• 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!

Liberalism: An Autopsy

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,399
Reaction score
39,740
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
:rofl: ahhhh the delicious, delicious, irony :D

In the tumultuous history of postwar American liberalism, there has been a slow but steady decline of which liberals have been steadfastly oblivious. The heirs of the New Deal are down to around 20% of the electorate, according to recent Gallup polls. Conservatives account for 42% of the vote, and in the recent election the independents, the second most numerous group at 29% of the electorate, broke the conservatives' way. They were alarmed by the deficit. They will be alarmed for a long time.

Liberalism's decline might appear, at first glance, to have begun with the 1961 inauguration of President John F. Kennedy—when historians noted the first glimmerings of what was to become liberalism's distinctive trait, overreach. Kennedy's soaring oratory was infectious and admirable and even impressed a later generation of conservatives. But it was a bit dishonest. There never was a missile gap with the Soviet Union, as he claimed, or any other cause for histrionics. On the domestic side, the oratory set in motion President Lyndon Johnson's catastrophic War on Poverty.

JFK's stirring language represented a break with the Burkean understanding of President Dwight Eisenhower. Ike, whether he articulated it or not, wanted to put the Great Depression and the dangerous confrontations of the early Cold War period behind us. He wanted to return to normalcy. Yet Kennedy's inaugural put America on a different path, one that led to the Cuban missile crisis and ultimately to Vietnam. It fixed America's stance in the world, and with that stance we were on the road to Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically it set us on the path to a behemoth big government.

Still, in tracing liberalism's decline, one cannot ignore an earlier event: the civil war that broke out in the aftermath of World War II. The conflict pitted what we might call the radicals led by Henry Wallace against the advocates of what Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. would call in his book, "The Vital Center," more practical liberals like Hubert Humphrey, Joseph L. Rauh and Walter Reuther. They were hard-headed and patriotic, and their desiderata were reasonable by comparison with the radicals' utopian ideas about the Soviet Union.

The practical liberals won in the late 1940s, but in 1972 civil war broke out anew. This time the radicals won. In the meantime, LBJ's Great Society caused even some liberals to warn against the "unintended consequences" of government programs. These were to be the first new recruits to modern conservatism. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol and, for a time, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, were in Kristol's words liberals "who were mugged by reality." The radicals were seeking refuge from reality in a self-regarding fantasy. Only a crisis in the leadership of President Richard Nixon, Watergate, allowed them to hide from the American electorate their fantastic delusions.

Conservatives have had Edmund Burke and the Founding Fathers as their cynosures. Sometimes they have provided discipline; sometimes conservatives have followed their own star. The problem for liberals is they have been denied a cynosure. Some had looked to the British Fabian Socialists and some to Karl Marx, but since the late 1940s liberals became coy about their intellectual mentors.

From the Nixon administration on, the numbers have not been good for liberals. In 1972 only one state went for presidential candidate George McGovern, who even lost the youth vote. In 1976 liberalism did better, but Jimmy Carter ran as a moderate.

Then came 1980. Ronald Reagan benefitted from the ongoing electoral accretions that modern conservatism has attracted: the neocons, the evangelicals (aka the Christian Right), the Reagan Democrats. Liberals could claim nothing new.

During his eight years in office, Reagan changed the political center for years to come. As the Old Cowboy headed back to California, the political center was center-right: vigilance about big government, balanced budgets, low taxes and peace through strength...

The Clinton presidency was defined by his pronouncement that "The era of big government is over." The Reagan revolution was secured. In 2000, Clinton's vice president lost to the governor of Texas despite prosperity and peace. George W. Bush won the midterms in 2002. Then came the Republicans' wilderness years in 2006 and 2008—but not conservatism's. Conservatives remained more popular than liberals by about a 2-1 margin.

