These criteria are meaningless. Liberals and conservatives of all stripes can claim these as their own, because the word reasonable is so subjective. Apparently you believe that liberals are, by definition, without reason.
Yeah, why didn’t we ever hear anything about that secret affair Bill Clinton had with Monica Lewinsky? The problem with conservatives and their view of the media is that they cannot abide balanced reporting. If the media reports anything negative about conservative politicians or causes, it is immediately branded as “liberal bias”, even though the same media drags liberal politicians and causes over the coals whenever the opportunity arises. Look how much play the Swiftboat Liars got; how is this evidence of a liberal bias?
I have question for you: In your opinion, which political viewpoint, liberal or conservative, practices critical thinking to a geater degree? Please show examples.
A quick analogy, Max. My apologies if this seems obnoxious. I hope you see the actual point instead.
Q: Marley, why are you such an idiot?
M: I have a genius-level IQ.
Q: MY question is valid. Why don’t you answer the question- why are you such an idiot? Shouldn’t you be proud of being an idiot?
Others have pointed out deficiencies in your generalisations, but I cant let this one go …
It is not true that this is a “scientific fact”. It may be more accurate to see life as a continuum without stops and starts. I dont want to turn this into a debate on the meaning of life, but you have made an assumption that this is a “scientific fact” when it is not.
Available? What does that mean? Is there a buffet?
You say that without saying what its essential functions are. In any case, why is size relevant?
It may be one essential part, but a well trained, professional military with lots of high-tech weaponry could just as easily conduct a coup as conduct an exercize.
Which is not to say that it should endorse anything else, either. Why should it be in the endorsement business at all?
What belief isn’t?
Regulated? And you’re worried about the size of government? When government regulates everything from mattress specs to the clothes prostitutes wear, it’s going to be big.
Agreed. But by the same token, if they do defraud the public, their punishment should come from their own pockets and liberty, and not the pockets and liberty of future customers through taxes and raised prices.
Who decides what “basic” is? Why would your plan be any better than mine?
Acceptable? Do you mean legal, or do you mean ethically legitimate?
Doesn’t your advocacy for the legalization of drugs condemn you by your own standard of allowable expression?
Agreed.
Who devises the test? And why is your test any better than mine?
You just said government shouldn’t entangle itself in personal relationships. Why should it entangle itself between a woman and her kidney or fetus? Also, are you including abortion in your “basic” public health plan? Why or why not?
What business is it of yours what people choose to make an effort at understanding?
Established by whom? And why are your standards any better than mine?
Protect it from what? And who decides what’s reasonable?
Why should a person be required to work even one hour, let alone some number that you say is reasonable?
If by protect, you mean bail out financially, I agree.
Why not? You seem willing to allow government to hold a monopoly over all men’s consent.
Why should the rules governing them be different from the rules governing anyone else?
Agreed, but the media themselves admit this.
Agreed.
The first step toward fascism is arrogance and complacency, not hatred. A viligant people should hate all enemies of freedom.
Incidentally, in matters of science and philosophy (including political philosophy), dictionaries are woefully inadequate sources. For liberalism, I recommend this book: http://www.mises.org/liberal.asp.
Max, in the vast array of political stances into which the political spectrum has fractured, you’re a non-doctrinaire left-libertarian, and not atrociously far from my own stance.
As people have pointed out, you generalize immensely in your OP statements, and a lot of the differences between people lie in the meanings with which they invest your generalized terms. Dick Cheney believes that there should be “reasonable” efforts to protect the environment – it’s just that his opinion of what is “reasonable” and the Sierra Club’s opinion of what is “reasonable” require a planet the size of Earth to accommodate the spread between them.
Another suggestion that I’d make is that ideals are good things, so long as after the age of 14 or so, you realize that they are goals and not rules. I pray for peace regularly. And there are wars I believe to have been the morally right thing to do – the first Iraq War where we liberated Kuwait, for a recent example.
