certainly a matter of debate.
The change I wanted was in the tone. Obama I think is trying but the Republicans AND DEMOCRATS in Congress continue as business as usual.
As for the budget and bailouts, I refer you to another one of my blogs where I put forward my plan for the economy. I am not an expert but it makes sense to me.
Great chatting with you as well. Debate is good as long as it is respectful and the sides actually listen. We don't always have to agree, but we should be respectful.
The spending I refered too was in the 09 Stimulus Package. It passed not too long ago...
Im curious, how do you think Obama is trying to change?
Thanks, I will try to check it out.
--John
fair enough.
I think he was trying to change the tone but the Republicans rebuffed any attempts at bipartisianship. If they sincerely question him, then they have every right to say so though. If not, and they are just saying no in the hopes he fails, that is not right.
I think he also tried to change the way government does business in terms of spending. Yes, he is spending a lot of money. But he tried to get rid of earmarks and the like and it was the democrats who got in his way.
What I want to see from his is leadership. Make the Republicans fillibuster. Make the Democrats answer for their wasteful spending in the budget. I think he is trying, but not doing enough
I have figured out that I have liberal opinions about many things, and conservative opinions about some other things. I don't think either way of thinking is a bad thing; what is good is having people on both sides to keep balance.
Good Point. Thanks for reading.
Please don't hold back.
For the record, I left a comment up for a little while in the name of honest debate, but will/have deleted it because of the profanity.
Liberals suck and are wrecking the country !!!!!
Well that is a cogent argument. If I have made them mad I have done something right.
You certainly have as politics is home of the great debate!!! go bgpappa!!!:)
Debate is a good thing and I welcome all points of view as long as they bring something to the table.
Thanks for your comment AEvans
Maybe Obama isn't liberal enough? Or maybe we should send in one of the Chairman Mao types from over here to fix it lol
lol. I don't think Obama is the problem right now. I think it is the Congressional Democrats. They are stuck in the mud with nothing ot say.
Nobody is advocating communism, well at least I am not. I am advocating that the liberal agenda actually be implemented: Help the poor, government regulation, environmental protections.
Thanks for your comment.
LiberHater: Being Ignorant is not the American Way to be, do you believe in one race? You had better read your history as there isn't a pure race and the truth is Jesus was a Jew or did you re-write the Bible to fullfill your need. We were all created in God's image is that not correct? I believe it is written in the Holy Bible itself, so read your history and then comment on what you agree and disagree upon. All are entitled to there opinions, let freedom ring for all who live in our country.
What would you do differently if you were President? This is the question that I have for everyone who believes they can improve the economy in a positive manner. Bush put us in this mess, so somebody has to give there best to try and dig us out. McCain could not have done any better and it would have been the same shrewd comment. Color of your skin has nothing to do with how a country needs to be ran. So your one line is ridiculous, if you go to church put a little love in your heart. Do not sit in those pews and be a hypocrite , racist, or close minded as Jesus would certainly not do that. :)
Well said AEvans
To call our Founding Fathers liberals by today's sense of the word is silly. You said it—they were Classical Liberals. Liberals against centralized power and against Monarchy. Today's Conservatives are Classical Liberals. Today's Liberals are not cut from the cloth of the American Revolution (surely thou dost jest)—they are of the French Revolution (with its attendant Anti-God theme).
Today's Liberals are of the same ilk who defended Papa Joe while he murdered and enslaved tens of millions of human beings—for the good of the state, of course. Liberal became a bad word about the time of McGovern I think. Liberals today want to control human beings from cradle to grave with the exception of freedom for hedonism, licentiousness and perversion. But that is the freedom for destruction.
Lincoln wanted first and foremost to preserve (conserve) the Union.
Today's Liberals believe in Central Planning—been tried and found wanting.
If you told George Washington or Thomas Jefferson that the Federal Government should have the power to control health care, labor, housing, and education—to tell states they must allow the killing of babies, homosexuals to marry, children that it is illegal to pray on school grounds, cities to remove croses from their city seals, or for that matter what must be taught to children in local schools, you would find out right quick how Liberal they were.
I did call them Classical Liberals as you acknowledged. If they were so "conservative" then why incorporate a bill of rights, which today's conservatives want to abandon save the second amendment. You tell Washington and Jefferson that the guns of today call kill hundreds in a minute and explain to them about police forces, I think they would have a different take.
I reject the proposition that government wholly defeats freedom. It depends on the government. Without the federal government, slavery does not end and civil rights does not end.
But your thoughts are welcomed and I thank you for your comment.
You are so gracious. I want to aplogize for the tone of my last post. It was 4:00am here and I was onery. I should not have painted Liberals with such a broad brush. I know they also want what they think is best.
No problem. Trust me, this hub has seen worse. Had to delete many for profanity. I think there are good hearted people on both sides. Few are in Congress.
I enjoy a good articulate debate and passion is a part of them. You are welcome anytime.
This is a great hub Bgpappa, you beat to the punch, I was writing one almost exactly like it. I am glad I read this first.
I was a Soldier much my Adult life and believed, and still believe firmly in my Oath of Service. "I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic...."
The Constitution is a Liberal Document, WE THE PEOPLE is a liberal concept. I'll catch hell for this, but I am sorry I just don't care. If you are not Liberal, YOU ARE A TRAITOR! I fought for it, I'll die for it, and most "Conservatives" will only go so far as to call me a socialist without bothering to stand in the line along side those that even now serve. They are cowards and are afraid of Diversity, Freedom, and New Ideas. People like Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Rielly, Carol Rove, and the list goes on and on NEVER HAD THE intestinal fortitude to serve a full term in the Military, yet all of them would brand me a traitor for Standing up and Fighting for their right to spew their lies and mis-information. They make me ashamed to call myself a Citizen of of United States. They are the enemies of My Beloved Country, the U.S.A.
Thanks for the comment. I await yours as a military take on liberalism would be very interesting.
Your second sentence of the first paragraph is what makes modern liberalism a bad thing. All Liberal legislation infringes on individual rights by increasing restriction or by taxation of the achiever. It takes from the successful to reward the slothful.
So everyone who isn't successful is a sloth. Interesting. Thanks for the comment.
Very nice statement on the contributions of people who weren't affraid to be liberal. How about determining your position based on the issue? I feel alittle liberal on healthcare(as long as we don't have to cure the whole world), enviroment(as long as we don't bomb things), and entitlements(as long as they go to the entitled). I feel very conservative about late term abortions and partial birth abortions(this is wrong on every level), military strength(lets fight our battles in thier country) and gay marriage(This just plain insulting to us Christians in our opinion this is solely an attempt to rub our nose in our most sacred institution) Where is sanity? I believe some where near the middle. Peace.
sneak,
Thanks for your comment. I agree, most people are liberal on some issue and conservative on others.
On Gay Marriage, while respect the religious opinion that it is wrong, I sincerely do not understand their arguments against it. The argument that allowing homosexuals will somehow demean marraige just doesn't hold water with me. A marriage is sacred to the people that are married it seems to me. If you believe your own marriage is sacred, what should it matter who else is married? I am not putting down your position, just the arguments I hear in support of it. If someone came out as you did and said as a Christian I can't support gay marriage, I would have respect for that opinion. In California, where I live, nobody makes that argument. Instead, commercials state that Gay Marriage will harm children and destroy the institution of marriage. I just don't buy it.
The gay marriage debate is an interesting one to me, while liberals decry the Christian stance as intolerant they then engage in their own intolerance of the way Christians feel about it. When Tony speaks of liberals being hypocrites this is exactly what he means. As for liberals being lumped with Socialism, what exactly would Government run health care be if not socialist?
Liberal became a bad word when the liberals try and force people to accept certain lifestyles, I don't have to accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle, and if I dont then I will be labeled a bigot or homophobe or some other idiotic word!
This current health care debate is a perfect example of why liberals get the deserved bad rap, some liberals are saying it is racism that causes protesters to attend town hall meetings and show their anger. Would someone please explain to me the rational behind this? Its also being thrown about when people disagree with Obama, couldn't it just possibly be that we disagree with the President because we view these policies as expensive and unnecessary? Nope, it has to be racism.
bgpappa, when your side quits whining about imaginary racists/homophobes and bigots of all types then that will be the day liberal goes back to being a good word.
A Texan, thanks for the comment
I find it interesting that in the same breath you claim liberals are trying to force a lifestyle when it comes to gay marriage then argue that you don't have to accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. Liberals are trying to make you live a homosexual lifestyle, you are free to do what you want. But the conservatives are trying to force their lifestyle on others by banning any lifestyle they don't believe is Christian.
I agree with you that the healthcare debate has gone off the tracks and Obama is partially to blame. Many conservatives, including yourself, have legitimate problems with the healthcare plan. But many at the town hall meetings are arguing about healthcare, they are arguing against Obama. I think some of this is racially charged. But conservatives should not be lumped together as racist. A racist is a racist, and being conservative does not necessarily mean you are racist.
No, the plan being pursued right now is not socialist. Its not even liberal. Just because the government is involved does not make it socialist. National Defense isn't considered a socialist policy and it is entirely driven by the government. Neither is Veteran Care that is completely run by the government. A public option is simply that, an option. And calling it government run healthcare simply is not accurate.
But as somebody who is currently fighting with insurance companies over what tests can be done, I wonder if having a government official make healthcare decisions would be any worse than an Insurance Adjuster. At least with the government, the motive won't be profit. Just food for thought.
Thanks again for the comment.
"Liberals are trying to make you live a homosexual lifestyle"
I guess you were saying "are not" Right? I never said they were trying to make me live a Homosexual lifestyle! But they certainly are trying to make most people accept the lifestyle as mainstream, we both know that it is not! They have been preaching tolerance for this lifestyle for a very long time and have acted intolerant to those who do not accept it. HYPOCRITES!
I don't know of any Conservative seeking to ban homosexuality! How could it be banned? Just another liberal tactic to confuse those on the fence!
And as usual race is a factor in Obamacare, can you provide some proof to this allegation or just the fact you mention it, it is true? Same tactic!
Yes any Government run health care is socialist by definition! http://www.ociservices.com/?p=1397 look at these items in the bill and tell me its not Government run health care!
National Defense? Where are you going with that? It should be run by the Government because they are charged with providing National defense.
Veteran care is indeed socialist, but it is accepted because veterans are deserving of free health care! It is also some of the worst health care in the world I know I receive it on occasion.
I am sorry to hear that you have to fight with Insurance companies, is it because you were under insured? I recently had to have a Pacemaker/Defibrillator implanted in my chest, this was on my personal insurance and 1 operation and a night in the hospital ran over 100,000 dollars. My insurance company had no problem paying and my premiums do not go up.
Well, if you are a veteran, thank you for your service.
The Veterans Healthcare has the highest patient satisfaction in the world.
Looked at the website, still don't think it is socialist.
