# Time & Newsweek drop pretense; embrace liberalism as survival strategy! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 22, 2009, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421 "2009-01-22T07:02:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Jamaika\_a\_jamaikaiake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7993a0/32.png) [@Jamaika\_a\_jamaikaiake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jamaika_a_jamaikaiake)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/81 "2009-01-23T18:48:16Z")
I think Mallard Fillmore says it best: [Fourth one down](http://www.jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/mallard1.asp) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/82 "2009-01-23T18:51:21Z")
> [@Monster104](#): > > Yes, it _is_ liberal. Why do you think plenty of people denounce the Bush admin for not being truly conservative? The view of a more powerful presidency and a weaker congress, which came mostly from Cheney’s office, was based on their experience working for Nixon. How is that a liberal view? Conservatives criticized Bush mostly on fiscal issues, not on his use of executive power. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/83 "2009-01-23T19:11:22Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > The mere fact that the average American voter expects women and blacks to vote doesn’t that mean they embrace liberal philosophy, it just mean they’ve grown up during a time when these things were the norm. Hell, _I_ expect women and blacks to vote. Does that make me an adherent to liberal philosophy? If so, it’ll certainly make this the first time I’ve ever been called a liberal by anyone. 😃 No, it means that this particular liberal philosophy has been so totally successful that it has all but totally driven out the opposing philosophy, leaving it a practice of the political fringe. The fact that most people have grown up in a time where these things were the norm is a sign of the total domination of this particular liberal cause in American society, to the extent that racial and sexual equality are no longer considered a liberal/conservative issue. But that doesn’t change their history as primarily liberal causes. I can’t say as I can think of a conservative philosophy that has achieved such total penetration into the social consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/84 "2009-01-23T19:13:56Z")
> [@Monster104](#): > > Yes, it _is_ liberal. Why do you think plenty of people denounce the Bush admin for not being truly conservative? There has never been a consistently “liberal” or “conservative” position on the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Generally liberals favor a strong executive when there is a liberal POTUS and conservatives do when there is a conservative POTUS. > [@Monster104](#): > > I don’t see anywhere in that report that suggests **recent** liberal demographic shifts are in any way a permanent or overwhelming obstacle to conservatism, like you’re claiming. I’m basing that on [this.](http://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Democratic-Majority-John-Judis/dp/0743254783/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0323301-0796122?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182621390&sr=1-1) ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/85 "2009-01-23T19:16:35Z")
> [@Jamaika\_a\_jamaikaiake](#): > > I think Mallard Fillmore says it best: > > [Fourth one down](http://www.jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/mallard1.asp) Bullpuckey. Wanna buy a rock? This rock is guaranteed to prevent tiger attacks. How do I know? Have you seen a tiger around here lately? Bullshit. Actually, all I really needed to see was “Mallard Fillmore” to know that there was no way it said anything best. Or coherently. Or in any kind of touch with reality. Or in any kind of touch with humor, for that matter. ---
**Author:** ![Albrecht\_Durer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ccd318/32.png) [@Albrecht\_Durer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Albrecht_Durer)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/86 "2009-01-23T19:17:28Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > **Albrecht** , old thing! How the hell the hell are ya doin’? I haven’t seen you for centuries. Still keepin’ that pencil sharp? 😃 Oh my yes. Many mythological beasts still not conceptualization, and all the drawings I’ve seen of Bigfoot and skunkapes thus far have been largely…pedestrian, shall we say. > [@](#): > > Seriously though, those philosophies, if they are alive and well, aren’t producing any major new programs and haven’t for quite some time, which was pretty much the thrust of my comment. There have been major reductions in welfare, and the rules for who gets it and for how long have been tightened greatly from what they once were. The efficaciousness of public housing, which turned out to accomplish little but to create hotbeds of crime and neglect, has been largely repudiated as well. But I don’t believe that those idealogies are necessarily dead or repudiated; they’ve simply evolved or are no longer needed. Some of the programs I mentioned (the FDIC, for instance) are still around because they got the job done; we don’t need new programs to correct or end successful ones. Others, such as public housing, have definitely evolved. The dangerous public housing (I’m blanking on the name; the big Soviet-esque institutional tenement things, like Cabrini Green) were largely a failure. But then to move beyond that, those are getting