Liberalism; then and now

[pioneer]

Most of my life I considered myself part of the liberal movement. It was only over the past few years that I decided to go against them. It has to do with the original positive charter having become very regressive. I am not a conservative, by try to stay sort of in the middle.

 

Back in the 1960's and early 1970's the liberals were part of the "love generation". They actually set the ethical standards higher. Let me give one example. Back then divorce was still quite rare. But there were some women in very difficult situations, due to abusive husbands. But there was a social stigmatism against divorce. It was not just their own self that felt social shame, but the shame could extend to their family, as the gossip minded neighbors would add self rightoeusness to the misery.

 

The original liberal movement tried to open people's mind's to love and acceptance. It was not pro-divorce, per se, but tries to protect those who needed to take that step, against moral self righteousness. The morality of the day was old fashion, i.e., old testament, and the love generation was much more connected to the new testament teachings of Jesus; love and forgiveness. This set the bar of ethics high and culture shifted.

 

But unfortuneately, the bar didn't stay high for long, but started to lower further and further, until today, divorce is treated like a form of dating. It was not originally intended to break the family but protect the needy. The bar is lower now than what the liberals fought against in the 1960's. If you trace most of the progressive social changes, which once set higher social standards, they all have seemed to have regressed to a standard that is now so low, you can't help but trip over the bar.

 

Part of this change, began in the late 1970's and was connected to the disco era. The love generation had done its social service, the Viet Nam War was over, so the times began to change. These times were more for the new lust generation, that was fuel with cocaine. The push today toward safe sex and don't do drugs, may be due to that generation doing enough of both for two generations. Asked your liberal parents.

 

By then, the gays were now more socially accepted. The letting out of the closet during this time, led to 100,000 gay AIDS deaths. The liberals are in a state of denial about this to avoid accepting any responsiblity. The high ethical bar set by loving social acceptance, became a free ticket to degenerate. It is sort of like a teenager getting his parents to get used to the idea of him driving the car, by showing how responsible he was. Once the parents gives in, now it was time to act like a fool. But by then it is too late to take the keys away, since the teen now needs the car. To the liberal mind anything stable is suspect, they are the only pure people.

 

What also began to happen was a stronger movement toward aethiesm. What this allowed was the removal of all ethical standards so the bar could drop just about as far it could go, without any sense of moral guilt. How could one degenerate in peace if a God might be watching. At the beginning one protected accused criminals against getting being rail roaded by a justice system that sometimes, had built in bias. But as time went on, protecting the criminal was a way to protect themselves.

 

History seems to indicate that liberal good intention reaches a peak, which actually moves things to a higher level for a short time. But they can't seem to sustain that high standard, but use it as an excuse to regress. Save the environment is a noble cause. But it then leads to an excuse to be a butthead that can now interfere anywhere it wants. The liberal organization is the Democratic party, mainstream media and Hollywood. They control most of the educational system. They encourage failure with high emotional but low intellectual standards. The idea appears to stupid/degenerate the youth so they are easier to control.

 

A part of me can still see what liberalism once was, but what they have become is lower than that which they originally tried to change. What the rest of the world sees as the failure of America are due to liberal doctrine and that well oil liberal propaganda puppet, call the American media.

[geoguy]

Most of my life I considered myself part of the liberal movement. It was only over the past few years that I decided to go against them. It has to do with the original positive charter having become very regressive. I am not a conservative, by try to stay sort of in the middle.

 

Back in the 1960's and early 1970's the liberals were part of the "love generation". They actually set the ethical standards higher. Let me give one example. Back then divorce was still quite rare. But there were some women in very difficult situations, due to abusive husbands. But there was a social stigmatism against divorce. It was not just their own self that felt social shame, but the shame could extend to their family, as the gossip minded neighbors would add self rightoeusness to the misery.

 

The original liberal movement tried to open people's mind's to love and acceptance. It was not pro-divorce, per se, but tries to protect those who needed to take that step, against moral self righteousness. The morality of the day was old fashion, i.e., old testament, and the love generation was much more connected to the new testament teachings of Jesus; love and forgiveness. This set the bar of ethics high and culture shifted.

 

But unfortuneately, the bar didn't stay high for long, but started to lower further and further, until today, divorce is treated like a form of dating. It was not originally intended to break the family but protect the needy. The bar is lower now than what the liberals fought against in the 1960's. If you trace most of the progressive social changes, which once set higher social standards, they all have seemed to have regressed to a standard that is now so low, you can't help but trip over the bar.