I am not underinsured, whatever that means. I have health insurance through my job. Pay my premiums ($450 month) and copays $30. My doctors are not in charge though. The insurance company is. Every test that my doctors want to run has to be approved and some have been denied. I get calls from the insurance company questioning the medication that I have been prescribed. They set up appointments when they deem something needs to be done and I end up paying. And after seven months, I am not better. If you have great insurance and are happy with the system, good. Many are happy and nothing will change under the proposals. But for those like me who think my money is being thrown away I want a different option. I want the choice.
Thanks for the comment.
I am not satisfied with the health care at the VA, But because I was wounded and receive a disability check from the Government I am required to use their Doctors. I don't know what to say about your insurance I pay considerably less and get excellent treatment from the Insurance company and my Doctors.
I have to say that if the Government involvement in health care reform does not alarm you then you are not liberal you are a socialist. I don't say that to degrade you in any way there are a lot of Socialists in this Country including the President. I just don't understand why y'all don't want to admit your true political feelings.
Trust me, I am not a socialist. The point about National Defense is that there are certain things that are so important to life, liberty and property that government must provide it for all. National Defense, Roads, etc. The real argument that we should be having, and liberals miss this point as much as conservatives is whether healthcare is a privilege or a right. If it is a right, then it should be provided for all. If it is privilege, then the current system suffices.
However, I am not happy with Obama over the bailouts. Let companies fail. I am a minority opinion on the liberal side on that.
Ok, then you are not a Socialist. I will give you an example of Government inefficiency, About 5 years ago the State of Texas decided to build toll roads to ease traffic on the major thoroughfares around Austin Texas, these roads were built by private companies and as far as I know all work has been completed. in 1982 the State decided to widen a section of I35 from down town Austin to Georgetown Texas, about 30 miles. They completed that job 25 years later! Point, Government cannot efficiently run anything, Medicare,Medicaid,Social Security,Postal service all broke and ate up with corruption, thats what a Government run health care system will bring us! I think they should actually reform the service not run it!
Really, the Post Office. I put a letter in the mail on Tuesday and it gets there on Thursday all for fifty cents. Everyone agrees that government could be more efficient, but you can't argue that insurance companies in general are any better.
At least we can agree that reform is needed. We just disagree on the approach. Why not a moderate approach, like a public option.
The old put a stamp on it and it gets there ploy, forget the fact that the postal service loses BILLIONS every year. Just because your letter gets there does not make the operation efficient. In 2008 the postal service lost over 2.8 Billion and they are on track to lose 7 billion this year and that is what you call a successful Government entity?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/business/08nocer
A public option will never happen, but if for some reason it does it will mean the destruction of the DNC! Health care in Canada and the UK is a joke, I don't care how many people put up statistics showing life expectancy and death rates as proof of their greatness. These Countries gather their statistics differently than the US. Do we need reform? I guess. Hospitals charge 10 dollars for an aspirin, 3200 for an MRI, reform whatever the cause for these outrageous prices are. Government cannot run anything efficiently, show me one entity that it operates that turns a profit and can sustain itself and I will reconsider my stance.
"but you can't argue that insurance companies in general are any better." Yes I can, I am living proof of their efficiency! I was told on a Thursday I needed a Pacemaker and the next Monday morning I was being wheeled out of an operating room with one, can that happen in the UK or Canada? NO!! Private insurance made that possible!
Then you are the exception rather than the norm, which is good. But there are many more that don't get that kind of service and millions who get nothing at all until it is an emergency. That is not efficiency.
UK and Canada is not a joke. Sure, Fox News can put single examples of the system that look bad, but overall the system provides a basic level of healthcare for everyone. Check ups don't cost a thing. Here, millions have no insurance for a basic check up. That is not efficiency. The root of your argument is that healthcare is a priveledge and not a right, which is a belief you are entitled to. We just disagree.
Because there are some who are doing without health care doesn't make the system inefficient how many of these people when they have an emergency are not treated? The UK and Canada are a joke, try getting lifesaving health care there! Liberal snipes at FOX news won't make your argument better it makes it look more desperate, health care is for those who pay for health care, what about that is not understood. McDonald's does not give away Big Mac's you have to pay, your entire argument is one for Socialism not Capitalism!
And my point is proven, you believe healthcare is a privilege and not a right. When you compare healthcare to Big Macs, it only proves the point.
And there is nothing wrong with that point of view. I just disagree. I believe healthcare is a right. But allowing people care in an emergency room isn't efficiency. It costs twice to three times as much to treat a condition in an emergency room than it would have cost to prevent or treat the same condition earlier. I snipe at Fox News, you bring up socialism, we all have our little ploys to play. But the fact of the matter is you believe healthcare is a priviledge for those that can afford it, while I believe it is a right that should be afforded to everyone. Why can't the argument be there instead of nonissues that what other countries do and Fox News.
OK its a Right, I don't mind holding that position. And you are right when you say that it cost more for the condition to be treated later than earlier, but who is at fault for that? Everyone can afford health care if they want it, if you save 10 dollars a day you can pay exactly what I do for health care a month! Saving money to pay for things is just a foreign concept to a lot of people, but it is what is needed to get over this "Please do for me mentality"
The reason other countries are brought into the debate is because these are the systems that the administration want to emulate, it is not a non issue! Here is where you lose me, you believe bailing out business is the wrong thing but you don't bat an eye at bailing out individuals! The problem is it is a lot more expensive to bail out 46 million people than it was for business.
I agree some kind of reform is needed but penalizing private businesses is not the answer and that is what this bill does!
I meant it was a privilege not a right! My bad!
"Liberal" became a bad thing when the liberals decided they knew better than the citizenry at large. They think they know what's best for the poor, for minorities, for big business, for unborn babies.
A Texan, I knew what you meant
Perfectally acceptable position to think Healthcare is a privilege and not a right. I don't agree, but I think it is a fair argument. Its too bad the argument cannot seem to get to that basic point. I don't want to bail out corporations because I believe in the market system for all things except for those things that must be protected at all costs. National Defense, Education, Healthcare. In the end, if I had to choose, I would rather bail out people than corporations. The people are going to pay for the bailouts one way or another, but as of right now, few individuals are benefiting from the bailouts. Yes, a small tax cut, but it doesn't do anything when you have been laid off.
Great debate.
nicomp,
Thanks for the comment. But right now it is conservatives who seem to know better that the citizenry. The oppose choice, both reproductive and on healthcare, they support monopolies that limits consumer choice, and they oppose dissent of any kind unless it is something they support.
Granted, the same can be said for both sides. I don't get where everyone says that liberals don't trust people. Liberal means to help those who are unable in the current system to help themselves. Why is that such a bad thing?
Nope, liberal means "help" cloaked in an effort to take away dignity and gain control over the lives of those less fortunate. All in an effort to get more political power. Give someone a house, a monthly check, food stamps, free health care, and free school lunches can only make them more dependent on the government in the long run. A hand up is very different from a hand out.
Your obfuscation of the conservative mindset is disingenuous at best. I'm sorry you had to sink to that level. "A woman's right to choose" is nonsensical double-talk contrived to gain political power, nothing more.
Right, its liberals that are trying to gain control. Conservatives want control over a woman's body then once she has the child, nothing to do with the child. No education, no food. Conservatives want tax breaks for the sole purpose of feeding corporations.
Your classification of liberals is nothing more than the spin provided by Sean Hannity on Fox. At least think of something new.
Nice try at obfuscation, but the sad truth is that "a woman's right to choose" is pandering to women in a lame attempt to garner political power. Liberals no more support an individual's right to choose than they support Ronald Regan. It's ironic because if they supported live births, they'd probably have more constituents because they can keep the families in poverty through government feel-good programs. You all need to think that through.
We all know that conservatives scheme to force women to have babies and then starve them. You're really reaching now. If you have nothing better, we're done here.
Hi bgpappa - Great hub, as always.
I am not too interested in the US healthcare debate, but I do get upset by the misconceptions. In Greece, I pay about 200 dollars (depending upon exchange rates) every month for my healthcare/pension, and I am very happy with that :)
As for the UK, my mother has MS, and the NHS has been absolutely brilliant - no complaints here, thankfully! A Texan, your observations about 'lifesaving care in the UK' are, to be polite, untrue.
Its funny you claim conservatives want control over a Woman's body when all we ask is for Women to control their own bodies so they don't wind up in the position that a Doctor has to solve the problem! And we certainly do not want Government to pay for abortions, something else this bill will do! I know it doesn't say that in the bill and thats how I know that is what they intend. If abortion is not expressly forbidden by law then it is just another medical procedure!
Personally I am not against abortion it is none of my business what anyone does, I just wish liberals thought the same way and didn't want Government to be involved in our lives!
And Sufidreamer I have friends in the UK who would say that you are being untruthful, they abhor NHS and have had to come to the States to receive the care they needed when they needed it!
One last thing Pappa you have not given me one Government program that is running efficiently and is self sustaining! Can you name anything Government has done that would include those things?
Sufi, thanks for the comment. Its nice to have a first hand review.
Texan, the Post Office. Yes, I know it is in debt, but so is everything else in America right now. Under your definition, there are few corporations that are efficient. And guess what, they all came to government.
As for Abortion, I think the same way you do actually. I do not believe tax dollars should pay for it. I think it should be legal and should be safe, but not subsidized. My thinking isn't religious, just I don't think tax dollars should pay for elective procedures and abortion is just that, and elective procedure. Its about choice, and a woman should be able to choose what to do about a pregnacy without interference from others according to her own beliefs. But it is an election, and therefore should not be covered. My own humble opinion. As to your contention that all woman who have abortions must have been acting immorally or whatever you meant, my daughter was born despite the use of two different birth control methods. My wife chose to have the baby and we are the better for it. But in the end it was her choice (we weren't married at the time)
There are many businesses that are operating just fine in these economic times, this is not the worst economy since the 30's just the 2nd worst in 30 years! I meant that a lot of women become pregnant and use abortion as birth control! You can take it any way you want, your then girlfriend (I assume)became pregnant and you and she decided to have a child whether you were married or not is irrelevant to me you did what you thought was best and I am happy that you are happy!
Fair enough point about the birth control thought, but I think we are both of the mindset of who are we to judge. We are happy, but we didn't need anyone to interfere, parents, government whatever. The main thing was it was our choice (more hers than mine) and we did what we thought was right for us. But thanks for your good wishes.
And on that note I will reserve the right to argue another point another time! Later.
I am an unaffiliated political Moderate, though left-leaning, who tries to be center of the road. And let me say that both liberal and conservative have become equally polarizing terms over the past 30 years. This article makes not even the slightest nod to the bipartisan nature of this unsettling trend, and it just floors me. Without recognizing that conservatives are caricatured and belittled with equal vehemence, this article is just encouraging narrow, navel-gazing subjectivity. Conservatives are not cool, and I dare anyone to refute that statement. Especially in the post-Bush era, they have close to zero street cred. They are associated with racism, ignorance, greed, war-mongering, blind patriotism, Bible thumping Southern white trash, and free-wheeling corporate capitalism. The U.S. is arguably the most individualistic in the world, and in an society which prizes innovation, extols progress and worships its youth, conservatives seem like they're on the wrong side of practically every cultural issue. When's the last time you saw anyone in Hollywood boldly proclaiming their support for "family values" or the GOP? Studies conducted by non-partisan organizations which rate media journalism note that CNN is the most balanced though it leans left and MSNBC is pronouncedly liberal (don't worry, neither can match Fox News when it comes to gross bias).
