• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can One Be a Leftist or Liberal and Believe in Constitution and Deep-Rooted American Values

I became a liberal from studying American history, beginning in high school, in college where American history was my minor, continuing to the present day. I read every day, usually non fiction and the non fiction is more often American history than any other subject. Reading American history is what separated me early on from my family's conservative leanings.

Here is the solitary intelligent statement in your post: "Authoritarianism isn't progressive, its regressive." The problem is you are speaking against the instincts of Trump, not against liberalism. Liberals today, as they were at the Founding, are the hope of democracy.

Trump is far less authoritarian than was Obama.

Why do you think that Trump is an authoritarian while he is working diligently to dismantle the regulatory power of the federal government?
 
I am an liberal or leftist (not sure of which is a better term) who believes in the Constitution, supporting democracies as allies, and many deep-rooted American values. Mostly, I am an American and believe this is one of the greatest countries on earth.

America got that way because of the people it has drawn from other countries. Until the 1930's the U.S. has offered almost no social "safety net." Coming to a country where the minute you set foot you had to work like crazy and, to boot, in most cases learn a new language was a daunting prospect. Though it is a fictional work, Fiddler on the Roof was based upon historical fact. Its setting, the Western part of Czarist Russia, and now modern Moldova, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were always what should have been paradoxical, despotic, anarchic and chaotic at the same time. The "government" such as it was provided few if any services, and did not enforce law and order. The famous Kishinev Pogroms were a well-known highlight of this state of affairs. People who wanted to make something of their lives simply had no future among drunken peasants that wanted nothing more than to kill them.

One of my four great-grandfathers, and the only one I know anything about was a jeweler in Kiev, Ukraine. A conscript in the Czar's army, he fled when the Army wanted to force a renewal of his term because of his skills. He and my great-grandmother (an arranged marriage in the Jewish tradition of Fiddler on the Roof) fled to New York by way of Montreal. He became a shoemaker in Yonkers, and never really struck it rich. One of their daughters was my maternal grandmother. She married my grandfather, a dentist. They bought a small house in Yonkers. While their lives were not perfect (I understand a bad marriage and alcohol abuse on the part of my grandfather were involved) they put their son (my uncle) and my mother through Syracuse University. My uncle became an executive at a major TV network. My mother became a housewife, and spurred my father to success as an interior architect after an unsuccessful Cornell education as an engineer. I went to Cornell and Boston University Law School and became a lawyer. Only in America would this levitation be possible.

And it was mostly through "the Constitution," (through grudging tolerance for Jews) and hard work, as well as a belief that there really are no limits to growth (except I'm short and didn't grow to the sky), that made all of this possible. Their was no real money in the family and we received little government assistance, except Navy-paid and GI Bill education for my father, and a small amount of unemployment assistance for brief periods between jobs for me.

My OWN life has not been perfect. However, I don't look to find fault or place blames for any of my misfortunes on other people, the government, Donald Trump, etc.

How do I rate myself a left-winger and a liberal? I believe that governments should raise money openly through taxes and not through speed traps, petty regulations and fines, etc. I support integration in the schools and work place, though I am against affirmative action. I am pro-choice. I believe in the public school system. And I support causes anathema to many conservatives, including legalized marijuana and reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone.

Nothing wrong with being a Liberal or Conservative. The two parties have more in common than they would like to admit. A very fine line separates the two. I would prefer a two party system with guaranteed Rights as citizens and all the partisanship which goes with such a system. My family tree can be traced back to the English who were looking for freedom from persecution on the deck of the Mayflower. I have been called a Mass Liberal, leftist, and a few other choice names. I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I don't like the wording, but it is what it is until it is Amended. We let our politicians and the press divide us as a people.
 
Perhaps the definition of a Liberal has changed over the years.

Is there a large group of Liberals today campaigning to assure that the Supremacy Clause be adhered to? Supporting the Second Amendment? Endorsing the Electoral College?

Many problems for us and the world would be solved if California just seceded and became a de facto state of Mexico.

Suddenly there's a welcoming place for the undocumented folks, like Cuomo, to go legally and Mexico's economy is healed. All the questions about the Electoral College are also resolved.

