The word liberal has taken quite a beating over the last few decades, and has taken on the false meaning conservatives prefer. By that I mean the word is used in a European context as a near synonym for socialist, though that word is also subject to a continental definition. There are prominent real socialist movements in Europe; there are none in America. Our conservatives, ever in need of a socialist Über Piñata, borrow European rhetorical broomsticks to swing wildly at their own delusions. Never has so much been said by so many who are so clueless.
That American conservatism has taken a European vocation isn’t surprising. American conservatism was only really American for about ten minutes before it became its European parent. In the 1950s, when the movement coalesced around Kirk’s The Conservative Mind, it was an intellectual argument and an American version of its European inspiration. When it became a political movement ideologues devolved it, over time and, as it turns out, overseas, into the mindless commercial venture it has become.
When anyone identifies the President as a Marxist, or calls Social Security socialism, your Idiotometer should light up. Take them seriously at your own cerebral peril.
That intentional mis-definition aside, I have seen many use the word liberal in its dictionary meaning, which isn’t the same as political. Under that definition the liberal - conservative difference could be about whether one ladles a copious amount, or merely dribbles gravy on their mashed potatoes. Or, if one is generous or stingy; open or closed-minded.
Throw out those definitions, political participants, for they are worse than useless; they're wrong and distractive.
For those who shy from liberal and prefer progressive and those who denounce liberalism as socialist and un-American; for those who think independent is a position somewhere between liberal and conservative – I offer this true and factual statement:
America was founded upon liberalism.
So, to realign at least a few Americans with their very liberal heritage, here are some things to consider.
- The simple, political definition of a liberal is one who believes in liberty.
- The Declaration of Independence is a strong statement of liberal philosophy.
- The Constitution is based on the social contract theory of liberal philosophy.
- The Founders who wrote those documents and put them into force were by definition liberals.
- The Founders were not conservatives. If they were, we might still be a British colony.
- The Founders were not libertarians, despite the claims of libertarians.
- The Constitution is not based on libertarianism.
- Libertarian philosophy did not exist in 1776 or 1787.
- There are more nuanced considerations within some of the above stated realities, but none can do more than attempt to obfuscate the simple truth of our liberal heritage.
You can, and should, if you’re interested in the philosophy that influenced our Founders, read the liberal philosophers of The Enlightenment (also known as: “It Never Happened” or “Jefferson, the Missing Years” in many conservative circles and in future Texas schoolbooks). You don’t have to become an expert in liberal philosophy, but you should, as an American, at least gain an existential knowledge of the philosophy.
A reading of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Montesquieu will leave you without doubts about where the inspiration for the Constitution came from. Though there are others, those can fairly be called the Big Four of our liberal roots.
But it you take nothing more from this flyover of our liberal tradition, please quit allowing conservatives and libertarians to beat you over the head with their gross misrepresentations of liberalism. They misrepresent, even when they think they’re right. They selectively quote the Founders like the Devil quotes the Good Book. The Devil though, knows more about the Bible than the average libertarian or conservative knows about the Founders, founding America, the Constitution or the philosophy behind it.
The sad thing is most who refer to themselves as liberal are just as uninformed of the truth of liberalism, and the broad range of possibilities within the philosophy.
America was founded upon liberalism. Any argument concerning public policy within our Constitutional framework revolves around liberalism, no matter what you choose to call yourselves. We, the people, are all liberals to the extent we embrace those founding documents and the philosophy that gave them life. The only difference -- given the false beliefs and rhetoric of too many conservatives and libertarians – is whether we are liberals, or self-hating liberals.
I’m a liberal, and damn proud to be one.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Ted Frier
The Flylooper
Ben Sen
mishima666
Paul Nevins
Ron Robinson
Salon.com
Comments
To be fair, the drift started with the late J.S. Mill.
Early in his life, he was almost a quasi-libertarian, as were the Cobden-Bight British Liberals, capital L, and descended from the British Whigs, not ours, as opposed to the Conservatives a la the Tories.
Later in life, Mill started to think that Liberty couldn't mean as much if you had no money to exercise it, and started to move to the left, which was where the Liberals were, and on into what would become the Labor Party, which was Socialist, although kind of a descendent of "liberal" little L.