As a politically aware twenty-something that has recently moved to New York from a deeply conservative Midwestern state, I hear more than my fill of anti-conservative rants. This is because people in my age group who are interested in politics are far more likely to be liberal anyway no matter where they live, and you combine that with the socio-political atmosphere of New York City and you're in anti-conservative overdrive. Most of my friends and aquaintances use the word conservative with such distate and even venom that you'd think it was a curse. If you are especially keen on making your point, of course, you don't merely use "conservative" in a denigrating manner--you embellish it with various ornamental devices such as "right-wing," "religious right," "far right fundamentalist" and "right-wing nut job." If you're honest you will note that these are only the G-rated ephitets. One of my good and very liberal friends once remarked that she hopes they demonize conservative the way they've demonized liberal. Then I asked her how she'd feel if people she didn't know assumed she was a conservative because she's from a "red state." And of course the look on her face told me all I needed to know about that--God forbid anyone should think she's conservative!
I don't disagree with your premise in principle-liberal has become demonized in a way that we didn't see before the 70s. But so has conservative. There is a great deal of intellectual baggage that needs to be unpacked in order to understand how this came to be, but if we don't start by acknowledging the fact that the name-calling goes both ways, than we are only tainting the quest at the outset with our own prejudices. May I suggest that this mindset of victimization, no matter which side of the aisle it's coming from, says more about that individual's own insecurities about what they believe than it reveals about the actual political climate of a nation.
Well, I agree that true conservatives have been hurt as true liberals. But the main point of this article wasn't so much to bash the right, even though they have responded in great numbers, but bash the new democratic party. They have allowed the right to demonize liberal values, and you can't really blame the right on that. If democrats would actually remain standing for something, anything, it would shock the whole system. But they don't and at the end of the day, you can't really blame the right for that. The right has no problem standing for what they believe, despite what others think. The point of this article was to point out that the new "liberals" have failed to so.
Thanks for the comment and thanks for reading.
Texan,
You are welcome here anytime.
Maire, I see Jon Voight do it all the time, Dennis Miller, Bruce Willis, Fred Thompson!
You are about as politically aware as a tree stump and just about as intelligent!
The port office has a government-sponsored monopoly and they still can't break even. Imagine paying someone to walk through neighborhoods all day, stopping at every house. At each house there might be a 42 cent payment or there might be nothing. Either way, the mailman has to touch every mailbox every day. And they used to do it twice a day. Unless it's a teenager working for minimum wage, the business model can't possibly survive. The concept of paying a middle-class wage including health benefits and a stellar retirement package to do this job is absurd.
Wow, I Guess you believe the private sector can do it better. Paying ten bucks to send a birthday card would be more efficient? How would that effect businesses if we got rid of the post of the post office.
It is illegal except for limited exceptions to compete against the Post Office, they do indeed have a monopoly!
Pappa you are paying ten dollars now! What about taxes paying for these failures don't you liberals get? I pay taxes you pay taxes and these entities keep losing money, one day you are gonna wake up and its gonna hit you like a ton of bricks! And then I will welcome you to the conservative side!
You know this is exactly like the bailout you said you were against except the Post Office will never make a profit! You live in a State where liberalism has failed miserably and still defend it, I live in a State where Conservatism has created budget surpluses and the unemployment is below the average for the rest of the nation! Face it man, liberalism cannot work!
Texan,
I live in a State that was taken down financially by conservative ideals: Deregulation of the energy industry. California has had Republican leaders for decades. There was a short lived Governorship of Gray Davis, but he did very little. Arnold has been in charge for nearly 8 years now. Before Davis, Pete Wilson.
But I think California's problems are more than political parties. A lot of the troubles come from the propositions. Every year there are numerous bond measures on the ballot, both from conservatives and liberals. They almost always pass. Then, the money promised in the bonds has to be spent. This gives the government very little discretionary spending. And of course no one wants taxes to go up for the hundreds of bond measures that by law have to paid for.
If my taxes go to the Post Office, I am ok with that. If only I didn't have to waste tax dollars on wars of choice, tax cuts for the rich, tax excemptions for religious organizations (which I really don't have a problem with except for property taxes) then I think we can afford to allow the mail to continue.
I think It would be a great thing If we citizens were allowed to decide where we wanted to spend our tax dollars . The suits on Capitol Hill have gotten completely out of control on both sides of the aisle . We are back to taxation without representation again . I do not mind paying taxes as long as I get to decide how It should be spent !
Pappa your kidding right? Conservative ideas? How long has your legislature been Republican? You know who creates law and it ain't the Governor! Arnold is so far away from a being a Conservative its not funny! You want conservatism in action? Look at Texas, thats what conservatism gets you! California has failed because of liberals and it is completely laughable to even mention conservative ideas and California in the same breath!
Texan, I guess you have to live here to know what is really going on. The California government as a whole are a joke, on both sides. To simply look at the demographics and decide it is liberal ideals is simply not to know the problem.
And as to Texas, its gets me to think succession? But, I will not opine on how Texas is doing because I do not live there. I have friends that live there and they say things are different than you claim and they are conservative. But perhaps they are just having a run of bad luck.
John, Agreed.
BTW Arnold has not been in charge for nearly 8 years it has not even been 6 years yet, you really need to bone up on your States politics!
I am sure you do have friends in Texas. Texas seems to have a lot of California transplants here, Texas unemployment rate is 7.9 below the national average and we have budget surpluses, Those who are unemployed are only unemployed for a short time, if your friends are having a tough time then they are not trying very hard!
The word is secession! It is always misspelled, I wish we could secede but we are no more able to do that legally than California is, it would involve war and fighting against my own country does not sit well with me! But if Obama continues on his quest to end State rights we may have to do something!
I looked at the caption of your founding fathers and it reminded me of a Joke by Dennis Miller
Our founding fathers were prepared to kill because the brits created a tax on their breakfast beverage, that ain't to liberal!
Why is it that anyone who is on unemployment just isn't trying very hard. My friend has been laid off twice in the last two years. He is a truck driver. He moved to Texas four years ago when his company got relocated there. Then they laid him off. He went off and found a job and quickly got laid off because he was the new guy. Now he can't find a job doing what he has always done. He took a part time job at a Walmart type store (can't remember what it is called) because he has bills to pay. Do you consider that not trying very hard.
I didn't say if you are on unemployment you are not trying hard! I said if they are having a tough time then they are not trying hard! It is not hard to find a job in Texas it wont pay as well as California but the cost of living isn't as high either! I have had to learn new trades my entire working life, if i couldn't make it doing one thing I learned another until I found a way to combine all the trades and made a mint as a contractor! If your friend does not want to do anything other than drive a truck well sorry about his bad luck and I hope he doesn't go hungry, sometimes life isn't easy but you do what you have to.
In our town I pay some money every year for fire protection. As of today I have never had to call the Fire Department, and I hope I never will. But I pay for those who need the protection. Is this a Liberal program because it makes everyone pay for the fire protection usage of only a few?
Some people who never had children have complained that they should not be obliged to pay for the school district, which operates schools, after-school programs and the like. Is this a Socialist program, or as some say, a Liberal program?
It is hard to see how we are all of any particular politicla or economic philosophy. When so-called Liberals and Conservatives love their country, which is filled with Liberals, Conservatives and Moderates of all degrees, more than their dogma, maybe we will all find some common ground to make the United States a better place. I had to learn this the hard way, and I hope everyone else learns it as well.
And again, Moderates are also not the "bad guys" in this. Neither are "Liberals" nor "Conservatives".
Cheers!
A Very Moderate Chef Jeff
Well said Chef Jeff. Thanks for the comments.
Liberal became a dirty word when it was co-opted by the progressives. In reality liberals today are nothing like the Liberals of the 19th century. To claim descent from 19th century liberals is dishonest.
When you say you believe in the government's ability to provide for people, you are aping a progressive line, not a liberal one. Liberals believe in liberty, it's right there in the name. Liberty means that you live as you choose, not as how somebody else will let you. it's funny how you named three other presidents who did more to destroy our liberty and claim they are liberals.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and engaged in a war to force people back into the United States. Teddy Roosevelt and acted quite a few progressive hobbyhorses during his tenure. But he didn't hold a candle to FDR. FDR did more to destroy this nation's economy than anyone up to that time or since. if you think he got us out of the Great Depression, you've got another thing coming.
The depression didn't end until after World War II. You need to study 1937 a little bit harder. Even Morgenthau, his secretary of treasury understood that the New Deal failed. But he died in office during the war, so unfortunately, he's been idolized. And we managed to win World War II, despite his blunders like unconditional surrender. Did you hear how that came about, by the way?
He got blindsided by a reporter who asked him whether or not he would negotiate with dissidents in Germany, should they ever try to negotiate with the United States. According to FDR, the only thing he could think of was that Grant was known as Unconditional Surrender Grant. So by that bit of stupidity, he probably extended the war in Europe for at least a year maybe a year and a half longer than it should run. If he would've been open to negotiating, Operation Valkyrie might very well have worked. But no, he wanted to coddle that mass murderer Stalin who, after the war began building his own little Communist empire. Thank God FDR died before that, there's no telling what would've happened had he still been in office after the war.
Revisionist history is grand. Lincoln forced people back into the United States, interesting take. I take it you believe that any state can just leave whenever they deem it convenient. Nevermind slavery. Nevermind national unity.
I find it odd that someone who would support the current Republican foreign policy would ever argue for negotiations. Obama gets blamed for even mentioning talking with Iran or North Korea, but you advocate that FDR should have negotiated with Hitler.
Well, you are entitled to your point of view and I thank you for the comment.
Hey there, bgpappa. I fear you are a bit behind the times here. Liberal is no longer "just" a bag thing. From what I have been reading recently (right here on HP) Liberals are NAZIS and we are MENTALLY ILL/
P.S. I don't believe the term "liberal" is synonymous with "liberty." That is what Libertarians advocate -- no government services/interference at all.
Liberal means abundant, free-flowing. And that is the connotation I associate with Liberal policies.
Bgpapa, what else would you call it? Did Lincoln not start a war to keep the South in? Isn't that the same thing as keeping people in a federal union they no longer wished to be in. Yeah slavery sock, don't get me wrong, but even the slaveowners knew that they couldn't keep that crap up forever. As for national unity, was that mean exactly? Since when do we as Americans have to give up our opinions just to satisfy some nebulous national agenda?