Of course, this would mean that "The Wall" would need to be longer yet. Californians would achieve their dream of having ALL of their money confiscated as tax. Even makes the NFL an international league. This is all good.

Viva Mexico!

An example of how expecting a rational response from Trumpkins is like waiting for a three year old to recite Chaucer.
 
Odd, because quite a few American conservatives believe it's acceptable for the police to gun down (or strangle, as the case may be) citizens--sometimes even on their own property!--for being insufficiently obedient.

That's an unfair statement. People who understand the jobs of law enforcers realize that the occasions that create these occurances are complex and the cops are always in danger- even if they are only eating lunch.

It seems like a week rarely passes when there is not another conservative guest speaker to a campus cancelled, shouted down or relegated to a safe space so the snowflakes in the faculty or student bodies won't need to have their biases challenged.

Florida deputies shot and killed by 'coward,' Gilchrist sherriff says | Miami Herald
 
More nonsense. And (I'm not a leftist and you cannot show that I am)... Actually Bernie Sanders' class warfare has been around since humans put pen to paper, so I would suggest that first you to a concerted study of American history, and then you can take on the larger area of the history of western civilization. Our founding documents were taken directly from class struggle, we fought a revolution over class struggle proper AND the Federalist Papers get into the imbalance of property ownership.

So Fenton, I suggest that you study up some more so that you can get a handle on our constitution and our history that you claim to believe in.

Um... The founding documents were based on ideas from the Age of Reason.

They were an amalgamation of ideas from a group of people that could reasonable be argued to have been a group of the smartest men in the history of the world.

They were the elite, wealthy power brokers of this continent and of their day.

They were NOT the folks you seem to think they were. Their ideas were not the ideas of Marx or Engles. Or of Bernie.
 
They had much in common with modern day progressives, if by progressives you mean liberals, and much more in common with modern day liberals than with modern day
former conservatives who have surrendered to Trumpism.

They had virtually nothing in common with today's Progressives. The were mostly Republicans, which is why we have the government we have -- a constitutional republic based on federalism. But, although their ideas of republicanism were liberal in comparison to the other governments of the day, the founders had nothing in common with today's progressives. The founders wanted to restrict voting to those who actually owned land (because they had skin in the game), and they weren't interested in women's rights at all. They did not favor pure democracy, and instead, warned against it.

That's not to say anything bad about them -- they were amazingly far-sighted individuals who gave us the greatest nation on earth. They are to be applauded for that -- but let's not compare them to progressives, who, in reality, are regressive in nature.
 
Your list is fine. Add to that his leadership style which is distinctly authoritarian in that it relies on perceptions of personality, exemplified by adoring rallies and his attacks on rivals and opponents by means chiefly of personal insult. Add to that his open admiration of other authoritarians, in Russia and Turkey; and most importantly, his casual disregard for truth coupled with dishonest attacks on the democratic institutions that are the country's protections against authoritarianism - the free press, the justice system, the electoral system (which he slanders with false claims of massive fraudulent voting).

Ah, so you are saying you just don't like the guy.

You have no idea if he's an authoritarian or not.
 
Yeah, the country is hearing a lot of Trumpkins laughter-out-loud at Trumps attacks on the free press, the justice system and American elections. It's not going over that well with everyone.

He is saying that he is disagreeing with the idiots who publish and broadcast and asking them use good sourcing and not just bias confirmation. He, too, has first amendment rights.

He is NOT using the power of government, as did Obama, to silence and attack his political opponents.

If I was doing a crappy job as a reporter and a guy with more Twitter followers than my circulation was calling me out, I'd feel bad, too.

Our current media types are hacks who present opinion as news and the weak minded fall for the deception.
 
Trump is far less authoritarian than was Obama.

Why do you think that Trump is an authoritarian while he is working diligently to dismantle the regulatory power of the federal government?

"Diligently"? So you believe Trump is carefully studying the regulations, requesting input from experts in the respective fields before striking them with a pen. Rather doubtful. But whether he is or isn't says little about his authoritarianism. It only says he is good to his friends in rich places.

Google the word together with Trump and many articles will appear. One is linked below. To me, as I said in another post here, the worst aspects of it are his dishonest attacks on the free press, the justice system and free elections.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opinion/trump-authoritarianism-republicans-contract.html
 
You mean every Rasmussen poll, dude. His current average approval rating is 40.3 percent, about 14 points lower than his negative. I didn't say he is a danger to the country. You brought that up.