torn down and new homes built in its place. Cabrini is a good example. Although it’s Chicago and going to be rife with corruption, the new homes in Cabrini are mixed-income; a certain percentage are going to be reserved for those displaced by tearing down the big housing complexes. Others are being given vouchers, or are getting section 8 funding, etc. What I’ve badly phrased is that public housing as it was originally conceived was a failure, but the ideal of it is still going strong. Oh, and by the way, I don’t mean to disparage Chicago in particular; I used to live there and loved it. It’s just the first example I could think of. > [@](#): > > Which, of course, isn’t actually in the Constitution (as Antonin Scalia himself has pointed out numerous times) and is the result of liberal judges legislating from the bench. It appears to me to be a so-called right that emanated from the judiciary and not from predominating liberal public sentiment. > > I’m sure you’re aware that once a Supreme Court decision has been reached, subsequent courts are loathe to overturn it. Still, even after all these years and with so many people having grown up knowing nothing but pro-abortion rights, it’s still a matter of great contention for much of the country. Even strident liberals such as Christopher Hitchens are now going on record as saying that there is clearly such a thing as an unborn child and that this results in a conflict of rights (the child’s rights vs. the mother’s) and that thanks to imaging technology the notion of viability is being pushed back. So who knows, perhaps we’ll arrive at a ruling at some time based on hard science that recognizes the rights of unborn children as human beings and prohibits abortion save for the first trimester or other time when it can be more realistically said that a conscious, feeling human being does not yet exist. This is an approach that would be vastly preferable to me. I whole-heartedly agree about “what’s in the constitution/what isn’t.” Judge-made rules are generally slap-dash fixes that are going to leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. BUT, that being said, judge-made rules were/are a fixture in the common law, and they’re a fixture under a constitutional system. And they’re used to address the blank spots in the Constitution. Now, even though I’m a huge abortion-supporter (well, I support the right to have one; infrequently am I actually in a Planned Parenthood with a foam #1 mitt and an air horn…), you are right about abortion, the right-to-privacy, and the Constitution. But _Roe v. Wade_ was merely a judge-made rule to address an issue upon which the Constitution was silent. And it certainly wasn’t a liberal/conservative thing; two Nixon appointees agreed with the decision (it was before Blackmun became…you know, Blackmun, but still). And it appears that the majority of Americans support _Roe v. Wade_: [I know it’s Wikipedia, but it cites to a Harris poll, so…](http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._wade#Public_opinion). That’s hardly a repudiation of a liberally-created “right.” > [@](#): > > Again, these programs, once in place, are largely self-propagating…both in the sense that acceptance of them gets passed from generation to generation and in that it gets spread to and accepted by an increasingly large segment of the population. > > Most of the people who exist these days have come to accept these programs simply because they’ve never known anything else. It isn’t indicative of liberal public sentiment post 1980 that these programs exist. But it is! Many politicians are elected based on the premise of turning back the liberals, of overturning abortion and gay rights, of ending welfare, big government etc. If Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush couldn’t turn back the “liberal tide,” that’s either indicative of people not actually wanting that, or those presidents not actually being much good at keeping promises (although, to be fair, that’s almost every president). These programs are still around because people want to keep them. It’s not that they’ve grown accustomed to there being an unemployment office or a planned parenthood in town; rather it’s because they recognize the value of these programs. And for many of those programs, it’s certainly not apathy; just look at Focus on the Family. I do sincerely believe that people want these things; they want public housing and social security; they want abortion (albeit “safe, legal, and rare”) and OSHA and child labor laws and a minimum wage. Because if people didn’t want them, I don’t think we’d have them. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/87 "2009-01-23T19:21:16Z")
> [@Jamaika\_a\_jamaikaiake](#): > > I think Mallard Fillmore says it best: > > [Fourth one down](http://www.jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/mallard1.asp) Yes, the media has been totally lax in its duties by failing to print a big story every time something **didn’t** blow up. ---