Funny how I don't see any of you supposedly paroles supporting our previous president during his term, no you lambasted and just as badly as your opponents are lambasting your president and that's what makes it different. Second, I don't really think you can read. My post never said anything about negotiating with Hitler, it talked about negotiating with people opposed to him. Ever hear of Operation Valkyrie? That was the plan by the German military to assassinate Hitler, late in the War. They made a movie about you might want to check it out.
Yeah Obama negotiated with the Iran, look at how well they're treating their people. As for North Korea, they're willing to let their own people starve to death rather than accept help from anywhere else in the world. Since when do we negotiate with those kinds of people? Since when is it okay to legitimize what those people do?
@MightyMom what exactly does that mean? Abundant free flowing policies? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Ledefensetech. What part of the word "liberal" do you not understand? Here, let me and Merriam-Webster spell it out for you. I meant exactly what I wrote above.
Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: \?li-b(?-)r?l\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English l?odan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : openhanded b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : ample, full
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4 : not literal or strict : loose
5 : broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
— lib·er·al·ly \-b(?-)r?-l?\ adverb
— lib·er·al·ness noun
synonyms liberal, generous, bountiful, munificent mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. liberal suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given . generous stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift . bountiful suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing . munificent suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes
My question wasn't about the definition of liberal, my question was about what does that mean in the context of politics? Or do you just listen to whoever sounds the prettiest and give them your support?
MM, good points indeed. Thanks for the comment.
Liberal
Being liberal and conservative is like being hot and cold but neither is comfortable.
There needs to be a blend to make it comfortable. In politics it means voting for the best person for the position.
This has yet to happen in our country.
Well, generally I agree with you. But I think genuine beleifs in both are needed. Right now, neither side is actually fighting for anything except for special interests. I think new blood on both sides is needed as well.
Thanks for the comment.
LONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGG
TIME AGO- go back as far as the 30's read your history books..
huh?
But thanks for reading
When? When the neocon dickheads and the religious right began taking over the Republican party. Maybe when the right becomes more concerned with improving education, making sure we all have health care, and dropping the unemployment rate than boycotting Target because they use the word "holiday" instead of "Christmas" and anyone who gives benefits to gay married couples, then we'll talk.
Thanks for the comment.
. . . and for those of us who want to know the truth, the audiobook "Common Sense" by Glenn Beck can shed some light on the situation for sure.
Please tell me you are kidding. He does not justice to the millions of genuine conservatives out there. But then again, maybe I don't just get it.
Thanks for the comment.
George Washington calls out from the past that gov't itself is usually the problem. Quote: "Gov't is not reason, it is not eloquence; it is force, like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. But an increasing number of Americans just don't see it that way. A recent poll revealed that a slim 53% of Americans believe that Capitalism is a better system than Socialism. What?! A full one fifth of Americans think that Socialism is a better system and an embarrassing 27% aren't even sure! Wake up America! You have been bought into the lie that Capitalism is only about money, corporations, greedy business men and corrupt politicians who cut backroom deals. Capitalism isn't about money, it's about freedom; the freedom to try and fail. That is what made the US the richest industrial nation in the world by 1905 and the freedom that kept us there ever since. That is the power of the system that we now seem so eager to trash. The scariest thing about this poll is what it revealed about Americans under 30, the next generation. Among this group the results were basically split: 37% favored Capitalism, 33% preferred Socialism and 30% were undecided. There is a lot of work to be done to return America back to her founding roots. Roots that most people don't even fully understand. So, bgpappa maybe a lot of people just don't get it. And those words are straight from the horses mouth in the audiobook "Common Sense". Thank you for the time and space here.
No problem, I welcome all points of views, even those I disagree with.
My problem with your argument which mirrors much of the conservative argument is that it yearns for a better yesterday. There is no forward thinking except to say that whatever change happens will fail. What is the conservative plan to fix the economy, healthcare, education etc. I believe in Capitalism. I believe in letting companies fail and disagreed with the bailouts. But there are some things that the free market cannot serve. National Security for example. The real debate here should be is whether healthcare rises to the level of beyond the market. I don't think the auto industry did. I don't think banks did. But I believe access to healthcare does. I really would love to hear ideas from the right other than "Socialism" which I believe the poll you cited only proves the point that most Americans scream things they truly do not understand. McCain has some ideas, and not all of them are bad. But he is the only one who has expressed them recently.
Again, all points are view are welcomed and I thank you for adding your input to this conversation.
The gov't has accomplished what I'm seeing here and that is more dividing amongst ourselves. Freedom has been on a downward slope the last 240 years. There is nothing about education in the Constitution because because it is a local issue. The same goes for a lot more of those issues, it's none of the government's business. BTW, "Common Sense" by Glen Beck is the number one best seller. What am I doing here? For goodness sakes! There are issues in great need of our importunate requests. Good days ahead!
Thanks for the comment.
Thank you for the bridge.
Clare Baros, Washington was indeed referring to the government of Great Britain, which was supposed to be the most enlightened of it's time. It was not. Neither is ours. We are, however, trying to find the better path each and every year of our existence. That is our purpose, to take what we have and make it better.
If we were not trying to do this, our system, our government, would have failed long ago. Conservatives of today are not the same Conservatives of yesterday, not even remotely. show me the Lincoln, the Rockefeller, the Teddy Roosevelt amongst the Conservatives of our time? Where is the great lkeader, the man who really understands how to rule amongst these ranks?
To my mind the Conservatives are doing to the GOP what the 1960's Liberal Radicals did to the Democratic Party back then - tearing it asunder with no good reason.
Thanks for the comment.
But to be fair to conservatives, the liberal leaders are not what they used to be either. Both sides have lost principle and focus and are minions of the special interests. Both sides need leadership and values.
You are correct. The tail is wagging the dog, so to speak. Fringe elements of both parties shout the loudest and others start to think "This must be normal, so I'll go along."
It is neither normal nor healthy. No nation survived long with either a Right or Left wing fringe group running things. People like Hugo Chavez, for example, may rule for the moment, but he, too, will soon be gone.
Great hub!
Thanks for the comment and thanks for your input.
Webdemon, Churchill, hardly a Liberal or Progressive, was also a fan of Mussolini. I also read that many Conservatives liked Hitler's Germany. Just as Progressives were and are not all evil, neither were or are Conservatives. History works best when all sides are told. We have yet to learn that in our schools, our politics and our writings, but it is true.
Democrats, mostly those from the South, did indeed embrace slavery, but some Democrats simply had no political view on it. Those who became the Republicans back in the 1850's & 1860's did not immediately embrace anti-slavery positions. Neither did they embrace programs for the former slaves after 1865. The people who did were Abolitionists - also called Radicals in their day. Only after 1863 did Lincoln even embrace an anti-slavery view, and then only reluctantly. He did it mostly for political reasons, but no matter the motive, he had a struggle in his own party by those who did not want emancipation.
The issues are usually not so simple or straightforward as we like to imagine. Trying to link Democracts to Socialism is like trying to link Conservatives to Fascism. The links just don't work very well when you get beneath the surface and critically think them through. Applying the 'isms' of other nations do not correlate very well to our own politics.
Agreed. Thanks for the comment.
WOW!!! What a great read. The article was great and the discussions it sparked were also great. I am joining your fan club and can't wait to read more of your articles.
Thank you so much. I think the discussion afterwards was much better than what I originally wrote. An actual debate, passionate, but for the most part articulate, and yes, from both sides.
Thanks for reading.
Interesting article bgpappa. Frankly I was introduced to the term by Rush Limbaugh, and of course he used it constantly as an insult. I had to watch his show 3 times before I realized that he was referring to Democrats when using the term "liberals". In time I've rejected the label because I don't care to be labeled, especially by Rush Limbaugh. I'd rather be called a Democrat. Actually my personal preference would be T or Augustus.
Thanks for the comment,
I agree, labels are bad generally. But because of guys like Rush I felt inclined to write this.
Thanks for reading.
bgpappa, labels are a tool of conceptual thought. One assigns labels on the basis of observed qualities and conditions and uses them because - if they're accurately congruent with factual reality - they work.
The label "Liberal" as we presently employ it in American politics has drifted from its original meaning (arising in the 19th Century with works like John Stuart Mill's *On Liberty* and extended in Ludwig von Mises' *Liberalism*) to serve as a weasel-word for what is in reality socialism.
The toxic reality of modern "Liberalism" is that its advocates are in fact people vehemently and violently dedicated to the infringement of the most basic human rights.
Indeed, they degrade the concept of rights by asserting - deliberately or out of simple stupidity - that positive calls upon the possessions or effort of certain people can be morally carried out by political means, without practical or ethical regard for their victims' rights to life, to liberty, or to property.
Think of the "Liberal" as the kind of person perfectly happy to see 49% of the population killed and eaten by the other 51%, just as long as everybody gets to vote.
The policy of the American "Liberal" today is what French economist and political writer Frederic Bastiat so eloquently characterized in 1850 as "legal plunder."
Whether you call the modern American "Liberal" a socialist, a progressive, a fascist, or simply a predatory thug, there can be no denying that - whatever false flag he tries to fly - he's an enemy of individual rights and therefore as bad a "Bad Thing" as it's possible for a human being to be.
Wow, Liberals are ok with 49% of the population being eaten. All because we want healthcare.
Thanks for the comment.
I have researched and wrote on several of the topics addressed in the comments and the Hub, and have come to the conclusion that all the labels are worn out. It's time to change our mindset, and find common ground.
Agreed Jiberish
Thanks for the comment.
jiberish, in the words of Sean Gabb regarding "Liberals" in his own country:
"These are bad people. They must be regarded as such in everything they do. And we must hope that they will one day be punished as such."
Especially when labels accurately reflect the qualities one must in all reason utterly despise, condemn, and oppose, they work just fine.
Which is why, of course, "Liberals" and other prehensile gentry - evil, stupid, or insane - want to blank out the concept of labeling as such.
intersting to cite Gagg,
A liberatarin who believes drugs should be legal and gay marriage is not a problem. He only wants the right to rail againt homosexuality, not outlaw it. Conservatives in America should be careful not to qouate Mr. Gabb, they may start agreeing with a liberal agenda.
Thanks for the comment.
bigpappa, let's charitably assume for the moment that you're stupid and/or insane instead of simply evil.
This might understandably account for your errors in the comment above - unless, of course, you're just lying.
First, I have not advocated that "drugs should be legal" - the "legalization" of substances currently prohibited under obtaining federal, state, and local laws. Instead, I have explicitly stated my position on the desirability of DECRIMINALIZATION, with the understanding that these officers of civil government have neither truly legitimate power nor responsibility for "controlling" the creation, conveyance, or use of any psychoactive substances whatsoever.
I've made the moral argument in that discussion ("It's the individual's body, not the property of the government"), the practical argument ("Prohibition doesn't work, except as a government price support program for dope dealers"), and the legal argument ("The War on [Some] Drugs is unconstitutional").
I've never once argued that putting the manufacture, sale, and "recreational" employment of drugs on the CDS schedules into the status of "legality" - government sanction and therefore control - is either a desirable or a viable policy.
