'Liberalism is dying'...

This might shock you but in a way this saddens me, liberalism gives me something to dislike and gripe about, so I don't want it to die, but to become irrelevant now that would be ok....



LOSING OUR DELUSIONS.
Not Much Left



I think it was John Kenneth Galbraith, speaking in the early 1960s, the high point of post-New Deal liberalism, who pronounced conservatism dead. Conservatism, he said, was "bookless," a characteristic Galbraithian, which is to say Olympian, verdict. Without books, there are no ideas. And it is true: American conservatism was, at the time, a congeries of cranky prejudices, a closed church with an archaic doctrine proclaimed by spoiled swells. William F. Buckley Jr. comes to mind, and a few others whose names will now resonate with almost nobody. Take as just one instance Russell Kirk, an especially prominent conservative intellectual who, as Clinton Rossiter (himself a moderate conservative) wrote, has "begun to sound like a man born one hundred and fifty years too late and in the wrong country."

At this point in history, it is liberalism upon which such judgments are rendered. And understandably so. It is liberalism that is now bookless and dying. The most penetrating thinker of the old liberalism, the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, is virtually unknown in the circles within which he once spoke and listened, perhaps because he held a gloomy view of human nature. However gripping his illuminations, however much they may have been validated by history, liberals have no patience for such pessimism. So who has replaced Niebuhr, the once-commanding tribune to both town and gown? It's as if no one even tries to fill the vacuum. Here and there, of course, a university personage appears to assert a small didactic point and proves it with a vast and intricate academic apparatus. In any case, it is the apparatus that is designed to persuade, not the idea.

Ask yourself: Who is a truly influential liberal mind in our culture? Whose ideas challenge and whose ideals inspire? Whose books and articles are read and passed around? There's no one, really. What's left is the laundry list: the catalogue of programs (some dubious, some not) that Republicans aren't funding, and the blogs, with their daily panic dose about how the Bush administration is ruining the country.


LINK

Neocons = Liberals very simple(I now agree with 2 statement Dr. Horacid has made now ). When a Republican gov't expands the US federal gov't more then at any time in modern history you gotta wonder(Dept of Homeland 'Security'). I have always found it quite amusing that the political situation(in US) has degenerated to the point where if you aren't a Conservative your a Liberal. :barfit also goes the other way too unfortunately...) That smacks on Linear two-dimensional thinking and it's sad things have come so far. In another 10-20 years Conservatism will be declared "Dead" and the cycle of powersharing between the Elite will continue, over and over again..................

ED I'm Not saying you're one of those Conservatives who label anything not Right as Liberal, I never seen you say something like that.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 18-2-2005 by sardion2000]

I do think the Republicans have become very liberal, outside of war, guns, and sex.

THEY don't think so, but most people's attention span isn't very long.

I would agree and I tell them (poli#ians) every chance I get but I sure as hell dont want a crying pantyfart liberal in the Whitehouse...

Yeah....compare 'ol GW's foreign policy with that of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson (all Deomcrats by the way), and you will see very little difference. A foreign policy of interventionism abroad to spread a "world-wide democratic revolution" and use the military as a police force are ideas that originated from the Left.

And you fail to mention that Bush was pushing domestic policies and was actually getting hammered by the Left that he didn't care about foreign policy.............at least that was the case until 911......that changed the man and he came out swinging and the liberals whine...and bitch and cry....


Well WAH! Bush is here for another four years!



And just as a Reminder you you liberals, I know you have missed it so I will flash you a trip down memory lane!

external image

Bush's domestic policies up until now have been liberal. Expanding federal control over education and trampling states' rights, massive domestic spending and subsidies....now his proposed "guest-worker program"......Bush's precious No Child Left Behind--the mandate was written by Ted Kennedy.......Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit--same thing Democrats have been advocating for years......

However, Bush has redeemed himself somewhat by pushing for Social Security reform and tax reform.

I can find no fault with that whole comment........Bush is like like Dad on domestic issues - liberal is a bit steep of a word but correct nonetheless.

Very true. I am a registerd Republican, however the Constitution and Libertarian parties have become increasingly appealing to me....

Well I hope this doesnt piss you off but they do to me also, if we could just get enough votes to kick out the 2 parties you could count me in!

I think we can Ed, but the problem I run into mostly, is conservatives that are so close minded, that they can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that they are now a liberal party in words and actions.

If we could get someone on TV, just to say "Hey, look at what these guys are doing!", it would go far.

But it's the "culture war" don't cha know. The perifrial issues have now become to total. The economy could keep steaming like this for a while yet. But to disaster, and as that looms closer (albeit too late) more will switch.

I bet we see real change (and not on purpose, as far as the people are concerned) in our lifetimes (20-30 years).

The real problem is that many conservatives know the truth about Bush and the Republican party, but they still vote for them! "It's the lesser of two evils..." I hear this malarky all the time. I pose this question: is not the lesser of two evils still evil?

Prior to the 2004 election, I told many fellow conservatives about the Constitution party candidate, Michael Peroutka. Many of them loved his ideas and his stances on the issues, but refused to even consider voting for him. "It's wasting your vote," or "A vote for Michael Peroutka is a vote for Kerry," I would hear. If you call voting for a candidate that truly represents your ideals wasting your vote, then I don't know what to tell you....Also, a vote for Peroutka would not have been a vote for Kerry....a vote for Peroutka would have been....a vote for Peroutka!

To make things worse, the media is the slave of the two-party monopoly....Bardnarik (Libertarian candidate), Peroutka, and Nader were not even allowed to participate in debates......what ever happened to "equal-access?"

Although I am a registered Republican, third party candidates have always appealed to me--Perot, Buchanan, Peroutka, etc.....If think that if more Americans actually found out about third party party candidates and abandoned the myth of the United States having "a two-party system" (its not in the Constitution, it's just sort of a de facto situation), more people would realize that the two major parties aren't all that great.

Sometimes I wonder if we as a nation should have heeded George Washington's warning against political parties and their corrupting influence......

Well I sure hope a house cleaning comes someday,
'

But in a state such as Ohio, if you voted for a 3rd party candidate (not the flake green one) then it would have been one less for Bush. If 70k people had voted for the libertarian, we would have President Kerry...

They should ALL be at the debates, equal time. Problem is so many mods would change and it is in the media's interest to not let that happen, including FOX.

Sic, I don't have very many issues with the Constitution Party, but find myself more inline with the Libertarians.

The "Wasted Vote Disease" is a real problem. It's hard to talk to conservatives in this political climate, because if you slam Bush and the Reps. hard enough (or sometimes at all), then you are labeled a liberal, and a neocon if you do the same to Kerry.

It's the battle over nothing, and honestly, I think it is due to the need for the Big Two to maintain urgency and importance to sustain votes.

Votes are the drug of choice in Washington, and they all follow their party leaders to get them, as they are the drug dealers.

I cant disagree with anything you've written, we need a viable 3rd party but how do we make it work?