Liberalism: Boogeyman to the Right

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Objectively, it is. This is not to say that we will achieve perfection (fat chance with an inherently flawed starting position), but do you deny that modern Western society is better than those societies that came before and those societies that still cling to "traditional" ideas like monarchy and theocracy?

There's a fundamental difference in opinion here... a Conservative believes that modern free-Western Society was an improvement because of the principles it was built on. Private property and incentive driven by free markets. And we'd argue that the move toward centralized command-and-control economies is a move to something that more resembles the old nobility/monarchy system that what we have today.

In sympathetic terms, a Conservative believes in conserving what he/she believes are the strengths handed down to us through 'tradition.' You and I didn't create individual property rights or market freedom. We were given that via tradition. We only really choose which direction to take it from here.

You are correct here. What you describe is, again, exactly what has happened throughout history. The only way to improve ourselves is not to stick to things dogmatically, but to always be examining, testing and striving to improve based on evidence. Saying you won't break with tradition simply because it's tradition is foolhardy.

I didn't say you can't break tradition. Just that it ought to be very well reasoned. As Westerners, living in the wealthiest, most opportunity-rich population in the world, we should err on the side of caution when it comes to demanding significant change in areas where we obviously excel in the grand scheme of things.

This does not mean we should reject tradition simply for being tradition either.

Conservatives tend to stick to idea not because they can be objectively shown to be better, but simply because they are viewed as traditional. The proof is in the pudding on this. Take marriage for example. What's the argument against gay marriage? That traditional marriage is better. Why? Because God said so.

That is a tendency. But no more so than it is for the 'progressive' to automatically discount some very essential systems and beliefs handed to us via tradition. Both sides need to lean more on caution and reason.

Nevermind for a moment that the modern form of marriage in the U.S. is anything BUT historically traditional, nor does it resemble what the Bible laid out, nor does God exist. Conservatives latch on to the one man+one woman definition of marriage simply because they believe it is traditional, which is what they really mean when they say "because God said so".

Well, there's a little more reason to it than that. At least for some. Nothing is PROVEN to be better for the next generation than to be raised in a prototypical nuclear family with mom and dad around and involved. The NBA "Daddy Who?" Parenting model is a 'change' and a definite distinction from the past (at least in scale) and there's pretty good indication that it's destroying whole sections of our civilization. That's not necessarily a reason to oppose Gay Marriage or single parenthood. There are plenty of kids out there desperate for anyone who cares, whose life will be made better by anyone who does care, regardless of race or sexual orientation.

But the larger 'Progressive' argument of "whatever's new or different goes", is viewed with suspicion by Conservatives. And it's not hard to see why.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

But if and when it does, you can always count on some conservative to oppose it.



Odds are you believe Hitler was a socialist as well.

Thanks, Fox News.

I'm using your (shallowest possible) definition. Where "Change" = "Progress"

In the real world that definition doesn't work. Because the way you define it, everyone would be in both camps all the time. I mean you're basically calling yourself a Crunchy Entitlement State Conservative.

"Conservative" vs "Liberal" can only be applied to people's views on foundational principles. You're trying to define it as Changiness vs Non-Changiness. Which really makes no sense when you think about it. There are many things today's most radical progressives would fight to protect from change. And things most hardcore conservatives would love to upend tomorrow.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BBII

Change does not equal Progress. Ask Chairman Mao. Oh wait, he was a "progressive."

You're an ass.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

You're an ass.

What, for poking fun at the "Change is Good, Opponents of Change are bad." mantra?

Some changes are good. Some are unquestionably bad. Even while people thought they were good at the time.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BBII

What, for poking fun at the "Change is Good, Opponents of Change are bad." mantra?

Some changes are good. Some are unquestionably bad. Even while people thought they were good at the time.

Enjoy your juvenile word games. I'm done with ya.

[BroncoBeavis]

Ask Chairman Mao. Oh wait, he was a "progressive."

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Odds are you believe Hitler was a socialist as well.

Thanks, Fox News.

So wait, you didn't know Mao was a socialist? Maybe you should watch more Fox News.