As we libertarians like to say, "laissez-faire."
Not "Mother, may I?"
Second, regarding gay marriage not being a problem for me (no matter what might be my personal opinion either of homosexuality or homosexual persons), if you're familiar with my stance on that subject, you'll note that it derives from the fact that insofar as marriage touches upon civil government it is in marriage's status as a form of contract.
One of the very few legitimate functions of government is the enforcement of contract.
Now, being a "Liberal," I'm certain that you chant "civil rights" as a daily mantra without knowing dick about what it really means, but part of what civil rights entails is the right of the private citizen to expect of the "Malevolent Jobholder" of government the provision of services stipulated in statute law and implementing regulations, and it's been made clear over the past half-century that even scrupulously written statutes and regulations designed to deprive certain populations of services provided other certain populations are violations of the principles behind civil rights.
Remember "Jim Crow" laws, bgpappa? "Separate but equal"? Freedom riders? Rosa Parks?
Okay. Insofar as I've been able to determine, the difference between "gay" and "straight" is about as significant as the difference between "African American" and "European American" when it comes to the enforcement of contract and the provision of other "Malevolent Jobholder" services under what passes for legitimacy in law today.
There are pecuniary considerations of definite and mensurable value associate with the marriage contract, and heterosexual couples take advantage of those beneficial qualities of matrimony as a matter of civil right.
Especially given that the provision of the same services to homosexual couples does not degrade the material quality of "Malevolent Jobholder" service to straight people, and those gay men and lesbians are certainly getting hammered through taxation, inflation, and every other form of government predation just as viciously as us straight folk, the assertion of their civil right to something of the same service - especially in the enforcement of contract - seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Obviously, it's not something most "social" conservatives find to their taste, apparently because of emotional, religious, or other psychopathological failings in the conservative character.
They certainly don't have lucid and objectively supportable reasons for their positions on the "gay marriage" issue, do they?
But like you "Liberals," these social conservatives are evil, stupid, or insane, so their sputterings are not to be accorded any weight in public argument.
One treats with them in the fashion recommended for handling a vicious Rottweiler. You say: "Nice doggy! Nice doggy!" while looking around for a brick.
To conclude, consider not only reading Mr. Gabb but also Dr. von Hayek, notably the closing essay in his *Constitution of Liberty* (1960), titled - appropriately - "Why I Am Not a Conservative."
Were you capable of learning - and, who knows? you might be - Hayek's a nice place to start.
Not sure what upset you, don't really care.
Thanks for the comment.
Now, now. How like a "Liberal" to imply that a cold, calm, reasoned assessment of your moral, political, and intellectual bankruptcy must be borne of no cause other than "upset."
You're the one with no electrical activity going on above the level of the thalamus, bgpappa. Were there measurable neural function in your knob rostral to the lizard brain, you wouldn't be a "Liberal," now, would you?
Your response was neither calm or reasoned and was a typical over reaction to anyone questioning conservatism. I write a line describing the person who you quoted, and you freak out. What next, are you going to argue that I wasn't born in the United States or I am a communist.
Oh, most certainly "calm," and thoroughly reasoned. As for the length of my comments, there's the perpetual observation that handling political error - such as "Liberalism" - is like dealing with a necrotic and infected decubitus ulcer.
Think of the "Liberal" as a stinking, suppurating, bone-deep bedsore.
In order to resolve the pathology, you've got to debride. That means cutting away the diseased substance of the bedsore - or, in your case, your "Liberal" rottenness - in order to achieve a clean surface from which to begin the healing process.
This is commonly a tedious, persnickety procedure, and it must be approached meticulously. In the case of the disease that is "Liberalism," the body of errors (moral, epistemological, and political) is so broad and deep - and the filthy, rotting flesh is so beloved of the "stupid, evil, and insane" persons espousing it - that extirpation has to be conducted with precisely the same approach one takes when bringing the patient with decubitus ulcers to the operating theater.
Perfect calm is the attitude, and good reason - the application of "evidence-based medicine" - is what's required in either case. What you'd like other readers to take as "over reaction" is merely the exercise of appropriate and objectively warranted thoroughness in the address of the pathology in question.
And, naturally, it's making you "freak out."
Well, hell. Why not? You've absolutely no other way to respond, have you?
Not really, you waved reason and calm bye bye a long time ago. You welcomed back once your off your meds.
Must have skipped history class, Why would any one mention FDR, the man who extended the great depression.
really, extended the Great Depression? Do you have any facts? Why not mention Coolige and Hoover, the men who started the depression, or as I like to call them, the first George W. Bush.
Thanks for the comment.
Hello bgpappa, I don't know what to say this was one of the most spirited comment sessions, but after about a half hour I had to bail... you are much more gracious than I am to some of the factless rhetoric and vitriol. You are by far, along with Ralph Deeds, two of the best informed writers in the hub arena. I bow to your decency and good nature.
You are now linked to my most recent political hub... great read!
Thank you so much for the honor of a link and for your comment. Feel free to jump in anytime.
Thanks for reading.
bg- the problem with a closed mind is it believes it has been expanded to its maximum capacity; all the appropriate rhetoric to sustain its self image and self interest. At times it is hard to believe it's the same animal mind as a human.Fools are entertaining if one does not take them serious. Garbage in! Garbage out!
thanks niall.tubbs.
I’m a little late to the conversation, but I find the topic fascinating, so I signed up just to chime in. Hopefully, this can reignite the conversation and we can gain further insight. I apologize in advance if I repeat anything covered in the replies. I focused mainly on the article, but I mainly skimmed the responses.
I see you’ve done your homework on liberalism and U.S. history, so obviously your question is in earnest. I will begin by making a suggestion that I honestly don’t know if a self-described Liberal will take: I recommend tuning into Glenn Beck’s television show for a few Fridays. Just Fridays. It is that day that Beck devotes to U.S. history that you probably didn’t learn in high school. Before you assume that it is just Beck’s own version of history, know that he brings in multiple experts every week and their discussions are rife with references. Beck doesn’t want his viewers to take him for his word; anything you are skeptical of can be looked into.
Back to the question at hand. Before one can begin to answer just when “liberal” became a bad thing, one must realize that, politically speaking, there are two types of liberalism: Classical Liberalism and Modern (a.k.a. Progressive or Social) Liberalism. You correctly identify the founders as classical liberals. Debate can be made about which type of liberal Lincoln was, but T. Roosevelt, as founder of the Progressive Party, was decidedly no longer a classical liberal. By the time we reach FDR, a clear shift in the dominant form of liberalism had become complete.
Generally, liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom") is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality. Classical liberalism centers concepts of limited government, individual freedom (namely religion, speech, press, and assembly), and free markets around this basic concept, embellishing it little. To the classical liberal, the role of government is focused only on the legal, or justice, system, hence such phrases as “equality before the law.” When the government’s locus of control expands beyond this one area, it is no longer classical liberalism.
Modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism in that it recognizes a legitimate role for government in addressing economic and social issues. This is a troublesome deviation from classical liberalism in that it implies that the right of individuals to govern themselves can be usurped by the government when some individuals don’t govern themselves “properly.” Obviously, I am not speaking of flagrant violations such as murder or fraud, but of less clearly defined issues such as prejudice or poverty. The classical liberal no more wants these latter things than the modern liberal, but the classical liberal is willing to let a free society work out these issues on its own. The social liberal seems to be more impatient. This becomes more troublesome when one observes that only a strong and, probably, centralized government could perform and act on such an assessment of propriety with any meaning or authority. One begins to question whether this is liberalism at all?
Also, modern liberalism includes a focus on expanding civil rights. This is perfectly in line with classical liberalism, except where classical liberalism has already taken hold. Take the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: it openly grants all rights not explicitly addressed in the constitution to the States and the people. Now, I agree that in practice, this has not always been upheld. But the law of our land ensures civil rights from its inception. Under these circumstances, the supposed addition of more civil rights would really be either for political show, some form of entitlement, or even an infringement of civil rights.
Now, marking the difference between the forms of liberalism doesn’t pinpoint when “being a liberal became a bad thing.” Nor does identifying when the shift between liberal forms occurred. The point when being liberal became a bad thing is when the populous recognized that one form had replaced the other and decided they didn’t like it. Without nailing down a date, I’d say that has happened fairly recently.
Tranmax
you are never too late to chime in, and your comments are always welcomed, even if we disagree. That is what debate is all about.
As for Glenn Beck, I do watch his show on occasion, and watch his history. While he does bring in experts, they are experts with a point of view. Like politics, history is interpreted through the thoughts, beliefs, biases etc of the holder. Rarely, if ever, does he bring in anyone who would disagree with him. But it is a point of view, so I watch it, even if it makes me sick. You can disagree with anyone, but never dismiss.
I enjoy your take of classical liberalism versus modern liberalism, and actually agree with much of what you said. My only objection is the belief that government has taken on the role of governing over those don't govern themselves properly. I agree, government does make rules that people have to follow: such as you can't murder or commit fraud, which you agree. But what rules are out there that go to far. I would say that there are quite a few including parenting and reproductive rights. But most of these laws weren't pushed by liberals, but by conservatives. I think the problem, as always, is that people put labels on things until it meets their own objectives, and then call it something else. Hypocarcy. Both sides are guilty.
You comment was very articulate and reasoned. Please come back anytime.
I must point out that I never said that government has already taken on the role of governing those who don't govern themselves "properly." Only that I extrapolate that line of thinking when examining modern liberalism.
I know what you mean when you say that history is interpreted through each person's own biases, and to a point that is absolutely the case. But unlike politics, history does also concern itself with matters of indisputable fact. You yourself were unable to escape this aspect of history when pointing out where certain restrictive laws come from.
And I agree that there are many rules, generally social in nature, that overreach on the individuals' rights. I make no bones about where many of them came from, though I hardly see social conservatives as having anything in common with classical liberals.
Hopefully, you have come to the conclusion that I regard myself as a classical liberal and Constitutional conservative, but neither liberal nor conservative in any other senses. As such, I view social conservatism as a form of progressivism, albeit a form at odds with the progressivism found amongst progressive liberals.
The remedy I would put forth regarding laws that go a step to far is simple, abolish them, repeal them, overturn them. I believe all liberals should demand of their Federal legislators to cull the body of law, because overbuilt legal codes become minefields and potential tools of tyranny. Besides, it is an infringement not only on the rights of the people, but of the States.
I personally think that a healthy mistrust of government power, when it is great, is a core component of any type of liberalism. I cannot say the same for socialism or progressivism. The modern liberal needs be wary of this in light of the fact that his movement attempts to straddle both classical liberalism and socialism and/or progresivism.
Going back to Beck, I'm glad that you've at least given him the time. (I personally recommend avoiding the Mon.-Thu. installments, but torture yourself if you like. You can get the same stuff from Limbaugh in a much more digestible form.) I am still adamant that his historian guests are worthwhile. If nothing else, they point arrows toward topics in history that were never even hinted at in my high school texts.