And it has been a mess since around them.
A big part of the argument among Liberals, big L and little L has it seems to me to do with the whether you think process is enough, as opposed to substance.
In other words, if you are legally free to do what you want, as long per Mill you don't whack someone on the snout, then you can be a Liberal of the Libertarian bent, although modern liberals tend to point out, like the later Mill, that how free are you really if you are dirt poor because of a lack of infrastructure, for example.
Good luck winning your argument though, as I have had this with people for a long time, but habit is the driving force of life it would seem like, which would be one of the real insights of Conservatives, big C, some of whom, confusingly enough, think that their worship of the market makes them a conservative, when they are a species of Lockean Liberal.
I hope that wasn't confusing. :)
The same is true of those who claim laissez faire as an inviolate principle within liberalism. There's no room for unregulated markets living in a state of nature, might-makes-right framework when we, the people, cannot and do not.
It is a fun argument, though, especially considering how far from meaning our political lexicon has drifted.
I received you 5x5, Don. Thanks for adding information.
I will study your links to the 'big 4.'
Nanate
Hay!
I believe that's called projectile liberalism.
Defending life or property, or delivering liberalism to the resistant by illiberal means...like the French Revolution.
BTW, I especially enjoy it when the Rightists make socialist, liberal and communist all sound like one long word...
Those who use libtard are conservatards.
Besides chat rooms, where up to 140 conservatards gather in an attempt to form a genius, I know of only one libertarded conservatard around here who does the same.
It can be fun, in a way, to toy with them, but you have to play your tards right.
to many on the right, socialistcommunistfascistliberal is one thought...if one can use "thought" to describe the result of not thinking.
So no "progressivism" for me. I'm a liberal, like Thomas Paine. If that's not a distinguished tradition, I don't know what is.
I can exempt those from other countries from the implication of my title, but as you point out, liberals exist everywhere.
The left-right spectrum also has a different "centerpoint" outside of America.
Those conservatives who invoke Paine probably don't know he lambasted Burke, the granddaddy of conservatism, or that he was a "socialist" by some definitions, certainly most of theirs.
I'm out for a couple of hours, and will respond, if more comment, upon returning.
rated
Y'see that woman or man over there who has, while fighting with her/his own psychological devils, volunteered to help out at the soup kitchen or the food bank? They'll never likely hear our discussion of these weighty matters. They, my friends are too busy BEING liberals to have time for the deliberations of the intellectually gifted.
But what Conservatives invariably overlook (refuse to see) is Hobbes answer to the jungle was not greasing the way for Big Cats, but advancing a civilized society -- and that was only possible if men agreed to surrender some measure of their liberty for the common good, what he called the Commonweal.
And why should any Big Cat do any such thing? Hobbes provided the perfect answer, one no one has improved upon, one even the most selfish bastards on the planet ought to understand and accept (but alas they don't do either): "Even the strongest man must eventually sleep."
Hobbes pointed out that applied to the king as well, and that any king who wanted to keep his head ought to rule in a way that benefited the Commonweal. Unfortunately, today's Profiteer-Kings fail to comprehend or care about such trivialities as the Commonweal, and thus they risk becoming targets rather than role models.
By the way, I would add Adam Smith , the world's foremost apologist for capitalism, to your list of Liberals, since he, too, argued that the true purpose of capitalism was to promote the Commonweal. Try selling that CDO (Conservative Dogma Opposition) at Goldman Sux.
I'm starting a new party. It will all be announced on Saturday.
six,
It doesn't matter what others think, the truth is what matters.
There's nothing inherently intellectual about holding a simple existential understanding, nor does an intellectual viewpoint free anyone from duty in aligning their reasoning with reality. Ayn Rand, for example, was an intellectual.
Because liberalism is the basis of our gov institutions and political society, just acting within that framework is liberalism as a state of being. You may notice those who call themselves conservatives-libertarians spend an inordinate amount of time responding to issue discussions with ideological rules. Not whether or not our gov health care policy should be this-or-that, but that, according to ideological rules...and often specious Constitutional argument, it should not be at all.