**Author:** ![Count\_Blucher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Count\_Blucher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Count_Blucher)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/88 "2009-01-23T19:25:18Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Since that time, we’ve not only halted liberal progress but we’ve actually taken the lead. Prior to the last election, we’ve elected Republican presidents five out of seven times; the philosophies of the New Deal and The Great Society have been largely repudiated; socialism has been all but abandoned, and capitalism has reigned supreme. [Peg Bundy]“Thank the man for our nice new [Depression](http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/athome/1920/timeline/depression-b.jpg), children.”[/Peg Bundy] ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/89 "2009-01-23T19:34:15Z")
The burning question: is _Mallard Fillmore_ funnier than Dennis Miller? If you read \*Dullard Fillmore \*for an hour, and then watched ten minutes of Carrot Top, would you get the giggling shits? ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/90 "2009-01-23T19:51:52Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I can’t say as I can think of a conservative philosophy that has achieved such total penetration into the social consciousness. Capitalism ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/91 "2009-01-23T20:01:25Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Capitalism Yeah, that’s a good one. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/92 "2009-01-23T20:33:51Z")
Whenever the subject turns to “liberal media”, I like to turn the issue around: OK, so let’s read a couple issues of Time and Newsweek. That’s your liberalism? That’s what inspires such fear and loathing? Now if you watch some Fox news and listen to some talk radio to get an impression of what conservatism is like, then yeah, conservatism sounds pretty awful. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/93 "2009-01-23T20:53:03Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Finally, you show your odd bias by conflating the Democratic Party with liberals. There was an extremely conservative wing of the Democratic Party, (some of whom actually briefly broke with the Party inder the heading of Dixiecrats). There were also socially liberal Republicans, (_e.g._, “Rockefeller Republicans”), who supported the civil rights movement. So here you are trying to pretend that it was “liberals” who ruined the country and “blacks” who overthrew repression all by themselves, yet you do not accurately portray the required efforts of liberals and you (deliberately?) pretend that liberal=Democrat and conservative=Republican despite the fact that none of those claims are true. To be more specific, LBJ, a master politician, got the Civil Rights legislation through, fully aware that he was losing the South for the Democrats for years to come. Plus, in 1964, there was a terrific fight at the Democratic convention between the all-white southern delegations and a rival integrated set of delegates. The Democratic party was rife with bigots, but they mainstream of the party knew it and tried to improve things. They left for the Republican party, where they were and still are welcomed - and appear to be the mainstream now. The racism has moderated a lot, thanks to the permeation of that liberal idea of tolerance. The top dogs, like Bush, Goldwater, and Reagan, weren’t personally bigoted but were happy to appeal to those who were. Nixon I’m not that sure about. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/94 "2009-01-23T21:05:30Z")
Elites!!! ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/95 "2009-01-23T21:41:38Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Capitalism Capitalism is a _liberal_ philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/96 "2009-01-23T22:17:50Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Capitalism is a _liberal_ philosophy. I was waiting for that. Then I submit that environmentalism would be a \*conservative \* philosophy. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/97 "2009-01-23T22:27:01Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Capitalism is a _liberal_ philosophy. Liberal != libertarian. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/98 "2009-01-23T22:30:45Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > To be more specific, LBJ, a master politician, got the Civil Rights legislation through, fully aware that he was losing the South for the Democrats for years to come. Plus, in 1964, there was a terrific fight at the Democratic convention between the all-white southern delegations and a rival integrated set of delegates. The Democratic party was rife with bigots, but they mainstream of the party knew it and tried to improve things. They left for the Republican party, where they were and still are welcomed - and appear to be the mainstream now. The racism has moderated a lot, thanks to the permeation of that liberal idea of tolerance. The top dogs, like Bush, Goldwater, and Reagan, weren’t personally bigoted but were happy to appeal to those who were. Nixon I’m not that sure about. Nixon was a bigot by habit and inclination, but not on principle; but he was perfectly willing to inflame and exploit racist sentiments for political gain. See [_Nixonland,_](http://www.amazon.com/Nixonland-Rise-President-Fracturing-America/dp/0743243021) by Rick Perlstein. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/99 "2009-01-23T23:56:56Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I can’t say as I can think of a conservative philosophy that has achieved such total penetration into the social consciousness. The dark ages but them damn liberals had to go ruin it with their “enlightenment”. Why it couldn’t be like it’s 1450? People were polite then. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421/100 "2009-01-24T00:29:34Z")
Nobody ever respects the Spanish Inquisition. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-newsweek-drop-pretense-embrace-liberalism-as-survival-strategy/482421.md?page=6)