Tyranmax
I think a big problem with the current crop of laws is a bigger problem with our politics. Politicians need to pass laws to give a sense that they are doing something. So there are more and more laws that are reactionary rather than based on principle. Three stikes and you out in Califonria example. Easy to support, hard to fight against in an election year, but as written makes no sense for many things. I am all for laws that make sense, and even I as a liberal think there are too many laws.
My comment about conservatives was an example that it sways both ways. It comes from a point of view. Conservatives don't like liberal laws and liberals don't like conservative laws, but they both must do something so both pass laws.
Thanks for my comment.
Fascinating Hub and discussion. Liberal is a term of respect and decency and I'm happy to be "smeared" as one!
Love and peace
Tony
bgpappa,
You ought to state that, ESPECIALLY as a liberal, I think there are too many laws.
I agree that politicians are too worried about looking busy, and not worried enough about how their actions actually affect things. When it occurs at the State level, at least it is close to the voters, and should be a little easier to deal with. Unfortunately, our national elections have been drastically altered in form from their original plan. Not to delve in too deeply, I just think that the 12th and 17th Amendments only served to avoid solving certain problems by replacing them with different ones. I also think most people would do good to better understand the Electoral College system. I’m sure many don’t even know it exists and still others would like to see it replaced by a popular vote. In many ways, I share in Lew Rockwell’s reverie (http://mises.org/etexts/classical.asp).
Oh, and thanks for the comments on my original reply. Perhaps I will polish it up into a hub of its own.
gbpappa,
Earlier you said that you object to the belief that government has taken on the role of governing over those don't govern themselves properly. I replied saying I only extrapolated that from the modern liberal philosophy. However, there is an example of this very thing which was just signed into law this March. On March 23, 2010, Democrat President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act after it had been passed by both Democrat-controlled Houses of the 111th Congress. Among its various provisions are several that, I assert, purport to govern those who don’t govern themselves “properly.”
Among the governed are insurers, who will be severely restricted in the types of private contracts they many enter into with their policyholders and are legally obligated to implement procedures and programs which were previously not required by law. You may say that these insurers were exploitative in their dealings, but we have a tort system to deal with that. Therefore, this law must be seeking to circumvent that system by making insurers govern themselves “properly.”
Any private citizen who or entity that provides employment to 50 or more fellow citizens will be coerced into offering health insurance or face a $2000-per-employee penalty. In 2008, more than 95% of employers with at least 50 employees offered health insurance, so I can only interpret this as a move to make the other 5% behave “properly.”
Anyone with the business and culinary savvy to have built or acquired 20 or more restaurants will be required to display the caloric content of their foods on menus, drive-through menus, and vending machines. Additional information must also be made available upon request. But that would probably have been the proper thing to do, anyway.
But enough about all those exploitative institutions. What about the individuals who, starting in 2014, will either have to secure some form of health insurance or face a being fined? It is, of course, a very good idea to be insured. And now we have a law to guarantee everyone will be “properly” insured, or at the very least, they will pay an annual fine to the government for the privilege of exercising their personal liberty. Freedom for a fee.
I’ve picked on the recently passed health care law because it is prescient and overwhelmingly partisan on the part of the Democrat party, which is widely regarded as the liberal party. You may disagree with that regard, I certainly do, but that is how they are generally perceived.
I've had some time today, so I decided to step up where Mac fell down some months ago. You (gbpappa) asked if there were any facts to back up whether FDR's policies extended the depression. I don't know if a study conducted by UCLA counts as hard evidence, but is it worth a read, I think: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policie
As for Coolidge and Hoover, I think it is absolutely incorrect to lump them together. Their policies were so opposite, only one or the other can be held responsible for causing the Great Depression.
Coolidge came into the White House as V.P. to Harding. When Harding took office after Wilson, he found himself inheriting a depressed economy with double-digit unemployment (estimates typically range from 17-20%) and runaway inflation. He responded by slashing taxes and reducing national debt, against the advice of Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce. Coolidge took over after Harding’s death and was later re-elected in his own right. As president, he continued the policies of his predecessor, including ignoring much of Hoover’s advice. The Harding/Coolidge policies are credited with the economic prosperity of the 1920’s. The times were so prosperous in fact, that private U.S. citizens were able to provide ample famine relief to the people of the Soviet Union despite there being no official ties between the two governments.
By contrast, the following Hoover presidency was marked by policies extremely similar to those of our current president. Hoover entered office with a plan to reform the nation's regulatory system. He saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans by regulation and by encouraging volunteerism. He expanded the Federal civil service. His stance on the economy was based largely on voluntarism. He canceled private oil leases on government lands. He even went on a seven-week goodwill tour of several Latin American nations.
When the 1929 stock market crash occurred, Hoover responded in a way that could please neither a classical economist nor a Keynesian. He urged many business leaders not to lay off workers or cut wages but he refused to create new government assistance programs or run a budget deficit. In response to the rise of 'Hoovervilles', he approved legislation to spur new home construction, and reduce foreclosures. Then the Hoover Administration passed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, authorizing funds for public works programs and government-secured loans. Finally, with the Depression in full swing, he implemented one of the greatest tax increases in history to pay for it all.
During the 1932 presidential election, FDR blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, and placing millions on the dole of the government. He accused Hoover of attempting center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible. His running mate characterized Hoover’s actions as socialist. Ironically, FDR’s subsequent New Deal was almost entirely an expansion of programs Hoover started.
Tony, me too. Of course it is up to liberals as well to admit truths, even if "democrats" don't agree.
Thanks for reading.
Tyranmax,
Thanks for the comments. I wish I had time today to reply to them at, but I don't so I will have to come back.
Quicky, I am familiar with the report from UCLA. It is a very good argument. Some of it is persuasive even, some of it not. My problem and the reason I said that was the person I was arguing was just arguing in talking points such as "FDR" extended the depression. Doesn't know why, doesn't know history, he just heard Rush say it so he said. You on the other hand, bring some game, and thus have my respect.
Thanks so much for commenting.
Hello bg, 252 comments... must be a record!!! for stamina at least... good to see you fighting the good fight still!
Thanks KKalmes
Bgpappa
Keep hubbing, one day you will get it right.WE are all Americans first.
‘’We need Liberals to stand up once again and fight for true American values‘’
What are the American values liberals are fighting for in today’s society?
‘’We need to protect the environment’’
Protect the environment from what ? Civilization ?
‘’We need to bring real change to race relations in this Country’’
What kind of change are you referring to; the past, present or future ?
‘’We need real change in the Healthcare system. ‘’
Maybe like tort reform, allow insurance providers to sell between states for more competition, pay doctors for their services or government to take over the system and provide a single payer system and tax the rich to pay ?
Can you list your ideas for changes?
‘’We need to fix entitlements so that they work for all Americans ‘’
Maybe like denying illegals using the entitlement systems at a cost to the taxpayers for about $ 300 billion a year..
Interested in knowing how a liberal can make the present system better for citizens and non citizens?
‘’Only a true liberal can bring these changes ’’
Progressive liberals have had control of our government since 2007 up to the present 2010 with President Barak Obama leading the way. The way to socialism?
‘’ If you stay true to core liberal ideals, you will make change we all can believe in.’’
President Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress ( approval rating 11% )has had super majority control of the government since Jan 2009.
With the signing of the Healthcare Reform bill, take over of the Student Loan programs, government ownership in auto companies and Fannie and Freddie Mac and the Finance Reform bill, the government has taken 60% control of the economy. Not bad for President Barak Obama in the first 19 months in office. Are we on the way to socialism?
Somehow the Obama government forgot about fixing the economy and the creation of jobs. There are 14 million now out of work, unemployment is 9.5+ % and President Obama takes time to be on the campaign trail ,talk and news shows weekly.
Let’s all pray for equal justice for all and hope that what Obama’s plan for social justice for all fails only because it is contrary to our constitution and the will of the people.
Jon,
Liberal values: People before corporations. tort reform is not healthcare reform. Yes, environment. We live here, don't you want to breath twenty years from now? Helping others: For such a "Christian nation" Republicans sure do hate helping those less fortunate.
Thanks for reading.
bgpappa
You said ‘' tort reform is not healthcare reform ''
When insurance companies pay out adsorbent claims, your premiums will eventually increase. The Republicans offered this amendment to the Healthcare Bill. Pelosi and Reid never allowed the amendment to the floor, denying a discussion and a vote by Democrat and Republican members of congress, bipartisan participation gone aside. That’s a fact.
Maybe someone can explain how the ‘’ Student Loan Program ‘’ got in the bill without a debate or discussion. And what does the Student Loan Program have to do with Healthcare Reform.
Maybe it got there like Pelosi said ‘’ we need to pass the bill to see what’s in it ‘’, apparently many Democrats voting to pass the bill didn’t read it too.
Bgpappa , I don’t believe I’ll be around that long. There is real clean air in many of states of the union, environmentalist should live there to keep healthy. ’’People before corporations’’, small business owners provide 70% of the jobs in our nation. Do you know who employs the most people other than corporations? It’s the US Government who employs the most workers, they don’t seem to produce profit ( taxes to fill the treasury to run the government ) and are running record deficits at taxpayer expense. In the real work the US Government competes with no one for what they do, they waste taxpayer money at leisure and if need be tax the people.
You are being disingenuous to say that Republicans hate the unfortunate. I don’t recall if rich Republicans or rich Democrats are the most charitable. If and when the government takes ( taxes ) from the rich the results are that charities will suffer, the rich may stop buying materialistic items ( loss of tax money ), stop hiring or investing in their companies( recession ) and just decide to go where the taxes are much lower( take their money out of country).
For your information, liberals and conservatives want and do help the poor.
Enjoyed your comments
Jon, small businesses are not corporations. For all the talk Republicans do about small businesses, they do nothing to help them. Yes, there are many good republicans who are charitable, but getting taxes cut is not charitable, it is a different issue. Buying things is not charity, hiring is not charity. Those are different issues. And nothing everything is cured by a tax cut.
Thanks for reading.
bgpappa
Small businesses are corporations. The republicans have not been in control of the government since the 2006 election. Check it out because you are wrong about tax cuts not helping the economy in a recession.
The bush tax cuts were only approved with the help of some of the ( bipartisan ) Democrats. The Democrats filibustered (something like what the Republicans are guilty of doing now )the bill so that 60 votes were required to pass the bill.
President Kennedy, Reagan and Bush used the tax cut legislation to turn the economy around. Note, in order to make the tax cuts work each of them made drastic cuts in government spending. Something that is not happening today. Treasurer Geithner said today that unemployment could rise from 9.5% to 10% in the VERY near future. Don’t sound like the economy is turning around? Could it be that what the Whitehouse is saying may not be true? Research it and understand how tax cuts work. The US Treasury during the Bush’s years had receipts of 13 trillion, the most ever in our history.