Liberal philosophy is broad in scope, and as any philosophy worthy of the name, seldom replaces reason with rules. The basic idea is easily understood, and then allows you to reason based on the idea as any true philosopher would. We don't call the Enlightenment the Age of Reason fer nuttin'.
I can combine this response and make it more interesting.
Stellaa, when you say socialist, I tilt my head, look at ya sideways and ask, in a hillbilly twang -- how big a socialist are ye?
Are you a citizens own means and distribution of production, with a libertarianesque withering away of the state, dictatorship of the proletariat? Or do we start moving right from there, and add qualifying terms? Democratic socialism? Conservative socialism? (there's a fun topic!)
In other words, to what extent? Socialist implies you're all in with socialism. To what extent, if not all in, would you apply social programs? If, for example, single payer health care insurance, assured minimum income or living standard, social security and other social insurances against catastrophic loss would complete your idea of a decent society, then you would (listen up, Oahu) align with Hayek's opinion---and he was a classical liberal.
Hayek is a good way to point out the scope of options within a single philosophy. I've yet to see a conservative use The Road to Serfdom as a blanket argument against socialism-as-social programs who has actually read the book.
So, Stellaa, are you a socialist in the strictest, sans-hyphenated qualifying word sense, or are you drifting to the left side of liberalism?
Hobbes' most relevant contribution as far as I'm concerned is the idea of a social contract. The other 3 also opined on that subject. Locke, as Don points out, being the major influence on the Constitution and our Lockean liberal tradition. Rousseau sings loudly in Jefferson's D of Independence.
Hobbes' social contract was more about agreement between subjects and king than the more expansive liberty of self rule. Like Burke, then, the rule of nobles, aristocrats and state religion with a more limited liberty for the citizens. Conservatism-as-we-know-it -- a change in names of those who rule being the difference.
If I remember correctly, as I'm too lazy to look again, Rousseau disagrees with Hobbes' idea of humans in a state of nature, saying he takes them as they were at the time and simply drops them back into the woods. There they act out the violence that existed only after centuries of conditioning. Nasty, brutish and short -- but also ignoring the social DNA, perhaps, of man in a true, primal state of nature.
Most of our Conservatives In A Nasty, Brutish and Short State of Nature would do well by getting slapped by Smith's Invisible Hand.
I like parties!
Will it be bong-optional?
Don Rich aside, who is a true conservative who knows this subject with a deeper understanding than I...and who, unlike the stereotypical OS conservative doesn't say he is, he just IS, and knows what that means.
So, Don aside, here's my comment section so far joke for thou and the proudly self identified OS conservatives:
Knock, knock?
Who's there?
Open Salon conservative.
Open Salon conservative who?
I ain't comin' in anyway, and I ain't sayin' who...
Sorry to see y'all couldn't make it....
During the 08 election cycle a lifelong friend sent me one of those viral "Obama's a Muslim commie" emails and he made a reference to "you liberals!" I asked him why he would look down his nose at me like that, the root word is liber which simply means "free man." I told him that I like being a free man and proudly wear the label. Then I verbally tore his email to shreds and I have not heard from him since. Pity.
BTW, this TV ad in Spain may sway people to become socialists:
Orgasms and socialism go hand-in-hand!
I kind of liked that line also.
Brandeis said sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Perhaps pissing all over the terrible twos tempter tantrum of the true believer troll is the best antibiotic.
Some libertarians will claim a Locke connection to libertarianism.
Close, but not quite. The countering argument to make to those loopy liber-types is the one above---it didn't even exist then.
That video is freakin' hilarious. When Harry met Sally at the polling place, sort of. I may see if they'll let me vote.
You might point out that the Constitution's first 3 words - We, the people...is far too collectivist to be libertarian. Not at all a specious argument.
http://open.salon.com/blog/traveller1/2010/11/02/liberal_gene_found
Rated!
Interesting article. Maybe we should breed for liberalism.
One indicator of being a self described liberal is a post grad education. While college grads in general have trended towards Republican, therefore conservative, as they are now one and same.
This led Karl Rove to observe that he likes voters educated, but not too educated. It's getting more not-too-educated every election cycle.
"It's getting more not-too-educated every election cycle." I will be posting on this very thing shortly
Appreciate the links.
No one can tell me my comment wasn't accurate, I used to be an Austrian Serf ... and I don't go in for reincarnation.
