The real difference between the left and the right

24

Replies

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,382 Senior Member
    I think Steven is offering the classically liberal as a way to freeze liberalism to it's position in 1789. Thus ignoring the progressive movement. Progressivism since its beginnings under TR has been about using government as a cudgel against the excesses of industrialists, or as we would refer to them today corporations. The chief argument is that power resides in the will of the American people and not in the wishes of the rich and powerful. That government rules our democracy, not Standard Oil.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • I think Steven is offering the classically liberal as a way to freeze liberalism to it's position in 1789. Thus ignoring the progressive movement. Progressivism since its beginnings under TR has been about using government as a cudgel against the excesses of industrialists, or as we would refer to them today corporations. The chief argument is that power resides in the will of the American people and not in the wishes of the rich and powerful. That government rules our democracy, not Standard Oil.

    No, the point CG tried to make is that conservatives are always on the wrong side of history. This has to be by definition, but the classification is worthless.
    I will try to clear this up with a reply to CG's post.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,382 Senior Member
    Actually I took it that conservatives are resistant to change. Which is the classic definition of conservative. Today's conservatives can be adequately defined as reactionaries.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • creekguy wrote: »
    So Classically Liberal is not the same as "contemporary liberal". I should have not have slept through whatever class this was covered in. I will withdraw from the debate because I am unclear where to draw these distinctions. I see liberal today as advocating collective action usually through the power of government to right the ills of society. To me, the abolition and woman's suffrage elements were collective actions taken by government, and therefore more like contemporary liberal projects. So, is progressive taxation old lib or new lib?? What about paper money?

    I will wait to see what Sherb says so I know what to think.

    CG,

    First, it's almost meaningless to say that abolition or suffrage were actions taken by the government, because this goes without saying. The government makes the laws, the government changes the laws. The 13th and 19th amendment had to be approved in Congress. It had to be ratified by the states. That's just the way it is.

    The question is, what is the impetus for people to elect officials that will support these changes? What were the arguments for these changes? Who made them?

    Second, forget the term liberal. It's a complete waste and confuses things.

    The overriding political ideology in the United States is "liberalism." It always has been. Wikipedia defines liberalism as "political ideology or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality." Probably as good a definition as any. Liberalism dates back to John Locke (political) and Adam Smith (economic).

    Today, we have two main branches of liberalism, what people who know this stuff call Classical Liberalism and Social Liberalism. Classical liberalism was just plain old Liberalism until Social Liberalism came along; then the poli sci professors had to coin a new term in retrospect.

    Classical liberalism emphasizes civil liberties, property rights, free markets, the rule of law and limited government. Social liberalism (again from Wikipedia) "is a political ideology that seeks to find a balance between individual liberty and social justice. Like classical liberalism, social liberalism endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, and education." Social liberalism has a lot more emphasis on some semblance of equality of outcomes.

    I think you can see where I'm going here. Republicans tend to embrace classical liberalism. Democrats embrace social liberalism. And obviously there's some overlap (like on same sex marriage).

    But here's the thing. Social liberalism in the United States dates back to the 1880s. This was after abolition and after an amendment granting universal suffrage to woman had already been proposed (although it took forty years to pass, a number of states had by then already allowed women varied rights to vote). So you can't say that "Steven's team" has always been on the wrong side of history. For most of our history, my team was the only team. And you can't say that social liberals drove abolition or suffrage; the best you can say is that they would have also supported abolition and suffrage.

    Since FDR, social liberalism has been the ascendant political ideology. Classical liberals may have been on the wrong side of some change - like Social Security and maybe even unionization - but we were on the right side of the fight against the Soviet Union and communism dating back to the 1920s while social liberals were looking to embrace both.

    Obamacare is the ultimate social liberal experiment. Who's on the right side of this history remains to be seen.
  • Actually I took it that conservatives are resistant to change. Which is the classic definition of conservative. Today's conservatives can be adequately defined as reactionaries.

    Again, meaningless. You're basically saying people who are resistant to change are always on the wrong side of change.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,382 Senior Member
    Not me. Sometimes the status quo is perfectly fine.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,382 Senior Member
    Social liberalism has a lot more emphasis on some semblance of equality of opportunity.

    This would be more correct.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • Social liberalism has a lot more emphasis on some semblance of equality of opportunity.

    This would be more correct.

    The way Social liberals get to this is through equal outcomes.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,382 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    The way Social liberals get to this is through equal outcomes.

    Only in your prejudiced view point. Nobody thinks that a kid who doesn't go to college should have the same outcome as a kid with a Masters.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • I think Steven is offering the classically liberal as a way to freeze liberalism to it's position in 1789. Thus ignoring the progressive movement. Progressivism since its beginnings under TR has been about using government as a cudgel against the excesses of industrialists, or as we would refer to them today corporations. The chief argument is that power resides in the will of the American people and not in the wishes of the rich and powerful. That government rules our democracy, not Standard Oil.

    lol. You think that's what progressivism is?

    https://newrepublic.com/article/128144/dark-history-liberal-reform?utm_content=bufferdc94b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer


    And this source's progressive bona fides cannot be questioned. TNR was at the vanguard of the movement.
  • Only in your prejudiced view point. Nobody thinks that a kid who doesn't go to college should have the same outcome as a kid with a Masters.

    Well nobody in their right mind would say it out loud. But is this not the impetus for progressive taxation? Isn't this what Obama really meant when he asked Joe the Plumber if he didn't want to spread the wealth around?Don't social liberal thinks everybody has the right to go to college? And heaven forbid the kid that doesn't shouldn't be able to make $15 an hour.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,382 Senior Member
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,382 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Well nobody in their right mind would say it out loud. But is this not the impetus for progressive taxation? Isn't this what Obama really meant when he asked Joe the Plumber if he didn't want to spread the wealth around?Don't social liberal thinks everybody has the right to go to college? And heaven forbid the kid that doesn't shouldn't be able to make $15 an hour.