 

Part of this change, began in the late 1970's and was connected to the disco era. The love generation had done its social service, the Viet Nam War was over, so the times began to change. These times were more for the new lust generation, that was fuel with cocaine. The push today toward safe sex and don't do drugs, may be due to that generation doing enough of both for two generations. Asked your liberal parents.

 

By then, the gays were now more socially accepted. The letting out of the closet during this time, led to 100,000 gay AIDS deaths. The liberals are in a state of denial about this to avoid accepting any responsiblity. The high ethical bar set by loving social acceptance, became a free ticket to degenerate. It is sort of like a teenager getting his parents to get used to the idea of him driving the car, by showing how responsible he was. Once the parents gives in, now it was time to act like a fool. But by then it is too late to take the keys away, since the teen now needs the car. To the liberal mind anything stable is suspect, they are the only pure people.

 

What also began to happen was a stronger movement toward aethiesm. What this allowed was the removal of all ethical standards so the bar could drop just about as far it could go, without any sense of moral guilt. How could one degenerate in peace if a God might be watching. At the beginning one protected accused criminals against getting being rail roaded by a justice system that sometimes, had built in bias. But as time went on, protecting the criminal was a way to protect themselves.

 

History seems to indicate that liberal good intention reaches a peak, which actually moves things to a higher level for a short time. But they can't seem to sustain that high standard, but use it as an excuse to regress. Save the environment is a noble cause. But it then leads to an excuse to be a butthead that can now interfere anywhere it wants. The liberal organization is the Democratic party, mainstream media and Hollywood. They control most of the educational system. They encourage failure with high emotional but low intellectual standards. The idea appears to stupid/degenerate the youth so they are easier to control.

 

A part of me can still see what liberalism once was, but what they have become is lower than that which they originally tried to change. What the rest of the world sees as the failure of America are due to liberal doctrine and that well oil liberal propaganda puppet, call the American media.

 

What a load of baloney. For example the divorce rate is LOWER today than in the 1970's And in the USA it is highest in the conservative Republican 'Red States' and lowest in liberal 'Blue states'.

 

As for God and atheism, etc. hint. The USA, the western nation with the highest belief in mythologies such as the Jesus dude, has the HIGHEST levels of murder, rape and violence and by far the highest level of incarceration. Countries such as Denmark & Sweden with a much higher percent of atheists, have the lowest level of violence.

 

Blacks aren't going back to shining shoes...women aren't going back to playing bridge and Gays aren't going back in the closet. The neo-cons are a minority in a nation that is refinding itself and the USA will soon again be a positive example to the world. You, however, might want to go back to school to learn some facts.

[Pangloss]

Interesting post, pioneer. I was thinking earlier today that a current example of this may be found in the hypocrisy of complaining about the rising cost of living while at the same time insisting that tax cuts are harmful (even when applied to the same economic group!).

 

But I guess where I might differ is in the characterization of this as liberalism. I don't think liberalism itself has become less noble a trait or has even fundamentally changed. What's changed is the current mindset of the thoughtless sheep that follow partisan ideologues around.

 

Specifically, I think that the socio-political group that is typically identified in this country as the "far left" has become so obsessed with George Bush and Republicans in general that it has lost sight of its own ideological principles.

 

The exact same thing is happening on the far right. Conservatism is an inherently normal political position, just as liberalism is. It's not extreme at all, and many important American values are born out of (and continue to be supported by) this tradition, just as the same may be said of liberalism.

 

The reason I think this is an important distinction is that the political extremism in this country has so divided people that they're no longer able to separate "conservatives" from "far rights" or "liberals" from "far lefts". That's bad, because in order for this country to move forward we have to actually embrace mainstream ideological ideals and learn how to find the common ground between them.

 

Instead we sit around demonizing each other, as if that actually makes sense, when in fact the demons are the idiots leading us in the demonization. We (the normal folk) are actually just fine and have changed very little.

[Genecks]

People typically don't understand themselves. Otherwise, people aren't thinking things through. Also, people try to create a fake ethos in social situations. I will have to admit the liberal views have changed. I see some people as social deconstructionists rather than liberals.

[Realitycheck]

As far as I know, the whole party system ever since Rome and probably before that was all about manipulation. The whole thing about party systems is that you always sacrifice something you believe in somewhere, at some point, to achieve most of what you want. Is this a superior system? Go Uncle Jesse!