Conservatism has steadily spread through the country since its larval days in the 1950s, and the reason is that the vast majority of Americans favor free enterprise and personal liberty. Note the tea party movement. The Republicans just took the House of Representatives by over 60 seats and gained six seats in the Senate. The social democrat in the White House has been routed.

Over the past two years the Democrats showed their true colors. Faced with an entitlement crisis, they rang up trillion dollar deficits. We now face an entitlement crisis and a budget crisis—and liberals have no answer for it beyond tax and spend. They still have support in the media, but even here they are faced with opposition from Fox News, talk radio and the Internet.

As a political movement liberalism is dead. They do not have the numbers. They do not have the policies. They have 23 seats in the Senate to defend in 2012 (against the Republicans' 10) and Republican control of state houses and legislatures will give them even more seats in the future. Liberalism R.I.P.
 
As the old addage goes, "the pendulum swings". Just because the WSJ wants to create an expose about the past century or so, and highlight only the poorer actions of liberalism as a political philosophy and the institution of it, doesn't mean its dead. I mean ****, I could make a million page document, "Neo-Conservatism: An Autopsy" where I chronicle some 50+ military coups around the world, the instability that results, or maybe "Capitalism: An autopsy" and talk about the recent crisis that just happened.. All of these are so pretentious.
 
:rofl: ahhhh the delicious, delicious, irony :D

In the tumultuous history of postwar American liberalism, there has been a slow but steady decline of which liberals have been steadfastly oblivious. The heirs of the New Deal are down to around 20% of the electorate, according to recent Gallup polls. Conservatives account for 42% of the vote, and in the recent election the independents, the second most numerous group at 29% of the electorate, broke the conservatives' way. They were alarmed by the deficit. They will be alarmed for a long time.

Liberalism's decline might appear, at first glance, to have begun with the 1961 inauguration of President John F. Kennedy—when historians noted the first glimmerings of what was to become liberalism's distinctive trait, overreach. Kennedy's soaring oratory was infectious and admirable and even impressed a later generation of conservatives. But it was a bit dishonest. There never was a missile gap with the Soviet Union, as he claimed, or any other cause for histrionics. On the domestic side, the oratory set in motion President Lyndon Johnson's catastrophic War on Poverty.

JFK's stirring language represented a break with the Burkean understanding of President Dwight Eisenhower. Ike, whether he articulated it or not, wanted to put the Great Depression and the dangerous confrontations of the early Cold War period behind us. He wanted to return to normalcy. Yet Kennedy's inaugural put America on a different path, one that led to the Cuban missile crisis and ultimately to Vietnam. It fixed America's stance in the world, and with that stance we were on the road to Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically it set us on the path to a behemoth big government.

Still, in tracing liberalism's decline, one cannot ignore an earlier event: the civil war that broke out in the aftermath of World War II. The conflict pitted what we might call the radicals led by Henry Wallace against the advocates of what Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. would call in his book, "The Vital Center," more practical liberals like Hubert Humphrey, Joseph L. Rauh and Walter Reuther. They were hard-headed and patriotic, and their desiderata were reasonable by comparison with the radicals' utopian ideas about the Soviet Union.

The practical liberals won in the late 1940s, but in 1972 civil war broke out anew. This time the radicals won. In the meantime, LBJ's Great Society caused even some liberals to warn against the "unintended consequences" of government programs. These were to be the first new recruits to modern conservatism. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol and, for a time, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, were in Kristol's words liberals "who were mugged by reality." The radicals were seeking refuge from reality in a self-regarding fantasy. Only a crisis in the leadership of President Richard Nixon, Watergate, allowed them to hide from the American electorate their fantastic delusions.

Conservatives have had Edmund Burke and the Founding Fathers as their cynosures. Sometimes they have provided discipline; sometimes conservatives have followed their own star. The problem for liberals is they have been denied a cynosure. Some had looked to the British Fabian Socialists and some to Karl Marx, but since the late 1940s liberals became coy about their intellectual mentors.

