Liberalism Through The Eyes of a Proud Liberal

reply to post by Hefficide


Heff... this write up should, I think, go down in history as one of the most well thought out political statements I have ever read on this site, or indeed, anywhere else.

I also have to say, that I couldnt agree more. I will not add any clarification to that, because I honestly cannot find a damn thing that you wrote, which I could even remotely find fault with. You have seen every angle from which the liberal ideal is most often attacked, and in my opinion rebuffed any potential assault on your position with vast aplomb.

I think however, that it is very sad that you felt it necessary to write such a thing, because doing so must be born of some pretty severe fustration with the way your political ideals are treated in the media, and by those who oppose the manner of personal freedom and responsibility, that you desire to see installed as part of your nations construction. I admire your commitment to, and your steadfast defense of your ideals. You are a credit to the political ideal you choose to live by.

I think many Liberals fit into certain niches. The average man in America is not a current-day political liberal. Many Women and minorities are historically liberal because historically Conservatives believe in the status-quo. Women in the current reality tend to vote Liberal because a lot of their thinking is based around feelings. I don't believe the classic, dictionary examples of Liberalism you define actually represents current left wing thought. The US can only go so far right or left before it stops becoming what the founding Fathers had in mind.

Modern Liberalism in the Unite States is basically rehashed European style democracy - France would be a good example. American exceptional-ism must give way to a generic style of Democracy if Liberals had control. Luckily for me, most Americans still tend to think government is typically inept and corrupt. We don;t trust most of them could accurately piss in a bucket. Feeling bad for poor people is not liberal. Feeling the Government can fix it all is. Conservatives know better.

V

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
And the Constitution? Do you want to keep it or change it?

The Constitution is a piece of paper. An important one, but nonetheless it is paper with words written upon it by man. To consider it infallible is foolish.

Conservatives are certainly status quo oriented and very resistant to change. If it worked in 1776 or 1876 or 1976, it works now, in principle if not literally. It is the maintenance of (or attempted return to) the "good old days" at least as defined in a romantic sense.

Liberalism is about change, looking for new improvements, things not covered by the old ways or impacted by modern day to make them less overlooked and ignored.

The problem with both is that time moves forward, what worked and was once good before may not be today. And not everything needs to change because not every idea is going to work. In fact, most do not work as intended. But honest intention, open discussion and reasonable compromise is needed from both schools of thought. Otherwise we end up with things that nobody wants. The problem is that it has gotten more ugly with mass communication that propels the propaganda which serves only to impede movement forward or backward.

I wish people didn't always resort to labels. Instead of saying "The infinite possible combinations of beliefs can be accurately catergorized in to distinct AND opposing groups, and I belong tot his one," people should just say what they think about specific issues. Using labels is divisive and helps the plot to divide and conquer the people. When liberals say "conservative" and conservatives say "liberal" they both mean the same thing: "stupid" Given there are stupider conservative in general, but liberals aren't the geniuses they think they are. Look at how they now cheer for everything were against under Bush.

I don't have a problem w the freedom part of liberalism. The part I have a problem with is progressives. They seek to usurp the constitution because they claim it's outdated.

America is the most free nation in the world U would want to conserve it not change it.

Now if u live in a tyrannical country then liberalism would work because it needs change.

However, America is free therefore u must conserve and not change what is good. They only other option is tyranny under progressives.

The freedom part n progressive part of liberalism is contradictory because progressive seek new laws n new beuraucracies, therefore, big government. Big government equals less freedom because power is too centralized. Power corrupts n absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Originally posted by amfirst1
America is the most free nation in the world U would want to conserve it not change it.

Actually according to the Worldwide Index of Human Freedom, America is not the most free nation in the world. None of the freedom indices I know of rank it as number 1 in either personal or economic freedoms.

The index rates countries on a scale from 10 (most free) to 0 (least free). In 2012 the most free countries were New Zealand (8.73), the Netherlands (8.47), and Hong Kong (8.39). Least free were Zimbabwe (3.38), Burma (3.72), and Pakistan (4.47).[3] The components on which the index is based can be divided into economic freedoms and other personal freedoms. Highest ranking in economic freedoms were Hong Kong (9.02) and Singapore (8.75). Highest ranking in personal freedoms were the Netherlands (9.5) and Uruguay (9.4)

source

US does not come in as number one for economic freedom either, the economic world freedom index ranks the unites states as 18th in the world. source

ps. I'm sorry to say it but the Netherlands has a lot more progressives than America, maybe their liberal population is why they have the highest ranking of personal freedom in the world?

reply to post by polarwarrior


Actually America WAS one of the most free nations in the world, until the progressive transformed America and usurp the constitution.