[Pangloss]

Speaking of which, Slate had a great article on that the other day, on the subject of re-watching the Mike Nichols movie "Primary Colors".

 

But the deeper problem of Primary Colors isn't that it trades in gossip but that it endorses a brand of idealism that's as destructive to politics as corruption. Liberals (and I speak as one) have an unfortunate tendency to confuse compromise with corruption, to mistake the ballot box for the confessional and assume the choice made therein should leave our souls clean. (That's why so many of us have gone off the deep end and voted for Nader.) The challenge the Clintons have always posed to liberals is the challenge of growing up and realizing how things get done. It's the inability to accept the compromises of politics that strands Libby Holden in her Neverland (Kathy Bates' performance strikes the movie's only genuinely tragic notes).

 

Spot-on.

[bascule]

I was thinking earlier today that a current example of this may be found in the hypocrisy of complaining about the rising cost of living while at the same time insisting that tax cuts are harmful (even when applied to the same economic group!).

 

Watch me subdue myself to an overly broad categorization and defend "liberalism":

 

Liberal concern over the cost of living applies mainly to the deleterious effect on the lower class, which is compensated for by a system of progressive taxation designed to minimize tax on the lower class.

 

Liberal concern over tax cuts, especially in recent history, mainly deals with Bush's tax cuts primarily benefiting the upper class while shifting the brunt of the tax curve onto the middle and lower classes.

 

Everyone gets tax cuts... the rich just get more. Meanwhile the national debt caused by our heinously unbalanced budget is destroying the value of the dollar and making imports more expensive for everyone. Who does that hurt the most? Here's a hint: Not the rich who are cashing in on cheap exports.

[ParanoiA]

Bascule - You touched on it but I think you underestimate it's harm - printing money. Printing money we don't have dilutes the value of the dollar which hurts the poor and middle class the most, and I know you know this. This is basically a tax by the government since it doesn't want to reign in spending.

 

This is why cutting spending is more important than probably anything else right now. The refusal to live within our means is killing the poor.

 

And tax cuts for the rich is right. They already pay a higher percentage, which is wrong. Even after tax cuts, they still pay a higher pecentage rate than you or I - generally speaking of course - and that's wrong.

 

Plus, I don't know about you, but I've never been hired by a poor person. The poor and middle class don't manage money as well as the rich, so when we give money back to the poor they run out and buy some new electronic gadgets and we see a little spike in the economic growth chart - then right back where it started. But when you give the rich their money back, more of it gets used on investment and expansion, resulting in more long term economic growth.

 

It's a combination of pragmatism and principle. If it were up to me, I'd abolish the IRS and establish a sales tax instead.

[bascule]

Even after tax cuts, they still pay a higher pecentage rate than you or I - generally speaking of course - and that's wrong.

 

Warren Buffet disagrees

[Pangloss]

Watch me subdue myself to an overly broad categorization and defend "liberalism":

 

Liberal concern over the cost of living applies mainly to the deleterious effect on the lower class, which is compensated for by a system of progressive taxation designed to minimize tax on the lower class.

 

Liberal concern over tax cuts, especially in recent history, mainly deals with Bush's tax cuts primarily benefiting the upper class while shifting the brunt of the tax curve onto the middle and lower classes.

 

Everyone gets tax cuts... the rich just get more. Meanwhile the national debt caused by our heinously unbalanced budget is destroying the value of the dollar and making imports more expensive for everyone. Who does that hurt the most? Here's a hint: Not the rich who are cashing in on cheap exports.

 

That's actually a perfect example of my point. As I said above, that isn't liberalism. That's just one specific issue position that may reflect overall ideology -- or it may simply be about making Republicans/Bush wrong, depending on whom you ask.

 

Thanks for the illustration.

[bascule]

That's actually a perfect example of my point. As I said above, that isn't liberalism. That's just one specific issue position that may reflect overall ideology -- or it may simply be about making Republicans/Bush wrong, depending on whom you ask.

 

Thanks for the illustration.

 

Well yes, that's entirely my point. You're describing an ideology I agree with, but is not necessarily espoused by all "liberals".

 

If anything is proving "Republicans/Bush wrong" it's the floundering dollar and an overall move internationally to different currencies to back various commodities, such as oil...

[PhDP]

The poor and middle class don't manage money as well as the rich

 

Really ? Can you prove it (with something else than a circular argument) ?

[ParanoiA]

Really ? Can you prove it (with something else than a circular argument) ?