    No we think the cost of an education should not be what prevents someone who is capable, from achieving it.

    I think it is hysterical that you think $15 an hour is an equality of outcome in a world of Donald Trumps.

    You and Sherb have spent so much of your life disparaging liberalism that you never really bothered to understand it in anyway other than how William F Buckley would define it.

    Which makes Sherb's constant refrain that conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives utter horse ****.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • The eugenicists believed that they were on the right side of history too.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,382 Senior Member
    Are there any eugenicists left?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • The Fuhrer-the ultimate progressive believer in the power of the state to ameliorate social ills-gave them a bad reputation.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,382 Senior Member
    ****, that is what you bring to the table, ****? Desperate much?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • Bryan goes back to CG's thinking - if you take the history of the Scopes Monkey Trial as we were all taught it.

    So Bryan was supposedly (as we were taught) against the teaching of evolution. Conservative.
    But Bryan gave the Cross of Gold Speech. Liberal. Progressive.
  • sherb wrote: »
    The Fuhrer-the ultimate progressive believer in the power of the state to ameliorate social ills-gave them a bad reputation.

    Oh Snap.
  • You and Sherb have spent so much of your life disparaging liberalism that you never really bothered to understand it in anyway other than how William F Buckley would define it.

    Actually, I thought I did a pretty good job given that I could only see about four lines at a time. That's not easy.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,382 Senior Member
    The minimum wage was created to destroy jobs; progressives (including the founders of this magazine) really did hate small businesses and they were all way too enthusiastic about Germany’s social structure.

    Interesting, I would be interested if there are any facts to support this, but all those liberals are dead. So we have to ask ourselves who now hates small business more. Whenever Bill Clinton offered tax breaks for small business the Republicans called it spending. Who hates small business, those who think that corporations should be able to hide profits overseas, or those that think that large corporations should not have a tax advantage that small businesses cannot exploit? Those that think we should provide an insurance market that small businesses can participate in or those that want to maintain a system where large corporations have a competitive advantage in that marketplace?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,382 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Bryan goes back to CG's thinking - if you take the history of the Scopes Monkey Trial as we were all taught it.

    So Bryan was supposedly (as we were taught) against the teaching of evolution. Conservative.
    But Bryan gave the Cross of Gold Speech. Liberal. Progressive.

    Can you point out any liberals that now believe we should not be teaching evolution? Because I can point out several GOP candidates that believe we shouldn't.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • No, I just know the reality.

    The meta-debate within this thread proves exactly my point. In order for history to matter, there must be a presupposition that human nature evolves, that culture is autonomous and self-generating, and that eternal truths about human nature and its relation to the social order do not exist independent of us making them up. And maybe that's true. Maybe there is a "wrong side of history" to be on. But our constitutional order is based on the founders understanding of the tension between human nature and social order dating back to antiquity. Government exists to reduce or moderate the tension, but not to eliminate it, because it cannot be eliminated.. The progressives, great leftists that they were, found all of this to be horribly anachronistic and sought to replace the existing constitutional order with a technocratic elite that would be better able to manage the idiosyncracies of modern life. But human nature has a way of reasserting itself.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,382 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Oh Snap.

    Let's not forget that it was a social democrat president, that kicked ****'s ****.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • Can you point out any liberals that now believe we should not be teaching evolution? Because I can point out several GOP candidates that believe we shouldn't.

    If I understand WJ Bryan correctly, the issue he had was not with evolution as we understand it, but social darwinism, which by the way was also a great progressive innovation. Social Darwinism is the inevitable offshoot of subscribing to the hubristic scientism of the age; if it's "science" its clearly an improvement on the past right? This is America. Nothing stands in the way of progress.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,382 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    The progressives, great leftists that they were, found all of this to be horribly anachronistic and sought to replace the existing constitutional order with a technocratic elite that would be better able to manage the idiosyncracies of modern life.

    Hogwash. Name me one liberal politician that is seeking to do this and show your work.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,382 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    If I understand WJ Bryan correctly, the issue he had was not with evolution as we understand it, but social darwinism, which by the way was also a great progressive innovation. Social Darwinism is the inevitable offshoot of subscribing to the hubristic scientism of the age; if it's "science" its clearly an improvement on the past right? This is America. Nothing stands in the way of progress.

    If he was not against Darwinism, why did he want to jail a man for teaching it?

    As to social darwinism, that is now the purview of the conservative movement.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sc-lt-gov-andre-bauer-compares-helping-poor-to-feeding-stray-animals/
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • Can you point out any liberals that now believe we should not be teaching evolution? Because I can point out several GOP candidates that believe we shouldn't.

    And this makes them what? Likely to have voted against abolition?

    The point of that post was to indicate that fault lines and issues are always changing. So somebody might be considered quite to the right on one issue and quite to the left on another. Pope Francis comes to mind.
  • Hogwash. Name me one liberal politician that is seeking to do this and show your work.

    Nice deflection. You said TR and the rest of the progressives were all about power to the people, when they clearly were not. But since you mention it, Bernie is pretty close to a bona fide progressive, with his faith in the power of government. Keep in mind that wants to raise taxes for the sole purpose of reducing income inequality. He wants to turn the US into a Scandinavian country, for Chrissakes. He literally said as much. That's a bridge too far even for Hillary. I can't think of anything more technocratic than that. And the minimum wage is clearly a progressive innovation, as evidenced above.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,382 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    And this makes them what? Likely to have voted against abolition?

    Well you got to admit it is capitalism at its finest. I mean if slavery is the market value of a certain employee, why not?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.