Anti-liberalism first of all, needs to be recognized for what it is, and what it is not.
What it is not, is conservatism. Some of the most radical and disruptive ideas of our age, are being spewed by the Anti-liberals. And too many real conservatives are deluding themselves into supporting those ideas and actions, simply because they have gotten into the habit of supporting anything that opposes their list of “enemies.”
The popularity of the entirely idiotic phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” is a classic example of how far wrong people are these days in their reasoning processes.
Only Anti-liberalism as a self-blinding affectation, could have brought so many people to refuse to recognize that a powerful nation controlled by the ex-head of the Communist KGB, should be praised over our own country and our own leaders.
Opposition to science, because it supports the FACT that our climate IS changing, and that we ARE negatively affecting it via pollution, is not at all a Conservative value.
Setting aside the Constitution of the United States as an inconvenience, because it occasionally gets in the way of attacking people we don’t like, is not a Conservative value, but Anti-liberals think it’s brilliant and crafty.
Opposing liberals BECAUSE THEY ARE LIBERALS is not a true Conservative value.
So are we debating the difference between anti-liberals and conservatives; the extant climate change and its appropriate political response; or the sheer rabidilty with which some oppose the opposition because they are the opposition irregardless of what the actually say or do? You’re a bit all over the map here.
You only think I am “all over the map,” because you are distracting yourself with the few examples I gave. This isn’t about how liberalism is good, or conservatism bad or vice versa. This is about how Anti-ism in general is illogical and often destructive, with the current rage of anti-liberalism being the most proximate and damaging force.
You are GUESSING as you are, because you think this is about supporting one candidate or person or cause over another. It isn’t. It’s about how fundamentally defective thinking, or the lack thereof, is doing tremendous damage to the United States right now.
Back in the 1970’s, we were all endangered by the same thing being done the other way. Anti-conservatism led lots of people to do all sorts of stupid things, and support bad solutions to real problems, just as the anti-liberals are doing today.
I’m guessing because, like Iggy said, your OP is ill-defined. I was literally trying to flesh it out for you by giving a concrete example-- something your OP sorely lacks. I don’t need you to tell me to “observe and think”, and you’re not very good at mind reading, either.
Extremist polarization and rigid control of the parties is a threat to America. When the entire Republican Party and the entire Democratic Party, in Congress or in a state house, vote in lock step, without any dissent, and when there is no longer a large degree of overlap between the two parties’ positions, dialogue and compromise become much, much harder.
But not “the greatest danger.” Not by a shot.
Wealth and income inequality is also not “the greatest danger,” but it is a greater danger than extreme polarization. (Or, perhaps, it is a form of polarization, and the divide of “rich vs poor” is more harmful to us all than the divide of “left vs right.”)
I think I know what you mean but I am not quite sure. Are you just giving a new name to the Alt-Right (which is also a fairly new term in the popular press)? It is true that traditional conservatives seem to be a little light on the ground right now but the reactionary right and religious conservatives are speaking loudly.
That’s great that you are against Nazis, but is that really anti-Naziism? I have not pursued the Nazi party all that extensively, but it seems that they probably had one or two good ideas that should not be rejected out of hand, simply because the ideas were used by them.
Anti-Naziism, in the way that the OP is defining anti-liberalism, is an outright rejection of anything and everything they stood for, rather than being against the things that they stood for that you actually disagree with.
That’s the complaint I see in the OP, even if I don’t know that it was defined well therein. The “anti-liberals” are against anything the liberals are for, not on the merit of the idea itself, but because it is desired by the liberals, and the conservative party seems to be increasingly reactionary towards liberal ideas, because they are liberal ideas, not because the ideas themselves are flawed.
This is very true, but, to follow on the OP, intellectualism is the domain of the liberals, and therefore, anti-liberal has anti-intellectual as part of it.
Nope. You didn’t “give a concrete example.” You made an entirely unsupported accusation, and now you are trying to pretend that you didn’t, by ignoring the fact that you added NOTHING to your accusation that would have made it INTO a “concrete example.”
And you still haven’t. Just more insults and accusations.
I will take a stab at guessing what you are trying to get at, explain otherwise if I guess wrong:
ANY action can be used by ANY faction. Some Anti-liberals are setting aside, or selectively ignoring parts of the Constitution in order to pursue their agenda. This isn’t what MAKES them anti-liberals. Anti-conservatives can set aside or purposely misread the Constitution too.
This thread is about the damage being done by the people who are doing the greatest amount of it right now, and that is the Anti-liberals. One of the ways they are endangering us all, is by opposing Constitutional government as a self-excused political policy.
If I understand what you are saying, I disagree with you. I am not referring to “Extremist polarization and rigid control of the parties.” If you think I am, then you are wrong.
I also would disagree with the statement that wealth and income inequality is inherently bad or dangerous. What IS dangerous, is WHY the inequality income and wealth has become as extreme as it has. It has NOT occurred because the wealthier people produced a great deal more wealth than the middle and lower classes, it has occurred because the economy was purposely distorted in order to funnel more money into their pockets, and to take it away from everyone else.
Still not following what the parameters of anti-liberalism are supposed to be. Can you clarify or define it? k9 tried above on your behalf, was that accurate?
Simply saying that that’s not it over and over without offering guidance is a strange gambit.