IMUA
Hayek is certainly linked to Austrian economics - neoliberalism, but what I say is true. The libertarian Austrian School peeps have long derided Hayek as "the Pinko" for his views.
The conservatives, at least those few who know something worth knowing, haven't had much use for Hayek -- who was definitely a early influence on the movement -- since Hayek wrote this essay in 1960 -- Why I Am Not a Conservative:
http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46
After that, and among the water-headed ideologues that haunt the hollowed halls of the conservative intelligentsia -- Hayek was scrubbed from hero-hood...like Stalin. Ideologues can't stand dissent.
In other words, if you make the individual the only root of society, you are rejecting what original Conservaism was about by Burke.
I think the reason most conservatives are acting at least like right-libertarians is it's painfully easy to adopt a nihilistic opinion about government. Conservatism is now a brand name, mostly, and commercial, and geared towards exciting the least politically intelligent among us. It doesn't take much gray matter to burn things down.
The political journey of conservatism went for warm bodies instead of minds, so other influences - racism, religion, libertarianism, and good ol' down home Republican Party wealth considerations -- overwhelmed the original, state of mind, not an ideology Burke-Kirk conservatism.
To me, libertarianism is an ideology parading as philosophy. It might have an epistemological construction, but the political result is too simplistic, and doesn't work in a diverse society anyway.
But it's so easy to understand - even a dog can be trained to be libertarian.
I am thrilled to read that you are proud to be liberal. The dictionary often associates “generosity” with being liberal; and you have certainly been generous with me.
Being liberal, in a political sense, is now often associated with being broadminded. As such, liberals often believe that they are not strictly bound by the tenets of authoritarianism. Neither are they closely aligned with orthodoxy or traditional forms.
It’s this latter specification of being liberal that helps draw the clearest distinction with conservatives. Political conservatives often define themselves by an adherence to traditional views and values. They seek preservation. They tend to oppose change.
These two political definitions contrast in a near antonymic sense. Hence, they appeal to me as defining characteristics of opposing governing and policy making philosophies.
You may find these definitions quaint and unsophisticated. You almost certainly will disagree with them; although, in our entire multi-year relationship, I am uncertain whether you have ever been specific regarding the definition of being liberal – or conservative, for that matter.
Nevertheless, substantive debate is founded upon specific mutual agreements on fundamentals between the opposing parties. In this case, you and I should probably come to terms, to the extent possible, with more precisely what constitutes “conservative” and “liberal” political philosophies.
While it may be important to clarify this for the purposes of theoretical debate, such philosophical distinctions do not, and will not, play a large part in the process of resolving the large problems America now faces. Let me illustrate this by making three points.
First, no human interested in the practical art and science of governance is wholly liberal, conservative, socialist, progressive, libertarian, or whatever. In fact, these are not mutually exclusive terms.
Further, a politician may be fiscally conservative in the sense he believes that government at every level should publish, and abide by, balanced budgets. Yet, he may also be socially liberal in the sense that he believes that government should issue money to those who find themselves unemployed under certain conditions.
Second, being aligned with a philosophy is NOT dependent upon when the philosophy was defined. For example, Jesus was clearly born a Jew. Depending on what events one chooses to define the establishment of the Christian religion, one may claim that Christianity wasn’t philosophically defined until the canonizations of the books of the New Testament from the 4th through the 16th centuries.
Yet, if the core belief of Christianity is that Jesus was the Christ, then Jesus was a Christian when he died on the cross, rose from the dead, and was ascended into Heaven – long before any portion of the New Testament was written. In much the same way, our founding fathers could well have been libertarians, and some certainly were, even though this philosophy was not founded until well after the last of the authors of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederacy, Constitution, Federalist Papers, and etc., was in the ground.
Third, you make a good case that our founders were (at one time) liberal. Your argument is one with which I agree. Had they not been open minded enough to consider the possibilities of rejecting the authority of the English crown, we would never have become a nation independent of Britain.
That doesn’t preclude that these same men subsequently became conservatives in the sense that they then became loyal to the traditions, and sought to preserve the values, associated with the revolution that gained our independence and to which they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.
