Sorry, a liberal/socialist here, and I had to jump in.
I think your characterizations of both liberals and conservatives are a little off-base.
While many conservatives talk about empowerment, some seem to want to do it just by cutting off welfare benefits and greatly reducing taxes. Those few (I’d call them extremists) seldom suggest educational or job-training support.
Your description of liberals sounds to me like a fairly extreme socialist. All the resources? I don’t think so.
Danimal’s first post above seems to do the same for socialists. His description says that they believe “that all important industries and means of production should be owned, or at least controlled, by the state.” That sounds pretty close to his (perfectly accurate) description of a communist. Mainstream socialism usually supports fairly extensive social programs (medicare and subsidized higher education, for example), and state ownership of some essential services.
I don’t know if we can agree on this, but let’s see what happens.
I take it, Gadarene, that you do not consider Sharpton a liberal? Or just not a “super-liberal?”
I admit, I cannot identify any political principle that Sharpton consistently adheres to except “police = bad.” He applies this principle in every case, from acts of sadism that not even the most extremist conservative would stoop to defend (i.e. Officer Volpe’s rape of Abner Louima), to the outright framing of innocent officers (i.e. the Tawana Brawley hoax).
Rabid hostility to the police is characteristic of extremist liberalism, even if not all or even most liberals share it. It is almost never found in conservatism; more extreme conservatives tend rather to excuse almost any act of thuggery by the police (i.e. the Rodney King beating, which still finds pockets of support on the extreme right).
So even though Sharpton’s one-note anti-police stance isn’t enough for me to say with certainty that he is a liberal, I do regard it as evidence in favor. Why do you appear so sure that he’s not a liberal?
Right. Add “Al Sharpton = good.” Not quite a coherent political philosophy.
Unless, that is, if the police forces are agents of the federal government (coughATFcough). Hardly a substantive distinction. :rolleyes:
I don’t mean to appear sure that he’s not a liberal. I don’t know what he is, other than a self-aggrandizer. I think, though, that too many people equate his politics with those of Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King, Jr. (a liberal and a radical, respectively) just because he’s a high-profile black leader that expresses outrage at the plight of the urban communities.
To more accurately paraphrase the ethos of American liberalism, dominant strain, circa 2000*:
“Is it in the interest of the groups whose historic maltreatment I feel guilty about, to restrict the liberty of other groups who’ve historically had it too good?”
Note that in this context the answer is always yes, and the group always trumps the individual (who does not exist save as the member of an oppressive or deserving group).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rjk *
** Danimal’s first post above seems to do the same for socialists. His description says that they believe “that all important industries and means of production should be owned, or at least controlled, by the state.” That sounds pretty close to his (perfectly accurate) description of a communist.
The United States now has fairly extensive social programs, including Medicare and subsidized higher education, and state ownership of some essential services. So is the United States a socialist country? That seems a very strange thing to say about the country usually held up by conservatives as the epitome of capitalist democracy, and by socialists as the epitome of backwardness.
Even in the cases of the U.K. and Canada, where health care is socialized as it is not in the U.S., I have never heard either country described as “socialist.” I think that so long as most industries are owned and controlled by private individuals dependent chiefly on individual or stockholder profit, you’ve got capitalism rather than socialism, even when they’re under a heavy burden of regulation and taxation.
Jackmanii:sigh I can’t speak for all liberals, but I can say that your statement isn’t an accurate characterization of my beliefs. Did you really think it would be?
It doesn’t matter if it’s accurate, if it’s how I feel.
Still, the philosophy of guilt-driven group retribution explains a lot about modern liberalism, including the excesses of affirmative action, anti-free speech campus initiatives and the entire concept of “hate crimes” (i.e. violence against some individuals is more acceptable than violence against others).
Serve lukewarm in a dribble glass without thinking
Charge $25, and serve in a surly fashion while expecting a big tip for doing nothing.
(I’ll post a serious answer, but I need to think on it.)
Best example off the top of mine: voting rights. Was a time in the bad old days, some Southern states tried to stave off the movement towards civil rights. The scrap of legality they held in front of thier naked bigotry was “state’s rights” and how the Feds weren’t legally entitled to enforce the Voting Rights Act.
On the contrary, I think it falls to the Feds to provide enforcement for constitutionally madated rights. It certainly did in this instance. Any state law that has the effect of denying a consitutional right should be nullified.
(Caveat I don’t impy some paragon of virtue role for the Feds, most assuredly not for the behavior of the FBI during these years. J. Edgar Hoover is best not spoken of in polite company.)