I'm not referring the the present.

The globalist banking cartel piggybacked on to liberalism as a way to progressively change America into what they see fit.

In a world where the bankers control the politician, u must conserve and retain what made this nation great. Conservatism goes against the ideology of the central bankers. That's why liberalism is being pushed and funded by the banking elites. Liberalism today is not the same liberalism as before. U must understand how liberalism was twisted and hijacked.

To bring in communism or fascism u must disguise it as liberalism. This is how dictators have done it in the past.

To understand how it works u have to understand the chart of government.


Maximize Big Government(far left) --------------------------moderate govern--------------limi. government (Constitutional Rep.)------Anarchy (no government (far right))

Overtime the country becomes more liberal because new laws are create to expand government so we move further and further left and closer and closer to big government until too much power gets centralize. Then with the right environment fascism or communism is able to rise because they need big government to control the masses.

This is the bankers agenda . They know this graph and are attempting to duplicate it because they control the politicians, therefore, they use big government to control the people. That's why u are seeing socialism pushed more and more. They want to centralize power.

reply to post by amfirst1

Originally posted by amfirst1
Anarchy (no government (far right))

Anarchism is a far left ideology.



Left and right isn't about the size of government at all. Try a Wikipedia search of what those terms mean.

Here you go, from a quick search...

Anarchism is often considered a radical left-wing ideology,[19][20]

No mention anywhere of it being right wing, or even that some people think it is. I guess though there are always a crazy few.

reply to post by Hefficide


You don't sound Liberal though... having read your OP, I don't see Liberal. I see Libertarian. I see someone who gives a damn about their country. I don't see modern "Liberal".

Originally posted by polarwarrior
reply to post by amfirst1

And you are not understanding the political spectrum amfirst1 is using. It is the same the Founders used.

They realized there really is no difference between socialism, fascism, dictatorship, monarchy, etc. It is the collection of power into very few hands, ie Tyranny. Anarchy is the other extreme.

The Founders envisioned a government *just* large enough to keep us out of Anarchy.

Tyranny----------------------------------------------------US Constitution-------Anarchy

The problem is, American society has strayed too far from it's founding for this to work (effectively) any longer.

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams

We have fled from personal responsibility, from duty to our community & from our Creator... (and one could make a compelling argument that this is due to the growth of "liberalism").

For Liberals, we are just 1 more regulation &/or social program away from utopia. Big Gov is there to protect us from ourselves.

As for God, just imagine how ballistic they would go if a 'conservative' President said this today:

"The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests." ~ Andrew Jackson, 3rd President of the USA

Wow, in just a few sentences i've managed to wander all over the place...

I guess i could write my own article "Conservatism Through The Eyes of a Proud Conservative", but i'm not going to be able to convince a "liberal" that they are just plain wrong in their beliefs. They are the Dark Side of the Force, the Sith. It's all about emotion & feeling. Logic & historical facts just do not compute with them.

reply to post by polarwarrior


Wrong, there are a lot of propaganda out there.


Conservatism means to conserve. When this country was founded it was a limited government. People wanted to conserve a limited government. Now, through progression as in liberals, there comes more laws and more social safety nets so government will expand. Therefore, government gets bigger. Do u understand what I mean?

Fascism can not work with a limited government. There is not enough power centralized.

Fascist are national socialist. They are similar to big government communist.

U must read "None dare call it a conspiracy" it a great book that breaks down the flow chart of government. Here: www.ldsfreedomnetwork.com...

Total Govt. Anarchy
Communism Constitutional
Fascism Republic
SocialismLimitedGovt•
Pharoahism
Caesarism
Chart 1 depicts a false Left-Right political spectrum used by Liberals which has
Communism (International Socialism) on the far Left and its twin, Fascism (National
Socialism) on the far Right with the "middle of the road" being Fabian Socialism. The
entire spectrum is Socialist
Chart 2 is a more rational political spectrum with total government in any form on the far
Left and no government or anarchy on the far right. The U. S. was a Republic with a
limited government, but for the past 60 years we have been moving leftward across the
spectrum towards total government with each new piece of socialist legislation.
There is an accurate political spectrum. (See Chart 2.) Communism is, by definition, total
government. If you have total government it makes little difference whether you call it
Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Caesarism or Pharaohism. It's all pretty much the same
from the standpoint of the people who must live and suffer under it. If total government
(by any of its pseudonyms) stands on the far Left, then by logic the far Right should
represent anarchy, or no government.
Our Founding Fathers revolted against the near-total government of the English
monarchy. But they knew that having no government at all would lead to chaos. So they
set up a Constitutional Republic with a very limited government. They knew that men
prospered in freedom. Although the free enterprise system is not mentioned specifically
in the Constitution, it is the only one which can exist under a Constitutional Republic. All
collectivist systems require power in government which the Constitution did not g

reply to post by amfirst1


So some quack book posted on a Mormon website is supposed to prove everyone else wrong, if they can bear its grammar, spelling and factual inaccuracies long enough to reach the end.