From the Nixon administration on, the numbers have not been good for liberals. In 1972 only one state went for presidential candidate George McGovern, who even lost the youth vote. In 1976 liberalism did better, but Jimmy Carter ran as a moderate.

Then came 1980. Ronald Reagan benefitted from the ongoing electoral accretions that modern conservatism has attracted: the neocons, the evangelicals (aka the Christian Right), the Reagan Democrats. Liberals could claim nothing new.

During his eight years in office, Reagan changed the political center for years to come. As the Old Cowboy headed back to California, the political center was center-right: vigilance about big government, balanced budgets, low taxes and peace through strength...

The Clinton presidency was defined by his pronouncement that "The era of big government is over." The Reagan revolution was secured. In 2000, Clinton's vice president lost to the governor of Texas despite prosperity and peace. George W. Bush won the midterms in 2002. Then came the Republicans' wilderness years in 2006 and 2008—but not conservatism's. Conservatives remained more popular than liberals by about a 2-1 margin.

Conservatism has steadily spread through the country since its larval days in the 1950s, and the reason is that the vast majority of Americans favor free enterprise and personal liberty. Note the tea party movement. The Republicans just took the House of Representatives by over 60 seats and gained six seats in the Senate. The social democrat in the White House has been routed.

Over the past two years the Democrats showed their true colors. Faced with an entitlement crisis, they rang up trillion dollar deficits. We now face an entitlement crisis and a budget crisis—and liberals have no answer for it beyond tax and spend. They still have support in the media, but even here they are faced with opposition from Fox News, talk radio and the Internet.

As a political movement liberalism is dead. They do not have the numbers. They do not have the policies. They have 23 seats in the Senate to defend in 2012 (against the Republicans' 10) and Republican control of state houses and legislatures will give them even more seats in the future. Liberalism R.I.P.

So does that mean this mess is the fault of Conservatives? Or are we trying to recover from its death throes?
 
Indeed, the pendulum swings.

Those who believe in Jeffersonian liberalism - the right of every individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - are now called political conservatives.

Those who believe in the omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of the state - and wish to restore the state to the preeminence it enjoyed during the reign of Hammurabi - are now called political liberals.

The political meaning of the terms liberal and conservative have moved 180 degrees out of sync with their philosophical meaning during the last half century or so.
 
Indeed, the pendulum swings.

Those who believe in Jeffersonian liberalism - the right of every individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - are now called political conservatives.

Those who believe in the omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of the state - and wish to restore the state to the preeminence it enjoyed during the reign of Hammurabi - are now called political liberals.

The political meaning of the terms liberal and conservative have moved 180 degrees out of sync with their philosophical meaning during the last half century or so.

You should stop letting Limbaugh et. al. tell you what it is that liberals believe, because we're not at all what you describe.
 
Indeed, the pendulum swings.

Those who believe in Jeffersonian liberalism - the right of every individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - are now called political conservatives.

Those who believe in the omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of the state - and wish to restore the state to the preeminence it enjoyed during the reign of Hammurabi - are now called political liberals.

The political meaning of the terms liberal and conservative have moved 180 degrees out of sync with their philosophical meaning during the last half century or so.

It is amazing that you can write such over the top hyperbole and keep a straight face at the same time. The only question I have is do you really believe this stuff or do you just know how to sling it for maximum effect?
 
Indeed, the pendulum swings.

Those who believe in Jeffersonian liberalism - the right of every individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - are now called political conservatives.

Those who believe in the omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of the state - and wish to restore the state to the preeminence it enjoyed during the reign of Hammurabi - are now called political liberals.

The political meaning of the terms liberal and conservative have moved 180 degrees out of sync with their philosophical meaning during the last half century or so.

Yes the world is just that simple. That is exactly what I'm talking about. A binary system describes America's political beliefs, someone is either A or B and nothing us.
 
Yes the world is just that simple. That is exactly what I'm talking about. A binary system describes America's political beliefs, someone is either A or B and nothing us.