As matter of fact, all three countries have some socialist features, as do most (all?) governments. I agree that all three are basically capitalist, with Canada and the U.K. a little more socialist than the U.S.
Part of the point I should have tried to make is that we’re dealing with a fuzzy classification, and can’t just label governments absolutely. (All but the most extreme have some socialism, some capitalism, and some of anything else you can name. It isn’t even a linear scale, but spreads in all directions.) The best we can do is try to apply an agreed label to represent a government’s major emphasis.
I disputed your definitions of the labels partly on the grounds that they seem to lump communism, socialism, and liberalism together across a wide gap separating them from capitalism and libertarianism. It’s probably more useful to have a more evenly spaced scale, and those who claim the labels for themselves seem to agree. Many who call themselves liberals or capitalists are happy to admit their affinities to the other group.
Several measures sour wine
1 jigger of bromide
2 measures of pablum
Dash of bitters
Do not shake, stir or disturb in any way!
Pour into used pop bottle, cap, and place outside as a Christmas bonus for the poor schmuck who picks up your garbage. Pour some of that single malt for yourself. Hey, you deserve it!
To me a true liberal must be formeost committed to peace. He/she must be as committed as Ghandi to the consepts of peaceful resistance and sanctity of life.
A liberal believes that selfishness is the terrible sin in society today. Corporation government, or individual, when you strive for gain in your own interests, it inevitably comes at the success of others. The easiest ways to gain are usually the most destructive.
Society has not advanced unless everybody in it has also advanced. One measures a society by its most underprivileged members, not its most privileged.
We are custodians of the world, not its owners. We must preserve it, its resources, and lifeforms not only for unborn generations, but because these things have a right to exist of their own.
For society to do the right thing, it must not count the cost. Some things need to be done.
All people have a human dignity, and a right to life, food, shelter, and medical care, as well as the opportunity to better themselves.
Government must be compassionate and watch out for the interests of those who can’t watch out for their own.
Government must be ever vigilant to those who seek to abuse the system. It is a privilege for individuals and corporations to compete in this country, not a right. With the privilege comes the responsibility to improve and contribute to society by their presence, not feed off of it. Watchdogs, with broad powers and harsh penalties must serve to ensure this remains so.
Those who for any reason, hard-work, good fortune, whatever, have a mandated responsibility to share greater the fruits of their success for the betterment of all. This is best administrated by the even and impartial hand of government.
Since society is a complex interconnected gestalt, a large, powerful, and well-funded government is necessary to administrate its needs.
Perhaps we should get together and propose a drinking contest. Conservatives and Liberals all around. The first to collapse or get sick has to admit the bankruptcy of their respective ideology!
(I think I’d rather drink a liberal though.)
Somewhere, lost in one of these threads, I said that “Hillary is in her heart of hearts is a Socialist” and in a later reply to a post I shortened this statement to “Hillary is a Socialist.” Okay, the * is * statement is a bit of a stretch because I doubt she is card carrying member of the Socialist Party; however, the first statement is essentially true, that Hillary would be a bona fide Socialist under a different political climate. Call her a Closet Socialist. Her failed heath care plan had socialistic tendencies, as would all Universal Heath Care Plans, which shows us what she really wants for this country. Although it remains to be seen, I think the shadow of her Socialist Soul will expose itself in her Senate term.
I tossed in a Encyclopedia definition of Socialism for good measure at the very end. I think it fits with Hillary’s underling ideology. Take it as you will.
As for what makes a Liberal, I think the moniker Socialist-Lite might apply in a loose way to many Liberals. But basically, there are two parts to the (capital “L”) Liberal. The first part believes in “Live and let live” social morals or as in (small “l”) liberal, broadly defined as “open to new ideas for progress and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others.” The second part of a Liberal believes strongly in the instrument of Government to enact or enforce social change, social reengineering, and needs to regulate and redistribute income in a hypothetically more just manor. Within the kernel of second part lies the potential of socialist leanings in Liberals.
What has not been addressed here, so far as I can tell, is that it is possible to be liberal but not a Liberal. In fact, I’m probably treading dangerously here, I think some Liberals believe so strongly in liberalism that they forget the truly liberal (or tolerant) mind can accept the non-liberal as an equally valid belief and so are not very liberal to non-Liberals.
Government must be just and protect the powerless from the powerful. By what other means to you advise the powerless to address thier grievances? Prayer?
If we arrive at “just”, I for one will be content. We may mull over resetting the goal for “compassion”, but not till everybody has a good rest.