Left and right mean what they mean, you can't go re-defining it all just because there are some extremists on your end who you don't agree with. I know, it must suck that the nazi's and fascists are right wing by definition, but just because you are right wing too doesn't make you one of them, you see?

Right or left wing is not about the size of government, I'm a radical leftist who wishes there to be no government at all. My socialist friends want to destroy the current government and replace it with a smaller and more democratic one, socialism is a structure which wouldn't allow banksters or corporate elite to exist. The right wing Nazi's wanted big government, king and queens of monarchism had large governmental type structures. Your simple spectrum doesn't hold.

I'd encourage you to read some independent sources, right wing books aren't exactly the place to get unbiased information about the political spectrum. Try Wikipedia, as it seems you don't even know what the word socialism means.

reply to post by polarwarrior


Ok let me ask u something since u seem not to get it. Why do they call bush, Christie, mitt, McCain moderates yet they r big government, and why do they called ron Paul a far right wing when he preaches limited government n constitution republic? Also why does harry reid call the tea party which gets labeled extreme right anarchist? If u don't see the correlation that is so blatently obvious then u will never get it.

Originally posted by amfirst1
reply to post by polarwarrior

 

Ok let me ask u something since u seem not to get it. Why do they call bush, Christie, mitt, McCain moderates yet they r big government, and why do they called ron Paul a far right wing when he preaches limited government n constitution republic? Also why does harry reid call the tea party which gets labeled extreme right anarchist? If u don't see the correlation that is so blatently obvious then u will never get it.

Because left and right isn't about the size of the government.

That is why you will find left wing people who want small government, left wing people who want big government, right wing people who want large government and right wing people who want small government. It's not as simple as your mind is making it.

If you understood this, then you wouldn't have to delude yourself into thinking anarchism is right wing despite it having been well established that anarchism is a left wing ideology.

The founding fathers were right wing extremist. A simple google search will back up the case. They advocate less government as possible to the point where federal government role is to protect the people's constitution rights that's it. They were also non interventionists.

Liberals and moderates want government role to extend to social programs, national defense, and more bureaucracies to regulate the free market. If that is not big government I don't know what is.

U can show me any chart u want, but if u can not explain and break down the chart logically like I did, then it doesn't mean anything.

It was only later that conservatism was change because more people on the right tend to be religious because the country was founded under God, so they try inject religious cr2p into it. Thus, overtime we move more and more left to the point even moderates are considered big government.

Liberals want more taxes and social programs, etc. This funds big government and more federal run programs. A lot of liberals won't admit to it because it doesn't sound great, but it's clear as day.

Look there's nothing wrong with liberalism as long as the rulers and controllers are good people or even angels. They would be able to construct a beautiful yet balance utopia.

However, man is inherently evil and power will corrupt almost any man, so progressiveness doesn't work in a world ruled by bankers.

Originally posted by Hefficide
In political discussion mercy is a luxury that is not often exercised and quarter is rarely given. The stark nature of this prevents many people from even entering the fray. It is a rough field to play upon.

Indeed but if I may, to counter some points you make and some generalizations that you have conveniently painted to highlight your position.

There is so much misinformation and malicious misrepresentation in politics and political debate...

Indeed and you, in an attempt to highlight the nonsense, have yourself, perpetuated some interesting misrepresentations while painting your stance in an interesting way. For example, you state the following:

The term simply seems to tie me to an endless list of false assumptions, slanderous memes, and misunderstandings.

While I will not contend that this how you see yourself, when others are attacking your political views, I find it very interesting that you give heavy leeway to the charges levied against you, but then give some passive statement of "may or may not be true" when discussing the opposite.

For they, too [conservatives], enter the conversation already prejudged and charged with a laundry list of stereotyped assumptions that may or may not accurately portray them and their sentiments.

Here, I find your views upon the matter interesting, given your opening statements trying to create this air of equalness that we all endeavor when it comes to our political stances.

Point One: How you feel Conservatives think of Liberals:

The fact of the matter is that, to some people the word "liberal" automatically implies a person of color who drives a high end vehicle, lives in an expensive house, has a college degree... but who cannot read, who uses their free cell phone to broker drug deals and arrange random abortions, and who cannot wait for the welfare check and food stamps to arrive...

