On another board, a poster defended the organizers of the summit on starvation, saying, “It’s not like they’re not trying.” That comment typifies liberals, in both senses of the word “trying.” What severely strains my powers of endurance is a tendency among liberals to support good-hearted effort that aren’t working. E.g.[ul][]Many billions of dollars provided by the World Bank and the IMF have not brought third-world countries into prosperity, but at least they’re trying.[]The Middle East Peace Process has brought no peace, and may have even made the war worse, but at least they’re trying.[]Modern educational methods as promoted by the Department of Education have not improved education, and may have even made it worse, but at least they’re trying.[]The War on Poverty has not eliminated poverty after 40 years and trillions of dollars, but at least they’re trying.The massive election reform enacted after Watergate did not make elections more honest; in fact they led to new abuses, but at least they’re trying.After a hundred or more years of support through the Bureau of Indian affairs, most Native Americans still live in poverty, but at least they’re trying.[/ul]
What are you, wearing?
Gosh, and conservatives never engage in this sort of solipsism. :rolleyes:
Right off the top of my head, the “war on drugs”… it’s an unmitigated disaster and completely ineffectual, but at least they’re trying.
And the “war on terrorism”… there’s no proof it’s had any measurable effect other than to increase tensions (and terrorist action) between Israel and Palestine… but at least they’re trying.
Your gripe doesn’t typify liberals, december, it typifies anyone who allies themselves wholly with one way of thinking, and highlights why liberal/conservative distinctions are almost useless. Take a closer look at those on your own side of the fence before you throw stones across.
This kind of shit makes me so glad I don’t identify too strongly with either side of the spectrum.
Weren’t you warned about this?
I say why bother trying? Shoot 'em all and let God (or whomever) sort 'em out!
(I’m going to hate myself for this) december what would you like done? Shall we just ignore it all and hope it goes away? Should we try something else?
Do you have any suggestions; or is this another bitch-to-hear-myself-bitch thread? If it’s the latter, just let us know so I won’t have to open it again.
Dammit, I meant “sophistry.” Grr.
december, what’s your favorite kind of beer?
Many liberals, myself vehemently excluded, object strenuously to the World Bank and the IMF. What’s your point, really?
Perhaps we could debate the efficienct of the IMF/WB in another thread? I hope you have a pile of back issues of The Economist.
You know, I don’t like it when liberals pull this generalization shit, and I don’t like it any more when conservatives pull it.
As a matter of fact, it’s worse.
It’s an embarassment.
As a holder of a superior ideology, you’re supposed to know better.
This is your last warning. Next time we rip up your “Jews for Pat Buchanan” membership card.
OH GOD. Must everything become a flirt thread?
Close but not quite Avalonian. Your mistake is confusing liberal/conservative vs Democrat/Republican. The “but at least we trying” garbage is liberal. This is not to say that Republicans do not make mistakes. If more Republicans had the guts to stand up for conservative ideas then I feel most of this social engineering would have ended long ago and the world would be a better place. If a program is not working end it. Pure and simple. But most politicans lack the guts. If it’s the war on drugs the are called soft on crime and get the boot. Against another they are racists. It falls to the masses to stop this petty BS and make some hard choices. Gov’t can not and should not be a panacea for all the social ills.
You’ll have to prove that liberals do that and conservatives don’t. I’ve heard too many conservative apologists to buy that distinction, though… it happens on both sides.
Just like it was in 1933. Gotcha ya.
Liberalism at its core believes that a strong central government can solve all of our problems. Conservatism at its core believes that if government stays out people will solve their own problems. This is highly simplified but you get the idea. Now ask yourself on which side of the line a particular policy falls. Simple. Republicans pass liberal policy when it suits them. This is undeniable. It is however sad. Calling one’s self a conservative does not make you one.
My main suggestion is that liberals pay more attention to what actually works or doesn’t work. And, I’ll go with Avalonian: the same goes for conservatives. (I do not agree with Avalonian about the war on terrorism not working; the cessation of attacks on the US tends to indicate that it’s working. OTOH Avalonian has a point about the War on Drugs.)
More broadly, too much focus on only trying may lead to supporting unrealistic approaches and opposing realistic ones, when the realistic approach has some difficult or undesirable aspects.
E.g., the schools that have had the most success in the inner city have been highly structured, highly disciplined, and highly demanding, with significant student sanctions. To change public schools in this direction would be difficult legally and would contradict other principles. It’s easier to support the current approach, even though it isn’t working.
Some critics of Israel want that country to respond to Palestinian attacks in ways that are entirely unobjectionable, Unfortunately, those approaches don’t work. We can debate Israel’s appropriate strategy, but we ought restrict our discussion to those that are effective.
Look at the Kyoto International global warming agreement. Its proponents have a model that predicts that even if the treaty were fully implemented, which nobody expects, it would do almost no good. We would reach the same level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere a few years later.
Yet, some call Bush and the US all kinds of names for not supporting this treaty which, at best, will do almost nothing. A better approach would be to spend the same money finding ways for the world to cope with global warming. The unfortunate reality is that we lack the means of preventing it. The focus on Kyoto is a distraction from taking realistic action that would actually help people.
Trob and December: define ‘liberalism’, or at least what you believe it to mean.
I can guarantee that many others (of many different political persuasions) will have many different definitions. I, for one, do not associate liberalism with statism necessarily; to me, that is the policy of a social democrat.
Unless agreement can be reached on what ‘liberalism’ means then any attempt to discuss this rant here is fairly meaningless.
december has started dozens of these straw man threads recently that have failed to convince anyone of his viewpoint and, in fact, seems to have the opposite effect of what he’s intended.
But at least he’s trying.
For what it’s worth, I’ll meet you halfway here. Since the U.S. attacked only rarely in the past, we can say that the jury is still out on the “war on terrorism” as to whether it has actually been effective or not. At this point, it is neither effective nor ineffective… it’s too early to say.
I suppose I just have a problem with declaring “war” against any ill-defined target – “drugs,” “terrorism,” “poverty,” “bad movies” – the results are rarely positive.
I’m with Crusoe, anyway… it’s a pretty meaningless rant in general, unless we can agree on definitions for “liberal” and “conservative.” Hasn’t that been tried before?
Actually Trob has a point, while december doesn’t.
Liberal fiscal policies tend to lead to the long rack when they fail. Conservative fiscal policies tend to collapse with a bang when they fail. Personally I’ll take a hard rap over the fingers that smarts a bit rather than suffer under a lingering toothache forever.
If we are talking social policy and foreign policy on the other hand… well both sides are equally guilty at times of the harping that old tune of good intentions.
Since the latter has less to do with conservatism or liberalism as such and is much more dependent of party politics I’d agree that it has more to do with Republican and Democrat and thus the OP has gone fishing.
Did you hear about the carp infestation in the Mississippi? Seems that sometimes those bastards jump out of the water and slap fishermen around quite bad like if they were trout, except MUCH bigger. I’d watch where I throw that spinner if I were you december.
Sparc
“is this another bitch-to-hear-myself-bitch thread?”
I think it’s more on the order of “any attention I get is good.”
The OP’s argument is too lame to flame.