[Rohirrim]

Yeah. John Locke and Mao. A couple of liberals.

The sad thing is that the ignorant troglodytes in the Tea Party really believe this kind of ****.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Yeah. John Locke and Mao. A couple of liberals.

The sad thing is that the ignorant troglodytes in the Tea Party really believe this kind of ****.

Oh, hey, you're back.

And I think you just underlined my point. Thanks.

[Rohirrim]

Ever wonder why the sanctity of private property is the rallying cry of the New, Reactionary Right? It's because the billionaires backing the movement own most of it.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Ever wonder why the sanctity of private property is the rallying cry of the New, Reactionary Right? It's because the billionaires backing the movement own most of it.

Oh, and that little triviality of it being maybe the most significant distinction about this nation's founding and probably the largest contributor to the progress of Western Civilization over the last few centuries.

Concentration of wealth is just a symptom, not the disease. Centrally-commanded political crony-capitalism is at the heart of the matter.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Ever wonder why the sanctity of private property is the rallying cry of the New, Reactionary Right? It's because the billionaires backing the movement own most of it.

I'm tellin ya man, every conservative fancies themselves a millionaire who just missed out because of... (you can fill in the blank with whatever the bullet point du jour is: "socialism", Obama/Clinton/Carter, "entitlements", "the gays"...)

[Arkie]

I'm comfortable. I don't need to be a millionaire. I just think a fiscally conservative policy (something we've never had in my lifetime) would be good for the country. Wasteful spending hurts everybody. High taxes hurt the middle class. More and more of the lower middle class are becoming part of the dependent class.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Arkie

I'm comfortable. I don't need to be a millionaire. I just think a fiscally conservative policy (something we've never had in my lifetime) would be good for the country. Wasteful spending hurts everybody. High taxes hurt the middle class. More and more of the lower middle class are becoming part of the dependent class.

And you think that's because of liberal fiscal policies?

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by houghtam

And you think that's because of liberal fiscal policies?

It's bad fiscal policy by the Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans were worse over the last 30 years, and nobody else of real importance has stood for a true conservative fiscal policy of a balanced budget.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Arkie

It's bad fiscal policy by the Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans were worse over the last 30 years, and nobody else of real importance has stood for a true conservative fiscal policy of a balanced budget.

I don't think a balanced budget deserves the near sanctity that many on the Right give it. Economics is situational. If your economy is going full barrel, you're approaching full employment, your GDP keeps rising and your tax policy is sound (i.e., progressive) then a balanced budget and saving for a rainy day is smart policy.

If you have high unemployment, stumbling GDP and slow growth you do what is best for the greatest number of your people until the economy rebounds. If that includes higher debt, so be it.

IMO, the purpose of government is to serve the interests, in other words, the general welfare of your people. Not to fulfill the requirements of an ideology.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by BBII

There's a fundamental difference in opinion here... a Conservative believes that modern free-Western Society was an improvement because of the principles it was built on. Private property and incentive driven by free markets.

.. changes that were radically different from the traditions of the time, and made as an acknowledged experiment backed by sound reasoning and decent evidence.

But you are completely wrong about the founding principals of our country and other fledgling western democracies (such as France). Modern western society is built on the idea of social equality, not any particular economic system. Most importantly, our society was set up to abolish the idea of inherited privileged and rule via nobility, clergy and others and to extinguish associated inequalities between individuals.

Western societies employ significantly different economies, though they all share one common thread: a non-extremist economy. There are no laissez-faire economies. There are no communist economies.

And we'd argue that the move toward centralized command-and-control economies is a move to something that more resembles the old nobility/monarchy system that what we have today.

The other tendency of conservatives, illustrated here on a regular basis, is to argue against strawmen. A well regulated, mixed economy ala 1930-1980 in the U.S. is what has been demonstrated to be, by far the least horrible of economic systems tried.

The other issue here is that the direction our society is going is not toward command & control. It's moving is exactly the opposite direction. And it's not a command and control economy that will lead to monarchy and a nobility system (i.e. feudalism). It's unrestrained capitalism. Feudalism is the end result of laissez-faire. Laissez-faire leads to a vast disparity in wealth. Once only a miniscule minority of folks have all the wealth and all the land, then all you have is land lords and serfs.