The difference is that:

1) Rasmussen track likely voters.

2) Rasmussen is the only one still conducting the Daily Tracking Poll.

According to the only Daily Tracking Poll still working, Likely Voters favoring Trump are more numerous now than on election day despite the ongoing and savage propaganda by the Mass Media.

This must be driving the Media and Political Elites crazy. Their only followers are the folks who don't want a paycheck and/or don't have a brain.

Those folks that like equal rights, more jobs, higher wages, less regulation, law and order and greater opportunity are just fine with Trump.

Of which group are you a part?
 
They did, but it's a credit to liberal ideology. Read some American history and you will learn that the Republican Party under Lincoln was the liberal alternative and the Democrat Party, led by McClellan in the 1864 election with a promise to end the war on terms favorable to the South, was the conservative alternative. The parties more or less stayed in that balance well into the 20th Century.

Just so I understand, you're saying that maintaining the Union was a Liberal Principle and ending the Union was a Conservative Principle?

This is the first place I have EVER read this.
 
After he is impeached?

Muldoon and the Gang That Won't Shoot Straight are increasingly being viewed by the folks in the FBI and DOJ as an embarrassment.

The Inspector General is not just working as a fringe kook with no direction.

At this point in time, the American people see our "justice" system as one that is stacked against some and in favor of others. Muldoon and his goons are doing nothing but enhancing this impression.

The DOJ and the FBI are beginning to see this as a fight for survival are starting eat their own.

If you're getting dizzy, it's because the tables are turning.
 
I'll take your strawman as acknowledgement that it's difficult to rebut what I'm pointing out.

American conservatives have an authoritarian streak that pushes them to value obedience to authority over freedom from arbitrary oppression by the State. And when the former comes into conflict with the latter, they're willing to tolerate summary execution by the State in the absence of due process. Someone already demonstrated this attitude in this very thread!

Whether racial animus is the motivator doesn't really matter. The point is that the myths you're telling yourself (and us!) about American conservatism today don't hold up to any amount of scrutiny.

I am pretty impressed by our cops.

Why are you not?

In every encounter they have, their lives are on the line. Normal, thinking individuals understand this. Why is it escaping you?

Reasonable caution by them and understanding by us is needed.
 
That's an unfair statement. People who understand the jobs of law enforcers realize that the occasions that create these occurances are complex and the cops are always in danger- even if they are only eating lunch.

I come from a law enforcement family and yet oddly enough I don't take the authoritarian view of this issue. The job is dangerous. That does not legitimize arbitrary violence by the state.

Anyway, the point is simply that the definition of American conservatism provided earlier in the thread is obviously false on its face.
 
The thread title poses an odd question considering that The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written by liberals.

Before the Constitution, Big Government, under monarchies, controlled nearly everything and everyone. The Constitution took a different approach and decentralized the government; states rights, and gave more freedom to people. The modern liberalism is more like pre-Constitution times. In pre-Constitution times, since the King owned everything, whatever the people earned, that was not taken as a tax, was essentially given to them by big government, in terms of accounting. It is like being shaken down by the mafia, who takes your wallet, and gives you $10 back. The king is so generous. The Constitution made land ownership and ownership of production, directly connected to the people. This is more like modern Republican. The Boston Tea party was about too much taxes by the King, which is a Democrat party signature move.

Trump was a good example of what America was all about, as envisioned by the Constitution. Instead of power being exclusive to insiders, descendant of the king, who are exclusively entitled to power, the new way allowed someone who was not an insider, to become the big leader. The left still thinks in terms of royal entitlement; Queen Hillary, and the divine rights of kings, which makes crime, not a crime; legal angle, if the king decries it be done; King Obama.

The modern Democrat base appears to have been brainwashed by utopian visions of Communism. They see the fantasy of a commune, where people get along and live off the land. But in reality, Communism, a form of government, reverts to pseudo-monarchies, where the leaders can be entrenched for generations with complete control. The image of the pastoral setting, of cooperation, is an idealized vision of the default peasant life, under the powerful king and his cronies, where upward mobility is limited, and people learn to make due. This is not a happy ending.
 