 

Why do I need to? That's the fact. People with more money are obviously better at money than people with less money. Common freaking sense. Sure, there's the spoiled rich kids, the hand-me-down empires, the lucky lottery folks, but the american wealthy is made up of more than the stereotypes we're fed everyday.

 

Doesn't matter anyway, the fact is, the majority of the folks that have that kind of money have professionals making sure they keep that kind of money, make more of that kind of money, which means investment - jobs, growth...which is why tax breaks for the upper class creates a far more positive economic impact than a minimum wage flunky splurging on the newest electronic gadget.

[iNow]

ParanoiA,

 

I can completely appreciate the motivation and intent which are the foundation of your words, but you have to concede that you are making some rather blatant generalizations.

 

 

If you want to be more accurate with your statements, perhaps you might try first defining rich and poor.

 

 

Riding the fence...

[ParanoiA]

ParanoiA,

 

I can completely appreciate the motivation and intent which are the foundation of your words, but you have to concede that you are making some rather blatant generalizations.

 

Yes they are generalizations, because specifics are exceptions, not the rule. Generally speaking, the top 1% of wealthy americans keep their money and continue to grow it. Period.

 

I'm in the lower middle class category, trying to get into that 1% bracket. I don't invest in anything because 90% of my income goes to simply maintain the essentials - rent or mortgage payments, food, clothing, utilities - and while this drives those markets, those markets are always driven regardless and hence no economic stimulation - just the standard growth.

 

However, anyone making, say a million or more a year, doesn't spend 90% of their income to simply maintain the essentials. Mortgage, food, clothing, utilities - all certainly more expensive, by choice, but still not 90%. There is "disposable" income present. THIS is the money that gets manipulated in various ways to maintain their status, or to attempt to make more or etc. Held like a miser when taxes are raised, loosened up when taxes are lowered. THIS is the money that can stimulate the economy.

 

In a way, you can think of the bare essentials as static economy, while the disposable income is the dynamic portion. Because it can sit still and do nothing for anybody, or it can be invested, moving around - stimulating growth. They can also buy a bunch of stupid gadgets as well - but the point is you don't get in the top 1% by making bad money decisions.

 

Sure you can find exceptions to this, and that 1% changes faces everyday, people lose, people win - but generally speaking I can count on that top 1% to do more for long term economic growth than me. Certainly the poor and middle class can make good decisions, even long term investment style - but the percentage doing that is obviously FAR lower than the percentage of that 1% doing it.

 

It simply makes more sense to me to give tax breaks to the entities that will stimulate the economy without the emotional charge of their status - IF that's the goal. If the goal is to simply be fair and give us our money back, then everyone should get a tax break. Seems to me that would stimulate the economy the best since the top 1% can do their thing, and we can do ours. However, the government never makes itself "do without" like you or I, so they can only "afford" for so much tax breakage...

[PhDP]

Why do I need to? That's the fact. People with more money are obviously better at money than people with less money. Common freaking sense.

 

I think it’s just a prejudice and has no basis. And I don’t really care about common sense, I care about facts and facts are often destroying arguments based on so-called “common sense”.

 

I don't know what you read about inequalities in America, but the income of most people is determined by their education level and by the sector they are working in; it has little or nothing to do with how good they are at managing money. Of course, it could explain some variations within a sector, but as most inequalities are between sectors (it's in part why the expansion of the service sector in America has increased inequalities), I fail to see how "managing money" could be so important... for most people, at least.

 

Anyway, even if it was true, even if rich people were better at managing money, it wouldn't mean giving them would be rational. Your argument would only be true if inequalities had no impact for the economy, and it's not the case.

[Sisyphus]

It also has to do with what types of careers people choose to go into. I could have gone to business school but didn't, because I wanted a more interesting job than what that would get me. I'm quite careful with my money, but I still have less of it than a lot of people who are not careful, just because I make less.

[ParanoiA]

I don't know what you read about inequalities in America, but the income of most people is determined by their education level and by the sector they are working in; it has little or nothing to do with how good they are at managing money. Of course, it could explain some variations within a sector, but as most inequalities are between sectors (it's in part why the expansion of the service sector in America has increased inequalities), I fail to see how "managing money" could be so important... for most people, at least.

 

Right. So what's your point? I didn't say poor people are little bastards and they deserve it. I said poor people don't have EXTRA money, DYNAMIC surpluses of currency in order to effect the economy with. They can't manage money the way a rich person can - they just don't have it. All of their money is going to feed their kids, fund their college, and etc.