There is also, as has been pointed out, a distinct dichotomy in your quasi-libertarian stance and your views on specific things that require to be regulated – and what extent of regulation is “reasonable.” (I’ll bet you we can get 20 hot threads going on specific examples of requlation and whether or not it’s reasonable!)
I spoke to soon. Liberal did a great job going through the OP, and I agree much more with what he said (and I glossed over a few things I definitely disagree with), with a few notable exceptions. Of course, Liberal is not a liberal in the sense we use the term today.
Acutally, I’m a liberal in the sense that most of the world uses today. Only in the US has it been assigned the burden of championing wealth envy and redistribution schemes. But I am glad to hear that we agree on many things.
But since the context of this entire thread is the American political landscape, your little disclaimer does little to clarify things. Obfuscation remains one of the more frequently used arrows in your debate quiver.
Nice bit o’ spin, there! “Wealth envy”? Is that anything like “economic justice”? The wildly extremist view that poverty and want is a disgrace for the wealthiest, most powerful nation in human history? The notion that some gibbering radicals put forth that wealthy people have an inordinate power to effect thier political views? And that lovely word, “schemes”, how carefully chosen, to avoid such seemingly sensible words like “plan” or “program”, to reveal the dark core of skullduggery behind the mild face of the ravening liberal!
Is this necessary? Lib is who he is. A skilled rhetorician isn’t going to stand by and let others define the terms of debate. Marley23 made a claim about his beliefs and he offered a clarification. An accurate one at that even if it has nothing to do with the meat of the thread. If you go looking for an intent to deceive then you are bound to find it. Can we at least wait until there is evidence within the discussion at hand to warrant accusations?
In the category of the media being biased towards Dems, which is standard right-wing bs, I saw this morning, on the Chris Matthews show on NBC, that they were all agreed that Bush has opened a 10 point lead over Kerry, and that this lead was insurmountable - no challenger had ever come back from that big a deficit.
Talk about doing double-takes. Had me surprised, that’s for sure.
So I went to some polling sites, and saw the following:
Electoral Vote Predictor: as of yesterday, Sept 11, has Kerry winning over Bush in the electoral college by 273 to 233. This is based strictly on state polls, and on the latest state poll from a reputable organization, (Gallup, Zogby, Rasmussen, et al) the idea being that the election is actually decided on a state-by-state basis, which is of course true. This site’s electoral totals are subject to weird fluctuations, so it’s probably best to use it strictly for fun until we get to October, when things will get a lot more serious, and the poll numbers a lot more reliable.
PollingReport.com’s White House page, which shows only one poll with Bush having a 10 or greater point lead, the Time poll. Newsweek had him ahead by more than 10, but their latest has that post-convention bounce fading.
But to watch Chris Matthews this morning, you’d think the Fat Lady was already done with her bows and taking off her makeup. So much for bias towards the Democrats, eh?
And yes, if you say that, you’re revealing yourself as right-wing. Live with it.
I think, 2Sense, that Fear’s post nicely illustrates a key side-point of the OP. The “how dare you call yourself a liberal when you do not walk in lock-step with me!” school is alive and well. Liberalism has a rich and wonderful history, with diverse and divergent views. But at its root, the word “liberal” shares the same etymology as the word “liberty”. Liber -> freedom.
And you use this arcane trivia to intentionally mislead those who might wander into a debate with the widely held, conventional definition of this political term. Like I said, your intent is to obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate, because your arguments wither when exposed to the strong daylight light of reason.
I think Marley23’s request for a citation is the best chance to resolve this issue. Can you provide 2 or three examples where she has, as you say, “attacked people in various threads for expressing non-liberal opinions, and then characterised the poster as a right-wing conservative without a shread of evidence besides their expression of a single non-liberal viewpoint.” What about others? Can you do the same for another liberal poster or 2? Perhaps we can examine the posts and determine why our views differ.