In sympathetic terms, a Conservative believes in conserving what he/she believes are the strengths handed down to us through 'tradition.' You and I didn't create individual property rights or market freedom. We were given that via tradition. We only really choose which direction to take it from here.

I didn't say you can't break tradition. Just that it ought to be very well reasoned. As Westerners, living in the wealthiest, most opportunity-rich population in the world, we should err on the side of caution when it comes to demanding significant change in areas where we obviously excel in the grand scheme of things.

Like I said, all ideas should be judged by the evidence, not the source. Liberals do not believe tearing down tradition just to tear down tradition.

That is a tendency. But no more so than it is for the 'progressive' to automatically discount some very essential systems and beliefs handed to us via tradition. Both sides need to lean more on caution and reason.

What are these essential beliefs and traditions, and what evidence and reasoning do you have that they are essential?

Well, there's a little more reason to it than that. At least for some. Nothing is PROVEN to be better for the next generation than to be raised in a prototypical nuclear family with mom and dad around and involved. The NBA "Daddy Who?" Parenting model is a 'change' and a definite distinction from the past (at least in scale) and there's pretty good indication that it's destroying whole sections of our civilization. That's not necessarily a reason to oppose Gay Marriage or single parenthood. There are plenty of kids out there desperate for anyone who cares, whose life will be made better by anyone who does care, regardless of race or sexual orientation.

Don't conflate gay marriage with single parenthood. But lets not get off the point. I don't care to argue about the specifics of any particular issue. The point is that conservatives (even the mainstream) often stick to tradition purely because it is tradition (or simply because they view it as tradition), not because there is any evidence or logic behind it.

But the larger 'Progressive' argument of "whatever's new or different goes", is viewed with suspicion by Conservatives. And it's not hard to see why.

Name one idea where the mainstream liberal opinion is that 'whatever goes'. Mind you, you can easily find some fringe liberal wackjob that will have such a position -- just as I can find a fringe conservative wackjob that thinks exactly the opposite. I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for a mainstream opinion of "anything goes".

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

.. changes that were radically different from the traditions of the time, and made as an acknowledged experiment backed by sound reasoning and decent evidence.

But you are completely wrong about the founding principals of our country and other fledgling western democracies (such as France). Modern western society is built on the idea of social equality, not any particular economic system. Most importantly, our society was set up to abolish the idea of inherited privileged and rule via nobility, clergy and others and to extinguish associated inequalities between individuals.

Western societies employ significantly different economies, though they all share one common thread: a non-extremist economy. There are no laissez-faire economies. There are no communist economies.

France was a bit player in the development of modern Western Civ. There's a reason they went from a major world power in the age of Kings to a me-too country in the Anglo-American age. Because, as you allude to, they had a different set of values. And they didn't work out all that well.

The other tendency of conservatives, illustrated here on a regular basis, is to argue against strawmen. A well regulated, mixed economy ala 1930-1980 in the U.S. is what has been demonstrated to be, by far the least horrible of economic systems tried.

The other issue here is that the direction our society is going is not toward command & control. It's moving is exactly the opposite direction. And it's not a command and control economy that will lead to monarchy and a nobility system (i.e. feudalism). It's unrestrained capitalism. Feudalism is the end result of laissez-faire. Laissez-faire leads to a vast disparity in wealth. Once only a miniscule minority of folks have all the wealth and all the land, then all you have is land lords and serfs.

I'll agree that there was a happier medium somewhere between 1945 and 1980. To see some of the abuses of the gilded age would give a guy a whole different perspective. There was a time and a place for the Progressive Era, and it brought about many needed changes.

But somewhere along the way, we went from questions of whether companies should take basic safety measures to preserve workers' lives and limbs, to mandates on what kind of contraceptive measures they must provide in their private health plans.

