Liberal extremes

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Ok, I concede that the liberal government went to extremes in their attempt to correct some social wrongs. I realise this. My concern is that the new administration will go to the same extreme in their direction. I honestly think a lot of conservatives understand that that would not be healthy for the country.

What I would like to ask here is for people to give examples of the extremes of both groups.



-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 28, 2001

Answers

I can't think of anything I'd call extreme from either the liberal or conservative camp since Johnson's trying to correct "social wrongs" in SE Asia. They've both been pretty true to their philosophies and neither has done much damage in quite awhile.

BTW, glad to see a post that doesn't bash Bush. Was starting to worry there that your politics had become too personalized. You know, like them blinders on Clinton chasers.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), February 28, 2001.


Oh I see, it's okay to bash Clinton, as long as we don't bash Bush.

-- hee hee (sheesh.what@fucking.hypocrite), February 28, 2001.

I'm a prime candidate for this "survey", since I consider myself a liberal. Then again, I responded to a thread of yours once and you seemed to have this definition of a "liberal" as someone who didn't think that folks should work for a living. I've heard this one before, but it's unclear in my mind where folks got this notion.

IMO, liberal means someone with an open mind. I know that I'm not answering your question, but I think the definitions need to be in place before anyone can comment on extremes of a continuum.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 28, 2001.


Interesting definition, Anita. Unusual.

When I hear the term Liberal attached to a person, I think of someone who looks to government to solve the problems of society. I think of someone who disregards the private sector as ineffective at tackling many of our problems. A Liberal, in my mind, likes government involvement in their lives, wants it for everyone, and is willing to pay for it and force others to do the same. A Liberal is willing to forego freedom for security more readily than a Conservative, albeit the gap is pretty narrow.

One man's opinion.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 28, 2001.


Rich:

I've always used Webster's definition, as has SO, and our liberal friends. Conservative [in our minds] means opposed to change. We had an interesting conversation on the continuum on Poole's forum once. The definitions presented a problem. In addition, each side seemed to have a social and fiscal branch. For instance, one could be a fiscal conservative, yet a social liberal.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 28, 2001.



Anita, here's definitions per Merriam-Webster's online dictionary (my bold-type emphasis added): liberal: 5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms Liberal: 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

When engaging in political discussion (which I avoid whenever possible), I don't even think of the "small -l" liberal definition. Outside of the political context, I agree with your definition.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 28, 2001.


I consider myself a fiscal "small-c" conservative both with my own money and yours. Debt is a four-letter word! My skin crawled during the Reagan years. Deficit spending without a plan to pay it off is sheer lunacy.

I'm definitely socially a "small-l" liberal. I do not support large government programs to cure social ills. That would make me a - gasp - "capital-L" Liberal! Ack!

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 28, 2001.


Example of Liberal extremism: The IPCC and its Global Warming "reports".

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 28, 2001.

Anita,

Ah, the inevitable battle over definitions.

You use Webster's to define conservative as well. Even if you use a narrow definition, conservativism is not a knee-jerk opposition to change. It is "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change."

Those on the moderate right (conservatives, libertarians, capitalists, etc.) understand society will evolve, but prefer this evolution be driven by the decisions of individuals. Admittedly, social conservatives are unhappy about what they perceive as the moral decay of modern society.

Those of the moderate left (liberals, progressives, greens, democratic socialists, etc.) seem to feel government should the primary force in shaping society. This leads to an inevitable conflict as government intervenes in markets, businesses, homes and families.

This issue is not change, but sovereignty. To what extent ought the State abrogate my individual freedoms? The left feels the government, guided by an enlightened intelligentsia, is better suited to make decisions than the citizen... with a few notable exceptions.

As you might expect, I respectfully disagree.

If the Bush administration protects or restores the ability of citizens to shape their own destinies, I cannot see this as "moving in the wrong direction." If the administration stops meddling in markets like agriculture and providing corporate welfare, bravo. My sentiment is the same if they discontinue failed social programs, stop meddling in agricultural markets, end tariffs and subsidies... it is a long list.

Cherri's question is based on the notion Americans have reached an optimal balance. If this is true, moving to the left or the right might seem inadvisable... but this depends on the soundness of her premise.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 28, 2001.


It is "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change."

Modern conservatives are anything but "conservative." They are grossly radical. They used every foul trick in the book to stop the vote counting in Florida -- an extreme act against democratic principles that all voices should count equally. They flew a group of Republican aides and staffers to Miami-Dade to instigate a riot in the public halls where the vote was to be recounted, effectively intimidating and even assaulting civilians. This is neither "moderate" nor "stable." They brazenly employed the power of legislative majority control in Florida Congress to announce willy- nilly, no matter what any possible vote count would show, that they would install George Bush by their own power, their own ability to legislatively draft a separate slate of electors, even against the will of Florida's populace. This is neither "traditional" nor "conservative." They have methodically installed judges who will interpret law to suit the interests of the wealthy and the states, as long as states rights do not include public rights. This is not "moderate", this is not "conservative." They are radical to the extreme, even going so far as to hire and pay hack journalists who publicly call for the murder of Chelsea Clinton, using Nazi- era "reasoning" for justification (John Derbyshire in the "National Review"). This is hardly "conservative."

Modern conservatives are violent radicals. Our newly appointed attorney general supported a bill that would have allowed violence against abortion providers -- someone could have shot and murdered a doctor, and that would have been protected in the law he supported.