Fair enough, I would actually agree with much of that -- save the "automatically implies a person of color..." bit. But that is me.

Point Two: How you have victimized your point and tried to paint the attacks against Conservatives, your counterpart, as not as bad:

[some]...imagine conservatives to all be extremely wealthy, white, racist, religious zealots who consider every person they encounter in public to be inferior and unworthy of anything but indentured enslavement

You were heavy on the disparaging remarks to your own political leanings while just brushed off with generalizations to those opposing it. At least you tried to compare the two -- sort of.

Here is where I agree with you, as it is a point I make time and time again here on ATS. I just don't do sensationalized headlines to get some nonsense stars/flags (not that you are doing that here; I hope you don't think I am implying such."

These stereotypes divide us as a people and deny us the chance to recognize the commonalities that we share. They incite blind and baseless fear and hatred, fostering contempt where none is necessary. To that end, I felt that it might be beneficial to open a dialogue today about what being liberal means to me... an actual liberal - and not a pundit who gets paid to patronize your fears.

Agreed, I just hope you see that you will be drawing "Conservatives" in to your thread -- and that your hopes of having an open dialogue, regardless of political leanings, holds true. More later, but overall, good post.

Originally posted by amfirst1
The founding fathers were right wing extremist. A simple google search will back up the case. They advocate less government as possible to the point where federal government role is to protect the people's constitution rights that's it. They were also non interventionists.

How does that make them "right wing extremist"; especially since such a term is more recent and quite fluid on its application....Google isn't research, it is a tool. Just because some search return says its true, doesn't make it so.

The application of modern day political labels upon a group from 200+ years ago is funny. Each can actually claim their stance was that held by the Founding Fathers. Liberalism, Conservationism, etc, etc.

It was only later that conservatism was change because more people on the right tend to be religious because the country was founded under God, so they try inject religious cr2p into it. Thus, overtime we move more and more left to the point even moderates are considered big government.

The country was founded quite secular actually -- as far as the governance portion. This isn't to say that the People occupying offices were secular -- that much we know to be false. The idea was that the People can worship how they want, but government itself, was to be a non-player.

Liberals want more taxes and social programs, etc. This funds big government and more federal run programs. A lot of liberals won't admit to it because it doesn't sound great, but it's clear as day.

I think this is what Heff was getting at. Drop the nonsensical stereotypes and engage in conversation with people. So long as you hold that position, you will never hear what the other side has to offer.

However, man is inherently evil and power will corrupt almost any man, so progressiveness doesn't work in a world ruled by bankers.

And said is true regardless of the political philosophy held by said people. You think that if all were "conservative" that it wouldn't suffer from the same pitfalls as "progressiveness"?

Schillinger
reply to post by Hefficide

 

You don't sound Liberal though... having read your OP, I don't see Liberal. I see Libertarian. I see someone who gives a damn about their country. I don't see modern "Liberal".

I have to second this. Being a liberal, in the historical context, meant you were against government tyranny. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. However, after the industrial revolution, the word liberal took on a new meaning. This was further reinforced during the mid 1910s with President Wilson, and even more so during and after the great depression of the 1930s.

Needless to say, the word "liberal" doesn't mean what it used to, but it has meant the same thing for around 100 years.

I would consider myself a conservative. However that is not to be confused with being a republican, which I am confused for way too often. But reading your post, which I applaud you for because it seems you aren't the generic liberal that fits most of the sterotypes, it is somewhat surprising.

For example:

Your "bleeding heart" section about the homeless man. According to the sterotype, most liberals (IMO) would look at it and go "Oh my gosh! That is so terrible!" But, most conservatives would look at that man and say, "How can we fix this."

In my opinion, you seemed to have taken the conservative approach. You've also taken this approach elsewhere in your post.

After reading what you've had to say, it hasn't changed my opinion regarding liberals and their ideology, but it has changed the way I think about how a liberal is defined. I blame people with a big social voice, be it by the media or movies or music, ect, for promoting extreme ideas and then calling themselves liberal- I.E Bill Mahr saying the 2nd ammendment is bull#, or Barbra Streisand saying Obama has been the most fiscally conservative president since Bill Clinton.

I think most liberals who don't fit the sterotype, such as yourself, would find a lot of common ground with us conservatives who also don't fit our sterotype. As a conservative I stand for:

-Keeping your paycheck at the end of the day
-Having your constitutional rights respected, including the right to tote what ever fire arm you damn well please
-Private property
-Keeping the government out of things it doesn't need to be involved in
-Working hard and reaping what you sow

I think if both sides were to honestly hear eachother out, we could unite as one based on the large amount of common ground there actually is- but most of it is currently hidden by retarded sterotypes and arguing.