The whole process makes a lot of sense if the economy needs citizens ( with jobs ) to spend money. the citizens can’t spend money unless they are working ( 14 MILLION UNEMPLOYED ) and paying taxes. When the government takes your money and corporate profits, you have less to spend and corporations have less to spend and increase the size of their business ( hiring )
The stimulus is not working and spending more money by increasing the debt is not the solution.
I am enjoying the debate, keep it clean and respectful.
First off, I enjoy debate as well, and yes, clean and respectful is key.
Second, I am ok with tax cuts, but not those that only help the rich. I make a good living, but I wouldn't qualify for the Bush tax cuts. Why don't I get help. Clinton used middle class tax cuts, which help the middle class who spent more which helped everyone.
As for the stimulus, I do think it is working. Bush left the economy in a free fall, it takes time to stop the inertia, let alone turn things around. Yes, Democrats have controlled Congress for two years before Obama, but Republicans controlled congress for six years before that with a Republican President. It takes time to turn things around. Republicans blamed Clinton for everything for years after 911, and still do. Why doesn't that same logic apply for Obama?
The Corporations i am thinking of do not make up small business. I am a small business owner. I do not get bailouts or even tax cuts. I employ people, provide healthcare but under the current system I get very little. The corporations I speak of are the mega corporations - banks, insurance companies, even car companies (and yes their unions) who exert too much influence over the system. I don't really care what entity it is, I dont like too much influence over the entire system. And even as a liberal I will acknowledge that this includes unions.
Thanks for reading.
bgpappa
You are an American with a liberal philosophy of life in the good ole USA . Having said that may I comment on your reply.
‘’Second, I am ok with tax cuts, but not those that only help the rich’’ The bush tax cuts were tax cuts for all taxpayers. The idea of the tax cuts was to immediately inject money into the economy. Hence better for you to keep your money than to have government take it and spend it ( as happening today) and better for corporation ( so called rich ) to use the money to hire people, buy equipment and expand. A slight difference in thinking between liberal thinking and conservative ideas.
Let’s not forget that Clinton with a Republican Congress (1994-2000) balanced the budget and left a projected surplus. The Clinton- Republican tax cuts were offset with a huge reduction in government spending. That’s a fact.
‘’As for the stimulus, I do think it is working’’I don’t believe so only because the economy hasn’t recovered and there are 14.5 million citizens out of work ( unemployment is at 9.5% ).The stimulus funding now is $ 858 billion ( borrowed money ) with only 60% of it has been used. The media reports that $ billions of the stimulus have been wasted creating a minimum of new workers. Less we forget that President Barak Obama promised that he would go line for line and remove the pork, didn’t happen,
just another broken promise by the president.
‘’ I am a small business owner. I do not get bailouts or even tax cuts. ’’ If a business is registered as a subchapter 8 corporation and file as a sub 8,you are getting a tax break. Small businesses hire 70% of the workforce and a business owner filing a sub 8 will exceed $250,000 in combined income. The Bush tax cuts helped those business to keep a float in 2000 and 2002.
History for your information. On unemployment.
Clinton and a Republican majority Congress 1994-2000 4.5%
Bush with a Republican majority Congress 2000-2006 4.6%
Bush with a Democrat majority Congress 2007-2008 6.4%
*** the Bush/Democrat recession started in Nov. 2007
Barak Obama with a Democrat super majority in Congress 2009-2010 10%
Ditto above 2010- aug. 9.5%
Today 8/4/10 in Atlanta the President Barak Obama said the Republicans have offered nothing to solve the problems that he inherited. If you had all the true facts you would understand that the president made some false statements. Somehow LIBERALS tend to have fallen for the administration’s and the mainstream media’s propaganda and half truths.
Bgpappa, hoping for you to see the light.
Jon,
The Bush tax cuts help nobody but the Uber rich, which I am not. Keep the $800 it offers. Just to state again, the unemployment rate fell because of Bush's policies, not Obamas. But Republicans will never admit that, and that is fine. But Republicans have offered nothing but tax cuts. Tax cuts are not the cure for every ill. And Republicans cannot cite the entire stimulus as spending when over a little than half has actually been spent. Can't have it both ways.
Thanks for the comment.
Bgpappa
‘’The Bush tax cuts help nobody but the Uber rich’’. That’s not true, every taxpayer got a tax break. Can you be more specific who the rich were in 2000 to 2008, and who do you think they are today.
What Bush policies made the unemployment rate drop. Before the Democrats took over Congress the rate was 4.6%.The Democrat controlled Congress’s unemployment record above needs to be understood.
‘’But Republicans have offered nothing but tax cuts. Tax cuts are not the cure for every ill.‘’. Try to understand that the Republicans have zero control of the government since the election of President Barak Obama and a Democrat super majority control of Congress in 2009. The Republicans have offered many amendments to recent laws that were ignored by the leadership. Amendments offered were rejected by the leadership, some not allowed to get to the floor of Congress. That’s a fact. Note that the Republicans have no power except but to a filibuster( only delays actions on bills ).The Democrats are spending without regard to the deficits, increasing the national debt three fold. The Democrats are disregarding the PAY-GO laws that was passed in April and signed by Barak Obama.
‘’And Republicans cannot cite the entire stimulus as spending when over a little than half has actually been spent. Can't have it both ways‘’ The stimulus was passed without one Republican vote. It was passed to jump start the economy and to put people back to work. Shovel ready jobs was a reason to pass the bill, so where are the jobs and the economy today. Why has only 60% been spent?
You and many who trust what the President, Congress and the press are reporting are being DUPED.
The Senate passed a jobs bill ,$26.5 billion, of which $16 billion was for States Medicaid insurance programs. The balance of $10billion was to save teachers jobs (union public sector ). The Republicans wanted the money to come from the stimulus surplus ( borrowed money ).That’s the way this Congress and President plans to reduce the unemployment problems.
Some how the uninformed need to get by the propaganda and untruths that our government provides to the public daily. Bgpappa,with due respect, what are your sources of information? Have a good day.
Jon,
Don't really appreciate your rude remarks. I am not uninformed. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am uninformed. You only speak it talking points. By the way, blocking healthcare for 911 emergency workers because Republicans didn't want a tax loophole for international corporations that reside in the Cayman Islands only proves the point; tax cuts or nothing.
I will give you this, the "moderate democrats" that vote for nothing democratic have not allowed the democrats the full control they earned. These Republicans in disguise should just switch parties. I actually prefer a mixed government when the branches are checked.
Thanks for reading.
Bgpappa,with due respect, what are your sources of information? I DID NOT SAY THAT YOU WERE UNINFORMED.A DEBATE with misunderstandings is not in anyone's best interest.
''By the way, blocking healthcare for 911 emergency workers ''.Please try to understand that the democrats were not following the pay-go laws when they tried to pass the bill.AGAIN THE DEMS REFUSED TO OBEY THE LAW.
They did pay as they go. Cut the loophole for foreign corporations based in the Caribean that pay no incmoe taxes for money earned in the US. That is pay as you go. Republicans, and some so called "moderate" democrats said no. I don't get it.
bgpappa
That's old stuff, the money would have had to be borrowed. The Dem's could have passed it without the Republicans.The Republican position is the pay-go legislation.The media propaganda isn't reporting the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
PRESIDENT OBAMA is in campaign mode, on the road telling half truths about the Republicans and still blaming Bush.
Its not old, it happened earlier this week. Republicans have never followed pay as you go. They say cut taxes, they cut taxes, but they never cut spending. Deficit spending is what they do. That bill was a pay go. And yes, Democrats could have passed it if a few "moderate" democrats were actually democrats.
Thanks for reading.
bgpappa
Have a great day.Someday we will know what's going on in Washington.
Jon,
I doubt it. Washington has been a mess since I was born, and that sure wasn't yesterday, or during Bush or Obama. Right or left, they have both been wrong for many decades. I think we would both agree with that. Have a good weekend.
bgpappa
Here's a friday nite quicky.
Today the Senate passed a bill to spend $600 MILLION MORE to defend the border. The bill was passed by a voice vote meaning that a row call of the vote was NOT recorded.
That’s not transparent and open government that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid promised the American people if elected.
Jon,
And how many times did Republicans do a roll call vote. Are you angry that they are spending the money defending the border? Not sure what you point is here.
bgpappa
Allow Me to clarify what you thought that I said.It's not a case of Republican or Democrat.A roll call vote is a registered vote on how the Senator voted.A voice vote doesn't expose the bill voter on how he/she voted.In open and transparent government the taxpayer/voter will know how his/her Representative voted.
Any member of congress can request the roll call vote. My anger is that my Representative did not request the roll call vote.
In these troubled times in Washington, voters want to know who voted for what.I contacted his office and let them know that the people are watching.
C=Span televises the procedures in congress.
jon,
I actually agree with you, no matter who it is. If they are going to vote something, it should be recorded. Voting record is one of the tangible ways to judge your representative. Unfortunelty, these oral votes have been used for years and are supposed to mean that there is no doubt as to the outcome. But there is no accountability either, and that is where the problem lies. Some common ground here.
bgpappa
In 1986 Congress passed an amendment to the immigration law.Those same senators were in congress when that vote was taken. That law was passed by a voice too, we now know that the law Don't Work simply because the government is not enforcing the law.same problems again?
Think about all the $billions, the taxpayers( you and I) are spending to correct the problems thru no fault of our own. The unauthorized aliens and supporters march with signs that read ''racism'', '' we have rights'','' we are people '' throwing bottles at the police and displaying Mexican flags in our cities and towns in our country.
Well, I agree with you that voice votes should be banned. But when immigration reform is only directed to one set of immigratns, based solely on skin color, I have a problem. No problem with stopping illegal immigration, as long as it includes all illegal immigrants, not just mexicans. We I live, the problem isn't mexicans, its Russians. thousands of illegals starting gangs, prostitution, conterfeiting. Nobody wants to anything about them. But the guys at home depot lookign for an honest days work, they are the problem?
Thanks for reading.
bgpappa
THE LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO ABOUT COLOR OR NATIONALLY.
SO WHY ISN'T OUR GOVERNMENT ENFORCING THE LAW? IS THE GOVERNMENT ABOVE THE LAW? SOMETHING IS VERY VERY WRONG.
Jon,
The Arizona law is all about color.
bgpappa
No, it's all about one first breaking a law, color is not an issue. The activists are crying racism, profiling and I Would guess color TOO.
In today’s society, after many year of discrimination against the colored and other colored skin people, the youth of today are color blind. Generation after generation has evolved and the young now associate with each other, in most cases together, colored with white without second thoughts. The older generations that practiced discrimination are no longer here to discriminate.
Jon,
I hate to tell you, but racism is not gone from America. Yes, the younger generation is more inclusive, but racism still exists. To say it doesn't is either naive or blind. I wish it didn't, trust me, but I have seen it first hand. The difference is that blatant racists are no longer mainstream. You can see racism in the comments on this very post, referring to the guy who made blatanlty racist remarks, not you or any other conservative who brings lively and passionate debate.