These "conservative" and ugly zealots have taken over the media with their virulent propaganda. Karl Rove, chief strategist for George Bush, routinely cooks up false charges and slander, serves it to the press, and they dutifully report it. When the facts prove these charges to be simply false, as in the case of the "White House trashing," instead of having the decency to admit they cooked it up, they instead stoutly declare "it's time to move on," conveniently overlooking the fact that they created the mess of lies they now say needs to be "nobly" swept away.

A few real conservatives, such as John McCain, still exist. Most old- school Republicans were repulsed by the open fraud in Florida and by the shocking partisanship the Supreme Court displayed. Most old- school conservatives still believe in old-fashioned principles, the ideas that stand behind common words like "democracy" and "justice."

Conservatives today are anarchistic, radical -- openly violent, virulent and reckless in their published opinion, viciously anti- democratic -- anything but "conservative."

No matter what you conclude about the count in Florida, one fact remains. The "conservative" Republican Party and five Supreme Court justices didn't care what the actual results in Florida were. It may well be that under even a generous standard, George W. Bush would still have won Florida. The point is that the Republicans didn't want to find out, and were willing to do just about anything to avoid doing so. This is not "conservative," this is openly usurpative, reminscent of totalitarian regimes, and flies in the face of all decent civic ideals conservative Americans once believed in.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), February 28, 2001.



For instance, one could be a fiscal conservative, yet a social liberal.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 28, 2001.

That sums up my political leanings quite well. The only party that is based on that combination is the Libertarians, thus that is the party I have joined.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 28, 2001.


Rich I agree with your l vs L for the definition. Anita was side stepping it IMO. Based on "open mind" definition, everyone can be called liberal or no one can be liberal. Cherri certainly isn't open minded when it comes to Bush. Is she conservative then?

When I think of open minded people I think of people who are unprejudiced. People willing to sit on the fence on an issue waiting for all the facts to come in and then forming an opinion. So in the strictest sense, liberals can be swayed one way or the other on every issue. Can we say that about Doc or Cherri? My guess is that sometimes we're liberal and sometimes we're not. We all have prejudices from our life experiences.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 28, 2001.


Coup,

I believe you are confusing political parties with political philosophy. It is my understanding some southern Democrats are more conservative than some northeastern Republicans. Both parties use political ideology in an opportunistic fashion. After all, the raison d'etre of a political party is to gain and hold political power.

The recent American election debacle you obsess over is not unprecendented. American history is full of election shenanigans. I fail to see where Republicans or Democrats can maintain a higher moral ground. (By the way, your interpretation of the events in Florida seems quite partisan although I may draw the wrong conclusion. It is difficult to read your hyperbolic essay.)

Let me harken to an earlier note I penned. The election nonsense in America was a carnival sideshow as compared to the political oppression in other nations. There were no death squads in Florida. The Democractic opposition did not "disappear" in the night or die under mysterious conditions. The Republican campaign did not control a State press; they had no secret police.

The citizens of other nations have been imprisoned, tortured, raped and killed in the pursuit of democracy. They and their families and colleagues have been killed for writing essays far less offensive than yours. To the rest of the world, Americans seem like the fairy tale princess. The American sleeps on forty mattresses and wakes badly bruised from a single pea.

I am sure the election of Senor Bush has left you badly bruised. Such is the life of a princess.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 28, 2001.


Coup2k--

You said,

This is not "moderate", this is not "conservative." They are radical to the extreme, even going so far as to hire and pay hack journalists who publicly call for the murder of Chelsea Clinton, using Nazi- era "reasoning" for justification (John Derbyshire in the "National Review"). This is hardly "conservative."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are the offending paragraphs from Derbyshire's National Review essay as taken from Cherri's thread "Be very afraid", Feb 23.-------

Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past — I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble — recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, "clan liability". In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished "to the ninth degree": that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed. (This sounds complicated, but in practice what usually happened was that a battalion of soldiers was sent to the offender's home town, where they killed everyone they could find, on the principle neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet — "let God sort 'em out".)

We don't, of course, institutionalize such principles in our society, and a good thing too. Our humanity and forbearance, however, has a cost. The cost is, that the vile genetic inheritance of Bill and Hillary Clinton may live on to plague us in the future. It isn't over, folks. Dr. Nancy Snyderman, a "friend of the family" (how much money did she give them?) is quoted as saying that Chelsea shows every sign of following her parents into politics. "She's been bred for it," avers Dr. Snyderman. Be afraid: be very afraid.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Where exactly does it "publically call for the murder of Chelsea Clinton"? The Derbyshire essay is not very good but here is no point in criticizing it inaccurately.

A few points:

1)- You make the point that modern Conservatives are radical, not conservative. If Conservatism means accepting the status quo, no matter what it is, then you are right.

2)- "Conservatives are 'violent' radicals"? Sorry, Timothy McVeigh is not a Conservative. Nor is the murderer of an abortionist.

3)- The first people to pick on poor lil Chelsea were not Conservatives. Right after Clinton was elected in 92, SNL cruelly mocked her teenage homliness and only stopped when their ridicule was criticized.

4)- You are wasting your energy in defending Clinton. His own partisans are jumping ship. He is a pariah. He is indefensible. Why do you try?

5)- If any of us are around in 20 years, we can see if Darbyshire's predictions about Chelsea's career path are correct. She may well not have a career in politics simply because her father has destroyed the political value of the name "Clinton".

I sm no fan of family dynasties in politics, Republican or Democrat. The Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Bushes are equally unsavory to me. But there does seem to be a preference among the voters for an established name. Maybe the monarchists will rise again.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 01, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