In fact, their principles of a small, representative, national government holding together a loose union of States were significantly modified only once when we abandoned the Confederacy in favor of the Republic we now have. On any one of those days after the Revolutionary War; however, they each would have bitchslapped you so hard that your Mama would have hurt had you stood in front of them and suggested that their national government be expanded to consider direct taxation of individual income in part to provide retirement benefits to the elderly. They may have similarly abused Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt on these grounds as well.
How things have changed. . . . .
You're smart (ass) enough to be an independent thinker. My recommendation is not to confine yourself to the limits of the label of being "liberal".
Chris
Liberal is not a confinement of thinking, it's the expansion over such trivial concepts as libertarian philosophy, or conservative mindset (conservatism isn't a philosophy).
One could be a conservative in an American sense, and wish to preserve our liberal institutions of governing and a certain stasis of tradition within the scope of governing, ie: a stricter reading of state's rights. To be an American conservative is to....pay attention...operate entirely...en-tire-ly within a liberal framework.
Or, one can be a conservative in its original meaning - preserving the rule of nobles, aristocrats and state religions. This is where our conservatism seems to be heading.
After all my efforts to throw generic dictionary meanings aside in favor of political...you spend half your comment on definitions that have no real connection to political meaning.
If your opinions of governance stay within Constitutional lines, they are wholly liberal. Libertarian is a contradiction to liberalism. Two different animals, with differing foundational beliefs. Conservatism either is American, and operates within liberalism, or it is the conservatism our Founders fought against to establish a very un-conservative liberal nation. Socialism is in opposition to liberalism. Progressive can mean whatever those who use it wish it to mean, and American conservatism was never against being progressive--until lately. So, yes, mutually exclusive in many instances where you say not. Yes, they are spelled differently because they have different meanings.
Fiscal responsibility wasn't a tenet of conservatism until Ronnie Reagan made it one...just before he started America on a trend of massive deficits and debt. To say fiscal restraint is conservative is to imply liberalism isn't. The fact is it's a trait or quality or belief, and has no direct tie to either word, except in the minds of those who find the terms confusing.
You may be able to find a Founder who was a libertarian, though I wish you well in your search. What you won't find is a libertarian Constitution, as our liberal one far exceeds the idea of libertarian liberty. I'm sure that what you see as libertarian are actually concepts that fit well within liberalism, which precedes libertarianism, therefore has claim to those ideas. "Small government," though not in the Constitution, is not a libertarian idea; it's liberal. Next-to-no government is libertarian.
The Founders were liberals. At that time, and now. Liberalism is a philosophy, unlike conservatism, and cannot change its stripes as does conservatism every....15 years or so. Keep in mind those foundational conservatives, like Goldwater and Buckley...would be RINOed out of today's "conservative" GOP.
So, to say the Founders, in their desire to preserve our liberal tradition, were conservatives...is sort of silly, isn't it? Those who hold to liberal philosophy of course wish to conserve it, and put it into use in their own time. That makes them liberals...then, and now.
If you think the Founders would adopt a modern conservative view of the limits of government, and would reject concepts like social security, you're not thinking. First, you ass/u/me they wouldn't respond to the changing conditions of society and economics. You haven't read enough Jefferson or Paine, and so don't grasp the fuller view of what constitutes liberty. You probably would be shocked to find the anti-regulatory beliefs of the modern conservatives were roundly rejected by the Founders. Socialists!!
The fact is that if you stood before the Founders offering the modern conservative viewpoint, they may well have had you tarred and feathered, and shipped back to England as a Tory rabble-rouser .
Liberalism is to take in the full scope of realities to craft liberty within and to advantage a working model of society. It is not nearly as limited in scope as those who think conservatism is a set of policy prescriptives and not a mindset operating within liberalism -- which is what original American conservatism was. In fact, before movement conservatism, conservatives were liberals in what they considered a Jeffersonian meaning. Well....if you scratch out some of Jefferson's thinking, that is.
After I went to some effort to explain why "independent" ISN'T a position between liberal and conservative, you wind this up by making the mistake of saying it is.