Before the Constitution, Big Government, under monarchies, controlled nearly everything and everyone. The Constitution took a different approach and decentralized the government; states rights, and gave more freedom to people. The modern liberalism is more like pre-Constitution times. In pre-Constitution times, since the King owned everything, whatever the people earned, that was not taken as a tax, was essentially given to them by big government, in terms of accounting. It is like being shaken down by the mafia, who takes your wallet, and gives you $10 back. The king is so generous. The Constitution made land ownership and ownership of production, directly connected to the people. This is more like modern Republican. The Boston Tea party was about too much taxes by the King, which is a Democrat party signature move.

Trump was a good example of what America was all about, as envisioned by the Constitution. Instead of power being exclusive to insiders, descendant of the king, who are exclusively entitled to power, the new way allowed someone who was not an insider, to become the big leader. The left still thinks in terms of royal entitlement; Queen Hillary, and the divine rights of kings, which makes crime, not a crime; legal angle, if the king decries it be done; King Obama.

The modern Democrat base appears to have been brainwashed by utopian visions of Communism. They see the fantasy of a commune, where people get along and live off the land. But in reality, Communism, a form of government, reverts to pseudo-monarchies, where the leaders can be entrenched for generations with complete control. The image of the pastoral setting, of cooperation, is an idealized vision of the default peasant life, under the powerful king and his cronies, where upward mobility is limited, and people learn to make due. This is not a happy ending.

Enjoying your life in the 1930's?
 
Just so I understand, you're saying that maintaining the Union was a Liberal Principle and ending the Union was a Conservative Principle?

This is the first place I have EVER read this.

No, I said what every historian knows, that the Republican party during the Civil War was the liberal party and the Democrat Party was the conservative party. Both wanted to preserve the union, Lincoln by defeating the Confederacy, McClellan and the Democrats in 1864 by giving in to its demands.
 
An example of how expecting a rational response from Trumpkins is like waiting for a three year old to recite Chaucer.

As the three year old reciting Chaucer who has been exposed to other authors as well, I seem to recall a different literary example involving the casting pearls before swine.

When I studied Chaucer, my mind was a tad less brittle than today and, sadly, I've lost most of my Middle English. Use it or lose it.

My professor so many years ago was among the most intelligent people I've ever seen and we fairly accurately referred to him as "The world's Most Intelligent Man".

By this measure, I reckon the intelligence of those that come before me. You are in no danger of being so labeled.
 
Um... The founding documents were based on ideas from the Age of Reason.

They were an amalgamation of ideas from a group of people that could reasonable be argued to have been a group of the smartest men in the history of the world.

They were the elite, wealthy power brokers of this continent and of their day.

They were NOT the folks you seem to think they were. Their ideas were not the ideas of Marx or Engles. Or of Bernie.

Kant wasn't very influential in our revolution or the reasons for it. The elite American born colonists wanted to share in government decision making, but not being born into the nobility they were left out despite appeals to the crown proper. Therefore. like the yeomen and trade workers they were tired of just being ruled. Most of the colonists were either from the Isles directly or had parents who just just migrated during the heavy exodus of pre revolution 18th century into land grants of 100 acres or more south of New England. So the body was just regular folks who were funded by elite American industrialists. The working people joined the Revolution for pensions and land confiscations that would take place after the war. The elites got their power and the working stiffs got their castles.
 
Lefties suffer from identity crisis.
 
I am an liberal or leftist (not sure of which is a better term) who believes in the Constitution, supporting democracies as allies, and many deep-rooted American values. Mostly, I am an American and believe this is one of the greatest countries on earth.

America got that way because of the people it has drawn from other countries. Until the 1930's the U.S. has offered almost no social "safety net." Coming to a country where the minute you set foot you had to work like crazy and, to boot, in most cases learn a new language was a daunting prospect. Though it is a fictional work, Fiddler on the Roof was based upon historical fact. Its setting, the Western part of Czarist Russia, and now modern Moldova, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were always what should have been paradoxical, despotic, anarchic and chaotic at the same time. The "government" such as it was provided few if any services, and did not enforce law and order. The famous Kishinev Pogroms were a well-known highlight of this state of affairs. People who wanted to make something of their lives simply had no future among drunken peasants that wanted nothing more than to kill them.