Yes, obviously one group causes all the problems while another group is the solution to everything!! Didn't you get the newsletter?
 
Last edited:
Yes, obviously one group causes all the problem while another group is presents the solution to everything!! Didn't you get the newsletter?

Its stupid **** like "Democrats created the deficit" or "Republicans created the deficit" phrases which are present in that article which really piss me off because its such an undenialable fact that people within BOTH parties are responsible for the public debt. And when confronted with this fact the response is normally two things:
1) Well the other guys created more.
2) Well yes we created that debt but it was for a good thing so it doesn't count.

Firstly, it is EXTREMELY difficult to say one party created more debt than the other. For example the healthcare reform bill created a lot of public debt, HOWEVER not every Democrat voted for it and not every Republican voted against it. You can't say Dems are responsible as a whole because the fact is that in this case only a part, a large part, was responsible along with a handful of Republicans. And what if we go to debt creating bills in the past that had bipartisan support? Is only one side responsible because its politically convenient? Or what if the vote goes 55%/45% in Congress but Dems and Repubs are split among the 55% and the 45% evenly?

This absurd generalism and sterotyping, which is done because actually looking at every vote to see who voted what way is an extreme task, is making us believe in a reality that doesn't exist!

Secondly, it doesn't matter if what you created the debt for was good or bad, its STILL DEBT. For example I support the continuation of military action in Afghanistan, HOWEVER I acknowledge that it creates debt. And I acknowledge that yes debt is a problem so I'm willingly supporting an action which creates a worse debt situation for this country. And I can say that because its fact. Everyone else should be able to say the same thing if its true.

You wouldn't tell a student taking out a student loan that his debt 'doesn't count' because its for a good cause, so why would you argue like that when its pointed out 100% factually that you've supported programs that increase debt.
 
Its stupid **** like "Democrats created the deficit" or "Republicans created the deficit" phrases which are present in that article which really piss me off because its such an undenialable fact that people within BOTH parties are responsible for the public debt. And when confronted with this fact the response is normally two things:
1) Well the other guys created more.
2) Well yes we created that debt but it was for a good thing so it doesn't count.

Firstly, it is EXTREMELY difficult to say one party created more debt than the other. For example the healthcare reform bill created a lot of public debt, HOWEVER not every Democrat voted for it and not every Republican voted against it. You can't say Dems are responsible as a whole because the fact is that in this case only a part, a large part, was responsible along with a handful of Republicans. And what if we go to debt creating bills in the past that had bipartisan support? Is only one side responsible because its politically convenient? Or what if the vote goes 55%/45% in Congress but Dems and Repubs are split among the 55% and the 45% evenly?

This absurd generalism and sterotyping, which is done because actually looking at every vote to see who voted what way is an extreme task, is making us believe in a reality that doesn't exist!

Secondly, it doesn't matter if what you created the debt for was good or bad, its STILL DEBT. For example I support the continuation of military action in Afghanistan, HOWEVER I acknowledge that it creates debt. And I acknowledge that yes debt is a problem so I'm willingly supporting an action which creates a worse debt situation for this country. And I can say that because its fact. Everyone else should be able to say the same thing if its true.

You wouldn't tell a student taking out a student loan that his debt 'doesn't count' because its for a good cause, so why would you argue like that when its pointed out 100% factually that you've supported programs that increase debt.

Well theres that, also theres the fact that after every election when one party wins over another, there are always articles about how this will usser in a new era for that ideology and all other ideologies are toast. Only a fool or someone who is inexperienced falls for this kind of stuff.
 
It is amazing that you can write such over the top hyperbole and keep a straight face at the same time. The only question I have is do you really believe this stuff or do you just know how to sling it for maximum effect?
It is hardly over-the-top hyperbole.

The philosophically liberal (today's political conservatives) believe in individual liberty, which is inseparable from individual responsibility.