The ones with the restricted thinking are the modern conservatives-who-largely, almost entirely-- have no idea of what conservatism means, except what the latest marketing version is. To me, conservatism is hogwash -- a tabloid marketing effort aimed at preserving conservatism-as-a-brand name. It bears little resemblance to the intellectual argument and nuanced set of beliefs of its origin. It has become an ideology --exactly what it was never supposed to be. And radical--exactly what it was never supposed to be. And fanatical -- enough that poor Russ Kirk is probably spinning in his grave, along with Buckley.
To the extent conservatives adopt the contradictory concept of libertarianism, they restrict the bounds of their ability to reason even further.
Thanks for taking time to explain your entirely personal beliefs of what those political words mean. If you don't mind, I'll stay with the actual meanings. The one point you make that is important is that the labels aren't what matters in discussions of policy. However, and to the intent of this post -- they mean something when you're discussing what they mean.
Face it, Chris. You're a liberal.
I promise I won't tell your friends.
You circuitous, circumspect conservative!
To be truthful, I don’t spend much time contemplating the nuanced, extra-dictionary, definitions of political philosophies. More often, I wish that the effort people put into specifying such things would instead be directed by them towards making courageous statements regarding what good government is.
It has long been my contention that good government is much more the result of common sense and fortitude than it is the kind of fuzzyheaded intellect that William Frank Buckley displayed and that Katrina vanden Heuvel displays. Unfortunately, few we send to Washington seem to posses either such wisdom or bravery once they tread on the floors of our public buildings.
In the House of Representatives, the blacks have their Black Caucus. Presumably, this is a group interested in promoting those “good” things that the federal government can do for Blacks.
The Republicans have their caucus. The Democrats have their caucus. Now the Tea Party adherents have their caucus. I just don’t see the “What’s Good for America - Balanced Budget” caucus.
In opposition to your thinking, Paul, the Blue Dog Coalition (conservative Democrats) is distinct from, and not a subset of, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (liberal and progressive Democrats). Be that as it may, I just don’t see the “What’s Good for America - Let’s Fix Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid” coalition.
Nevertheless, I will stick with my prediction that political philosophies won’t matter when the urgency of each of America’s problems reaches such imminently destructive potential that even the corrupt feel compelled to act in contravention to their own self-interest.
In the meantime, what comforts me on these cold winter nights in Phoenix is the fantasy of me being your hero. I dream that a group of pissed off rednecks, thinly disguised as Indians, have stormed onto some ships in Boston Harbor in pursuit of nothing but sheer vandalism on behalf of a cherished political value.
To stop them, you have first attempted to give your “Liberals Are Smarter Than This!” speech at the Old South Meeting House. You have been shouted down.
Then, from deck of the Dartmouth, you attempt to give your “Taxes Are Good – Tea is Cheap!” speech. Sam Adams himself heaves you over the railing.
My dream ends with me looking into those cold, dark, waters of December 1773. Among all those tea crates I scan for any sign of you. Above the sounds of those agitators sweeping up their mess on the decks of those American ships whose East India company cargo they just destroyed I shout, “Paul! Are you OK?”
Your response always reassures me. “Chris, over here! Those stupid conservatives just don’t understand that they are really liberals. . . .”
Chris
The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation, not the conservative complaint about taxes being so high they have to borrow less money from China to fund their deficits. Given the record of conservative top end tax slashing and the resulting massive debt...and being responsible for the destruction of the US economy...I wonder why you have the chutzpah to bring up the subject.
Also, though, the real Tea Party was against corporate monopolies. The merchants joining the rebels helped make the Party possible.
Then those same people, after the Revolution and through their state legislatures, leveraged very tight controls over for profit corporations. Corps were restricted to tasks specifically laid out in their charters; couldn't hold stock in other corps; were often told what level of profits they could make; their books were available for review by the legislatures; they could be disbanded if it was thought they were not acting in the public interest. Shareholders and managers were directly responsible for any crimes committed by the corp-- no "corporate veil" of limited liability. Corp charters had time limits after which, barring re-chartering by state legislatures--they were forced to disband and pay off shareholders. They were forbidden to participate in politics in any form.
Explain that last one to our "conservative" USSC justices with their strict constructionism, originalism, and blatant ideological writing law from the bench.
"Socialists!" Chris cried out, his words only confusing the Founders, and convincing them that Chris belonged in the booby hatch...