 

And that has SQUAT to do with my point. Tax breaks to these people won't jump start a lagging economy. Please stay on point here. This is the issue you took with me, so refute that. Tax breaks to rich people can jump start an economy AND it's quite long term since they have a tendency to invest and manage their huge purses - as I've already explained above. Good money management fuels a healthy economy.

 

You really don't think a rich person manages and deals with their money in a more long term, investment style strategy? And how do you think an economy grows without that investment? How do poor people provide that investment?

 

Remember, I'm talking about tax breaks to "stimulate the economy" - not a value judgement on who does and doesn't "deserve a tax break". Two completely different arguments that I believe you are trying to merge here.

 

It also has to do with what types of careers people choose to go into. I could have gone to business school but didn't, because I wanted a more interesting job than what that would get me. I'm quite careful with my money, but I still have less of it than a lot of people who are not careful, just because I make less.

 

Also your thinking. I too could have chased money and just went to school in Law or Medicine. But I don't care enough about money to do something I wouldn't enjoy. So, I chose a more enjoyable occupation - with 5 figures rather than 6 or 7.

 

We are "security" people. I don't have the balls to risk everything in my life to try to get a business off of the ground. So, I work for someone else, like most people. We can manage our money terrifically - and still not pump much more into the economy than I would have if I managed it crappy - so much goes to mere survival.

 

Rich people often times think differently than us too. Instead of saying "I can't afford that", they might say "How can I afford that?" Some just aren't scared of money like I am. There is a thought process to be spoken of by many self made wealthy folks that goes beyond just being smart and disciplined - sometimes discipline keeps us down, in the grind, refusal to take a chance. I don't apologize for that, that's how I am. But I don't pretend to think I impact the market like a millionaire either. He's the one with the disposable income that would take me twenty years with no bills to earn.

[Severian]

I agree with the OP to a certain extent, but I think the cause is slightly different. I think what is tagged as 'liberalism' in modern society simply isn't liberalism anymore.

 

To my mind, liberalism is about tolerance - it is letting people live their lives the way they want to live it. I think this is a very admirable goal. But the modern 'liberal movement' doesn't want you to live your life in the way you want to live it - they want you to live your life in the way they want you to live it.

 

We now have lots of lifestyle choices which are labelled as 'liberal' or 'progressive' and if you don't conform to these choices, you are somehow labelled as conservative, repressed, or just downright evil. The modern liberals make it a crusade to reform you to their right way of thinking.

 

Religious belief is a good example. Many liberals seem to have declared atheism to be the correct 'liberal' belief, so if you have any religious belief at all, you are deemed as the enemy. Most religious people just want to be left alone to live their lives as they want to live, but this is not acceptable to the new left.

 

Feminism is another example. There are now an accepted liberal party line about how women should live their lives. It is no longer acceptable for women to stay at home and look after the kids. Any woman who claims that she wants to, is declared to be emotionally abused into saying that she wants to, or a traitor to the feminist movement.

 

With the enormous growth of legislation to protect my rights, I feel a lot less free than I did before...

[Blade]

What a load of baloney. For example the divorce rate is LOWER today than in the 1970's And in the USA it is highest in the conservative Republican 'Red States' and lowest in liberal 'Blue states'.

 

As for God and atheism, etc. hint. The USA, the western nation with the highest belief in mythologies such as the Jesus dude, has the HIGHEST levels of murder, rape and violence and by far the highest level of incarceration. Countries such as Denmark & Sweden with a much higher percent of atheists, have the lowest level of violence.

 

Blacks aren't going back to shining shoes...women aren't going back to playing bridge and Gays aren't going back in the closet. The neo-cons are a minority in a nation that is refinding itself and the USA will soon again be a positive example to the world. You, however, might want to go back to school to learn some facts.

 

QFT

[Pangloss]

What does QFT mean?

 

Nice post Severian.

[Severian]

Somehow I think it doesn't mean what I would usually take it to mean: Quantum Field Theory....

 

and thanks.

[Blade]

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=qft&btnG=Google+zoeken&meta=

first hit

"QFT", internet slang usually meaning "quoted for truth".

[Pangloss]

Oh yes. I think I've seen that at partisan sites like DemocraticUnderground.com. One of the sad side-effects of what happens when demogoguery poses as debate.

 

Thanks for the clarification.