As for the laundry list of policy preferences, I see nothing in there that prevents you from being liberal. You might be for all I know. I don’t post here that much and while I recognize your screenname, that’s about it. Liberalism isn’t a fixed set of policies. It is a philosophy or a set of related philosophies. We disagree amonst ourselves all the time. What I see as the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is that we take a more positive view of human nature. Liberal, despite his name, isn’t what we consider liberal here in the USA. He is a firm believer that people are flawed because of Original Sin. That puts him over on the right half of the Liberal—>Conservative line though he is much more liberty oriented than a traditional Christian conservative.
Yes, if by “widely held” you mean “parochial”. It is in fact you who is making so much of it. Here is a cite to support my assertions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
I disagree. I think that instead she is reacting to your posting style in other threads. She isn’t responsible for how you behave. I doubt the comment would have been made if you were less stubborn about admiting when you were mistaken or less skilled in making such admissions seem unnecessary. I have great respect for your ability to reason. Unfortunately, from my point of view, you sometimes use your gift to excuse remaining unreasonable. Still, I don’t condone preemtive attacks on you. I like reading your posts and I’m glad you came back.
It is indeed a terrible thing that there is great disparity between the poorest and the richest, particularly if the poor are seeking wealth and are prevented from doing so by onerous laws and regulations that favor the rich and encourage the poor to remain poor. Likewise, it is a terrible thing that there are so many brilliant and talented people out there who waste their lives away watching television and posting on message boards. But I do not presume to put upon their backs the obligation to fulfill what I see as a need for teachers and artists. Politicians do not favor wealth redistribution because of some altruistic concern for the poor. If they had an altruistic concern for the poor, they would do their work to help the poor voluntarily, just like people with actual altruistic concerns for the poor do. Instead, the politicians like the fact that the money they are taking from Peter flows through their own hands before they pay Paul. They take a substantial cut for themselves, their staffs, their buildings, their limousines, and their bank accounts. Politicians are delighted that liberalism is conflated with socialism; it permits them to equivocate about what it is they are doing. Just the other day, someone said he would be glad to pay 70% of his salary toward helping the poor. When I reminded him that nothing is prohibiting him from doing exactly that, he changed the subject.
‘Whenever I try to participate in a political debate with a liberal, either here or in real life, there is an immediate assumption that I am a party-line following Republican’
‘The liberal is only willing to debate against a person who holds the stereotypical right-wing conservative position.’
‘Why do liberals react with such hostility to an educated, enlightened person with progressive views that happen to be slightly different than their own?’
‘Why has liberalism evolved into an ideological straightjacket that mostly attracts dangerously fanatical demagogues?’
And your initial post indeed showed no sign of any of the above.
Max,
If you had said “I’ve spoken to a few acquaintances, and they were all unwilling to debate”, that would be based on your personal experience. We could discuss e.g. whether your location, or the level of education of your acquaintances made a difference. But when you label millions of liberals world-wide presumably based on a few conversations, we think you are exaggerating!
For example, the Liberal Democrats are a political party here in the UK. Here is their website:
Please give examples of the ‘ideological straightjacket’ and the ‘dangerously fanatical demagogues’ in this liberal organisation.
(Next up, Sweden - a whole country full of ‘dangerously fanatical demagogues’ … err, liberals.)
Can’t you see the above is a meaningless platitude? Please cite any politician (preferably a liberal) who has said ‘Government should be any larger than necessary to carry out its essential functions’.
The above was sarcasm.
But all I actually know about you is:
you post on the SDMB
you make wild assumptions about a group you call ‘liberals’
If you want me to make guesses, however:
you are male
you are young
you are from a rural area
you don’t have a college education
you have not travelled abroad
Well I assumed by ‘lots of high-tech weaponry’ that you meant nuclear weapons, intercontinental missiles with chemical warheads and so on. What exactly did you mean, and would you want North Korea, Iran etc to have it?
Um, do you know anything about these people?
Gandhi persuaded the mighty British Empire to give India independence, through pacifism.
Martin Luther King achieved great reforms towards racial equality through non-violent means.
I’ll leave you to find out about Mandela yourself.
(hint: He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993.)