We have a regulate-first ask, ask questions later culture in Washington. And they have no clue what kinds of impacts they have outside their own little silk cocoons. The only way they'll be stopped is by someone saying enough is enough. In the right season, the 'conservative' function is just as important as the progressive one.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by BBII

France was a bit player in the development of modern Western Civ. There's a reason they went from a major world power in the age of Kings to a me-too country in the Anglo-American age. Because, as you allude to, they had a different set of values. And they didn't work out all that well.

LMAO Wow. Stunning ignorance of history FTL. Pick up a book sometime bub.

I'll agree that there was a happier medium somewhere between 1945 and 1980. To see some of the abuses of the gilded age would give a guy a whole different perspective. There was a time and a place for the Progressive Era, and it brought about many needed changes.

So, you agree progressive thought can and has made your life better, but now it can't anymore? The only difference between then and now, in terms of abuses, is where and how those abuses are happening. We've opened up the doors to the same level of abuse the last 30 years, only the form is different.

But somewhere along the way, we went from questions of whether companies should take basic safety measures to preserve workers' lives and limbs, to mandates on what kind of contraceptive measures they must provide in their private health plans.

A conservative not long ago was saying: But somewhere along the way, we went from enslaving people to now saying we can't work them 18 hours a day in our private businesses!

We have a regulate-first ask, ask questions later culture in Washington. And they have no clue what kinds of impacts they have outside their own little silk cocoons. The only way they'll be stopped is by someone saying enough is enough. In the right season, the 'conservative' function is just as important as the progressive one.

No, we have a culture in Washington (no matter the topic) that is dominated by monied interests instead of the interests of "the people". This has happened specifically because we have allowed those monied interests to act increasingly unchecked and gain vastly more power and wealth for the last 30 years with the large shift toward a laizzes-faire system (despite your protestations to the contrary).

What happened in 2008? The monied interests won big, everyone else lost huge because we, as a society, weren't keeping the abuses that led to that meltdown in check.

I agree there is a season for everything. We've had 30 years of conservative season that have eroded the progress of the 20th century.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

LMAO Wow. Stunning ignorance of history FTL. Pick up a book sometime bub.

Some guys rank haute cuisine and fine wine higher than others I guess.

So, you agree progressive thought can and has made your life better, but now it can't anymore? The only difference between then and now, in terms of abuses, is where and how those abuses are happening. We've opened up the doors to the same level of abuse the last 30 years, only the form is different.

Of course it has, and it still can. But it can also make things dramatically worse. And has at times throughout world history. As for the last 30 years being so terrible. Good luck with that argument. It's mostly a story of some of the richest people on the face of the earth looking at those even richer than them and maintaining envy above all else.

A conservative not long ago was saying: But somewhere along the way, we went from enslaving people to now saying we can't work them 18 hours a day in our private businesses!

And a progressive was saying "Hey, let's put ourselves in control of all this production, and we'll take care of everyone and tell them what kind of work they can do and how much they're allowed to make."

No, we have a culture in Washington (no matter the topic) that is dominated by monied interests instead of the interests of "the people". This has happened specifically because we have allowed those monied interests to act increasingly unchecked and gain vastly more power and wealth for the last 30 years with the large shift toward a laizzes-faire system (despite your protestations to the contrary).

What happened in 2008? The monied interests won big, everyone else lost huge because we, as a society, weren't keeping the abuses that led to that meltdown in check.

I agree there is a season for everything. We've had 30 years of conservative season that have eroded the progress of the 20th century.

Yeah, totally. Those darn Democrats in Congress for most of that time, and their Conservative State Building. What up wit dat!

[Rohirrim]

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by BBII

France was a bit player in the development of modern Western Civ.

You take the cake for stupid-comment-o-the-eon...

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by BBII

I'll agree that there was a happier medium somewhere between 1945 and 1980.

For whom?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

You take the cake for stupid-comment-o-the-eon...

Jaw dropping, ain't it?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Jaw dropping, ain't it?

If it wasn't for the French, we'd be part of the Commonwealth.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

If it wasn't for the French, we'd be part of the Commonwealth.

Yeah. I was thinking of the blockade at Yorktown too. Seems like a pretty pivotal moment in history to me.