One of my four great-grandfathers, and the only one I know anything about was a jeweler in Kiev, Ukraine. A conscript in the Czar's army, he fled when the Army wanted to force a renewal of his term because of his skills. He and my great-grandmother (an arranged marriage in the Jewish tradition of Fiddler on the Roof) fled to New York by way of Montreal. He became a shoemaker in Yonkers, and never really struck it rich. One of their daughters was my maternal grandmother. She married my grandfather, a dentist. They bought a small house in Yonkers. While their lives were not perfect (I understand a bad marriage and alcohol abuse on the part of my grandfather were involved) they put their son (my uncle) and my mother through Syracuse University. My uncle became an executive at a major TV network. My mother became a housewife, and spurred my father to success as an interior architect after an unsuccessful Cornell education as an engineer. I went to Cornell and Boston University Law School and became a lawyer. Only in America would this levitation be possible.

And it was mostly through "the Constitution," (through grudging tolerance for Jews) and hard work, as well as a belief that there really are no limits to growth (except I'm short and didn't grow to the sky), that made all of this possible. Their was no real money in the family and we received little government assistance, except Navy-paid and GI Bill education for my father, and a small amount of unemployment assistance for brief periods between jobs for me.

My OWN life has not been perfect. However, I don't look to find fault or place blames for any of my misfortunes on other people, the government, Donald Trump, etc.

How do I rate myself a left-winger and a liberal? I believe that governments should raise money openly through taxes and not through speed traps, petty regulations and fines, etc. I support integration in the schools and work place, though I am against affirmative action. I am pro-choice. I believe in the public school system. And I support causes anathema to many conservatives, including legalized marijuana and reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone.

A leftist these days would be want to be considered a progressive,not a liberal. My sense is you still think of leftists as Great Society 1960's style liberals. As both parties have moved to the extremes, so called liberals are no longer even close to leftists of today. More like Alan Dershowitz, who was essentially disowned by Obama and today's progressives because he was concerned about that administration's policies regarding Israel and Iran.

Your liberals sought equal opportunity versus equal results for all, big difference. Sadly many 1960's liberal democrats have no political party home. Still find it hard to disassociate from the democratic party. Probably better labeled a Centrist than a Liberal in 2018.
 
"Diligently"? So you believe Trump is carefully studying the regulations, requesting input from experts in the respective fields before striking them with a pen. Rather doubtful. But whether he is or isn't says little about his authoritarianism. It only says he is good to his friends in rich places.

Google the word together with Trump and many articles will appear. One is linked below. To me, as I said in another post here, the worst aspects of it are his dishonest attacks on the free press, the justice system and free elections.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opinion/trump-authoritarianism-republicans-contract.html

Why do you present someone talking about what they think of a guy they hate as proof of anything?

The NYT and Trump are at odds mostly because of the utterly biased and unethical practices the NYT uses to "report" on the guy.

I agree with Tillerson when he said that he was not charging that they had no sources. Only that they needed to find better sources.

Modern reporting by the National Main Stream Media takes two forms:

1. If the subject of the report is a Democrat, they are mindless stenographers transmitting the Democrat Party line.
2. If the subject of the report is a Republican, they are attack dogs using selective edits and poorly sourced hear-say to create a narrative that transmits the Democrat Party line.

A great example of this is when Newt Gingrich was working on a plan to save the Social Security System.

Gingrich said that the new system and the old system should run side by side. The people should be afforded a choice of which one serves their needs more completely.

His prediction was that when the new system was fully understood, the old system would simply die on the vine because the new system would be seen as much better in all ways.

What was reported repeatedly by all of the MSM, ad nauseam day and night? Gingrich says he wants Social Security to "die on the vine".

A disgusting lack of ethics in journalism and everyday honesty, but a wonderful example of modern reporting.
 
Last edited:
I come from a law enforcement family and yet oddly enough I don't take the authoritarian view of this issue. The job is dangerous. That does not legitimize arbitrary violence by the state.

Anyway, the point is simply that the definition of American conservatism provided earlier in the thread is obviously false on its face.

There have been various definitions offered earlier in this thread.

What are you citing?
 
Back
Top Bottom