I am not a liberal who claims that to be against Obama means you are racist. I almost have less tolerance for that argument than racism itself. But that does not mean racism doesn't exist, it does. A law directed at a single group of people based on color, when others are breaking the same laws with no consequences, has some racist overtones.
Thanks for the post.
"A law directed at a single group of people based on color, when others are breaking the same laws with no consequences, has some racist overtones."
Read the law on foxnews.com/yourworld, YOUR statement is UNTRUE.MY FRIEND try to get pass the propaganda out in fairyland
HAVE A GREAT DAY!
I have read the law, the actual law, not what foxnews says the law is. The Sheriff of Maricopa County has stated publicly how the law is enforced, based on color. What really troubles me is that section that allows private citizens to file suit against law enforcement if that private citizen believes the law is not being enforced.
Thanks for reading, and if you think this law isn't directed towards Mexicans then you are in fairyland.
bgpappa
Please join me in fairyland, there's a lot of room there.
Jon,
Maybe me and you are in reality, and most everyone else is in fairyland. Just a thought. But we can actually debate, with facts, and even though you won't change my mind and I won't change yours, an actual discussion ensued. Doesn't get more American than that. Now only if our politicians, on both sides, would step up to the plate and actually debate issues. What a notion
Thanks for reading
bgpappa
The problem is that you haven’t open your eyes yet to see how the American people are misled. President Barak Obama appears on TV at least 4 times a week telling the American people half truths, complaining about the problems supposedly left to him by the Bush administration of which Obama was a Senator during that time and Congress was controlled (2007 and 2008 ) by a Democrat majority Congress. Today the Democrats have 100% control of the government to draft legislation and make law. Note that the Republicans have been out of power since 2006 and are powerless in the present congress.The recession started in Dec.of 2007. After 19 months, two major promises of President Barak Obama , Nancy Pelosi and Senator Reid have not been fulfilled. The record speaks for its self, they are arrogant, inept and incapable to govern our country. They move legislation against the will of the people.
Keep searching for the whole truth, in the end you will be surprised.
Jon,
Republicans have been out of power since 2006??? President Bush, really??? Against the will of the people, war in Iraq, against the will of the people. Told we had to do it for national security, weapons of mass destruction. Obama's "half truths" are better than Bush's all out lies.
You won't open you eyes. I admit when democrats screw up,and call them on it. But you won't admit anything bad that Republicans have done to this country in the past thirty years. You won't even admit that Bush was President, that Republicans had complete control for six years, and that the recession started, and was caused, on their watch.
bgpappa
The Republicans won control of congress in 1994 during the last 6 years of the Clinton administration. Together they turned the economy around, George Bush in 2000 with a Republican controlled congress had to fight a recession, 911, the Iraq war, a start of a recession and in Oct. of 2008 a financial crisis. Past history, did they make mistakes, you betcha.
The financial crisis ‘’TARP’’ $700 BILLION has been paid back to the government with interest. Let’s not forget that the last 2 years of the Bush administration, the Democrats were in charge, many forget that Senator Obama and the present Democrat leadership was in control of Congress.
Note! Presidents don’t spend money, Congress does control that aspect, but presidents do have the power to reject spending.
‘’that Republicans had complete control for six years, and that the recession started, and was caused, on their watch’’
In the first 6 years that the Republicans were in power , unemployment was 4.6%, the treasury receipts were record breaking and a barrel of oil was $56.00.The recession started in Dec of 2007 with the start of the housing collapse and the price of a barrel of oil going to $ 125.00 ( Soros and Goldman Sachs hedge funds ) that’s past history too.
There are many things that Barak Obama promised before being elected, two of those were jobs and the economy. After 19 months with a super majority Democrat congress he has failed to fulfill the promises.
Many of the citizens that believed in Barak Obama voted for him because of those promises that he made. He is far from what he appeared to be today.
When the bottom falls out, be opened minded.
Again, your argument always comes down to, Republicans did the good things and democrats did the bad, even though history and simple facts show different. I don't even disagree that Obama has not done everything he promised, but you won't even admit that Bush did nothing he promised. Bush inherited peace and prosperity, gave back 2 wars and the Great recession. Bush didn't reject spending, just cut taxes during two wars. Tax cuts don't fix everything
bgpappa
’Republicans did the good ‘’in 1994 the Republicans with Clinton did good, balanced the budget and cut spending even with a Clinton tax increase.
In 2000 the Republicans with Bush went on a spending spree. Much of the spending occurred because of a slow economy inherited from Clinton, 911, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sounds factual. In 2006 the Republicans lost majority control of Congress.
‘’Bush inherited peace and prosperity,’ Yes he did ,sort of.
‘’gave back 2 wars ‘’ so does that mean 911 had no impact as to why Congress ok’d going to war.
‘’and the Great recession’’ The first 6 years with Bush and the Republicans in 2000 to 2006 ,prosperity with unemployment at 4.6% (Clinton 4.5% ) and highest receipts to the treasury. The last 2 years with Bush and Democrat controlled Congress in 2007 and 2008 a recession started in dec.of 2007.
The rest is history.
‘’Tax cuts don't fix everything’’ partially true but better than tax credits.
The Bush tax cuts in 2003 brought us out of a recession, paid for 2 wars and an economic boom up to Dec. 2007.Let me try to explain a tax cut and a tax credit. Which one would you prefer to have, a tax cut or a credit?
Your response or definition.
Jon,
911 and the war in Iraq have no tie, please don't try to make a correlation. As for the 2003 tax cuts paying for the wars; ok if you call paying for mismanaged wars ok. And it didn't pay for the wars, there were still huge deficits. And yes, I know the difference between a tax cut and credit, but the Republicans have not provided any explanation how they are going to pay for either. They never pay for them, just give them out and then any spending is overspending because there is no money.
Thanks for the comment.
bgpappa
''but the Republicans have not provided any explanation how they are going to pay for either.'' Haven't you noticed that the government has been controlled by President Barak Obama and a super majority controlled Democrat Congress. Republicans aren't even in the game, they have zero power to make any decisions or laws.
‘’yes, I know the difference between a tax cut and credit.’’ Can you explain the difference between the two. Which one would you prefer and the reasons why ?The question is asked with due respect to your reply.
Why don't you enlighten me with the Hannity spin about Obama not knowing the difference.
bgpappa
''Why don't you enlighten me with the Hannity spin about Obama not knowing the difference.''
I don't watch Hannity, can you tell me. Can you respond to my question?
CAVUTO on fox '' your world '' clears up a lot of what is happening. He questions both sides, great program.
yes jon
Unfortunately, labels such as 'conservative' and 'liberal' split people into two different camps and cause much hatred and bitterness. It's time to go back to the system that existed when this country was founded: no parties at all. We elect people and representatives then get together to debate an issue and decide with no parties dictating to them what to do.
Peter, I agree with the sentiment, but there has been parties since the first real election (Adams v. Jefferson). What we need to do is stop deamonizing those who we disagree with (and yes, it has to start with me).
Thanks for stopping by
Great Article. Thanks for making my 1st visit, a good one!
Thank you Laura and Welcome.
I think the politicians on both sides have turned being a liberal and being a conservative into bad things. I also think that they have changed what it means to be Republican or Democrat. I liken the parties to unions. Unions, when created, were needed for the purpose of protecting workers. However at some point, the unions became less about protecting workers and more about the business of being a union. Professional politicians and political parties have gone down the same road. I believe they have forgotten that it is our votes that elect them and it is us that they represent.
Fair points all my journey.
Thanks for stopping by.
I don't think regulating a market is a good idea. Let people sell and let people buy what they want.
Allen,
Are you saying no regulation at all? I too like an open market,and think as little regulation as possible is best, but some regulation is needed.
Thaks for stopping by.
I understand what you're saying. I've been getting more moderate in recent years, but I'm still searching for what I stand for.. while I agree with your post, the one thing I disagree with is that the founding fathers were liberals. The constitution was founded on limited government. Very, very limited government. Many Presidents have angered the country after they began moving away from the constitution and started growing government.. usually for the better, but our very early presidents weren't the most popular. They promised limited government, and not many kept their promises, and they were never re-elected.
Joey,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. When I referrred to the founding fathers as liberals, I was speaking in the historical context. For their day, they were radically liberal compared to the monarchy. But as with all Americans, they themselves differed and argued over the role of the Federal Government, some wanting more power, some wanting less. The articles of confederation was an extreme limited government, the Constitution was less extreme, but I agree, government should be limited as much as possible. But government was instituted to protect rights that people have by virtue of being born, to protect the minority opinion, etc. I would say that government has gotten too big, and we can have a civil discussion about what to cut.
Its funny, the term Liberal, Moderate and Conservative have shifted in the last decade. What is considered a moderate today, was a right wing Republican twenty years ago. In my humble opinion, the liberals of 20 years are all but gone, and few democrats can claim to be liberal, including the PResident.
Liberals=Democratic Socialism=Progressives
I dont really mind having to become a 'progressive'. To me, its an even better term than liberal at describing who I am. I don't support blind liberalization of welfare or market rules (I'm not a market 'liberal', though I support Adam Smith, market liberals are pretty wacko nowadays). So if the end result of 30 years of Repub stammering is to make us go from liberal to progressive, I'm fine with that, so long as we get some progress done!
I agree about there being progress. But progress for all. I personally dissapointed in the Democrats of today. They have abandoned traditional democratic policies and have adopted a coporatist attitude. They are the Republican Party of 20 years ago. Everyone has spent so much time trying to reach independents, they have abandoned the left.
Thanks for reading
I am a conservative and a Republican. But I believe there is crucial value in some of the goals of the liberal agenda but the problem is they don’t know where to stop. “If one sleeping pill is good than a whole bottle must be better!” This flawed reasoning seems to permeate the democratic liberal thinking.
Case in point the recent Labor Dept. rule banning farm chores for rural kids. Absolute insanity!!! I’m not a farmer but my grandfather in Iowa was and I cherish, CHERISH the days I spent working on his farm. How disconnected from reality do you have to be to even think of something like this?!
Milo,
I have to agree with your first point to some extent. SOmetimes liberals do go too far with some policies. The same can be said about Conservatives as well. If you go far left or far right, you know what you have done, you have gone too far.
My problem with liberals is that no longer are represented. MOst democrats are not liberals. They are moderates who really have nothing to offer. We need honest debate and right now nobody argues from the liberal point of view. Not even Obama. Most democrats would have been part of the Republican party of the early 90s.
Thanks for stopping by.
eovery 3 years ago
Another interesting hub. I learn a lot about people and their thoughts on articles like this. Each has the right to his believe and thoughts.
If I remember my history right, at the signing of the constitution, there was already liberal minded and ideas there. There was a lot of arguement over big government and small government then.
Welcome to my world on the Conservative. I am conservative, and I am sick of Spineless Rebublicans that think they are moderates.
I see where you are coming from.
Keep on Hubbing!