Abandon ye all wishful thinking that those Founders and founding Americans were conservatives in any form, other than, perhaps, that they didn't drink all their tea at one sitting. They were bigger liberals and, with the above information, bigger "socialists" than you can imagine, evidently.
No Founder would have embraced the conservative's disinterest in maintaining the elements of a strong economy. They protected American workers and businesses, they did not sell them out to foreign investors to imitate "growth." They were not laissez faire, free market fools...but neither were conservatives, back when the movement was founded.....founded by, keep in mind: RINOs.
Jefferson and Madison would have kicked every Conservative ass in all 13 states over their manipulative use of religion as a wedge issue. Jefferson in particular would resent being written out of American history by conservatives who want to delete the church/state separation of Enlightenment thinking, and Jefferson's "wall of separation."
Orwellian, isn't it? Jefferson down the Memory Hole.
They haven't gotten to Madison yet, as they are too damn ignorant to know he called for a "strong separation."
Mao spent less time rewriting history than do our conservatives. What nice company y'all are running with.
You've been watching too much Glenn Beck, listening to too much Rush, and believing too much crap from the conservative propaganda machine. The idea of the "Conservative" Founders is yet another element of that propaganda, and has zero relation to the truth. However, it does help sell a lot of Metamucil and Depends™.
So, like I said, preach your "conservative values" to the Founders and they would have, with help from founding Americans, tarred and feathered you and packed you onto an outbound ship to send your Tory ass back to England. In your case, they might have arranged the ship sinking in the middle of the Atlantic.
Nice try, Chris, but ya just ain't up to it...and it never happened. Conservatism as it now exists is the worst thing to happen to American since the Civil War. It is very dis-American, and in many ways anti-American. It's garbage. Russell Kirk died first, then was murdered by mindless hordes of rabid "conservative" fanatics.
Calling that "Kirkstallnacht" frames it properly.
Read this again. Maybe this time the lesson will 'take."
http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_orourke/2010/04/13/glenn_beck_and_the_tea_party_ghost
You missed tagging conservatism with pedophilia, mad cow disease, and the Holocaust. However, I am sure that you will get to these allegations in future posts.
The truth is, it doesn’t bother me much with what political philosophy you wish to align me. You will be incorrect in any case; and I will continue to claim that political philosophies themselves aren’t to blame for the initializing events that led to our current difficulties, nor will they be important to the solutions.
For example, balancing the federal budget and reducing our national debt are policies with which most politicians will agree, no matter what their persuasion or affiliation. True, political philosophies, more precisely political disagreements, have kept us away from the solutions to these problems.
However, the FY10 federal fiscal picture is such a disaster that even this liberal and socialist President had to act. His deficit commission final report contains some real gems, among them that the federal government is horribly managed and that all the health reform legislation claims to cost savings are bogus. Funny. . . . .
In the face of this kind of news, the urgency with which cuts need to be made will override the interests of even the most self-serving politicians, be they blue, yellow, black, conservative, liberal, socialist, progressive, libertarian, or tea flavored. You can take that one to the bank -- cuts are coming -- probably many more spending decreases than revenue increases -- probably big cuts in "liberal" programs, like Social Security (e.g., raising the retirement [i.e., benefit] ages).
Gee, and I probably would have qualified next year. Damn! Good thing I saved, although the government was damn sure against me doing it. They promised they would help take care of me in my old age. Damn, damn, damn. . . . .
Sorry, I got distracted. . . . . .
I won’t pester you for the next month as I will be out of the country. However, I do wish you and yours a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
I will look forward to your educating me on the errors of my ways, and futility of subscribing to the shallowness that is conservatism, when I return.
Respectfully,
Chris
"Waiting for Superman" was a little vague on whether you get paid per child or per pound.
Some issues don't fit well into the labeling. Is believing that military spending is far in excess of the country's needs a liberal or conservative view? Most on the left would agree with the proposition; most on the right would not. But it's hard to pin this into the traditional liberal-conservative categories.
Same with global warming. Is it liberal to accept the conclusions of virtually every climate scientist everywhere that it's happening and is exacerbated by carbon emissions due to human activity? I can't see the fit.
Thanks very much for posting this.