The philosophically reactionary (today's political liberals) believe the government should step in and protect the citizens from themselves. Hence, laws mandating bicycle helmets and seat belts. It is this belief that the state should have power over individual choices that makes those folks the enemies of true (philosophical) liberalism.
 
Well theres that, also theres the fact that after every election when one party wins over another, there are always articles about how this will usser in a new era for that ideology and all other ideologies are toast. Only a fool or someone who is inexperienced falls for this kind of stuff.

They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
 
This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

Quite possibly the best statement I've ever seen at DP. If it's OK with you, I'm putting it in my signature.
 
It is hardly over-the-top hyperbole.

The philosophically liberal (today's political conservatives) believe in individual liberty, which is inseparable from individual responsibility.

The philosophically reactionary (today's political liberals) believe the government should step in and protect the citizens from themselves. Hence, laws mandating bicycle helmets and seat belts. It is this belief that the state should have power over individual choices that makes those folks the enemies of true (philosophical) liberalism.

And that's it? You can't really believe the world is that simple, thats there's literally only two types of people in this world?
 
So does that mean this mess is the fault of Conservatives? Or are we trying to recover from its death throes?

:lol: i don't know. perhaps entropy means all ideologies are dying?

i just found it particularly amusing after all of the autopsies of conservatism, which seemed to be a cottage industry a couple years back.
 
It is hardly over-the-top hyperbole.

The philosophically liberal (today's political conservatives) believe in individual liberty, which is inseparable from individual responsibility.

The philosophically reactionary (today's political liberals) believe the government should step in and protect the citizens from themselves. Hence, laws mandating bicycle helmets and seat belts. It is this belief that the state should have power over individual choices that makes those folks the enemies of true (philosophical) liberalism.

You must be either younger than me, or very sheltered. Because at 22 years of age I can tell you the political field isn't nearly as easy to describe as you did. The fact is I can't understand why people try and make these definitions about political ideology and then say that all liberals are this or all conservatives are this. Life isn't that black and white, and if I have learned anything thus far about politics is that politics is even less black and white.
 
:lol: i don't know. perhaps entropy means all ideologies are dying?

i just found it particularly amusing after all of the autopsies of conservatism, which seemed to be a cottage industry a couple years back.

Hold on a moment. You found it funny you saw a lot of autopsies of conservatism from liberals? And I'm assuming you found it funny because you thought its crazy to call conservatism dead just because there was a few bad election years?

So you're response to this "particularly amusing" activity which you look down upon because its crazy, is to do the exact same thing you were saying was stupid just a few years ago?
 
And that's it? You can't really believe the world is that simple, thats there's literally only two types of people in this world?

Certainly the world is not black and white, but the two major cynosures are as I described and people tend to lean one way or the other.
 
Because at 22 years of age I can tell you the political field isn't nearly as easy to describe as you did.
You will learn, sonny, but the price of tuition really goes up once you're out of school. :lol:
 
from Diogenes

The philosophically liberal (today's political conservatives) believe in individual liberty, which is inseparable from individual responsibility.

you forgot "which is inseparable from a cliche on a bumper sticker"

The philosophically reactionary (today's political liberals) believe the government should step in and protect the citizens from themselves. Hence, laws mandating bicycle helmets and seat belts. It is this belief that the state should have power over individual choices that makes those folks the enemies of true (philosophical) liberalism.

Or one could say the modern liberal accepts that they are not God or the King or that they are an island unto themselves but live in a society with other people. They accept that the rights and liberties of the individual are not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of others in a democratic republic.
 
Or one could say the modern liberal accepts that they are not God or the King or that they are an island unto themselves but live in a society with other people. They accept that the rights and liberties of the individual are not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of others in a democratic republic.
Agreed, and for dedicated liberals the deciding power is with the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent government. In the liberal mind, individuals are not capable of self-determination and the sheep must be guided by the enlightened shepherds with the help of qualified and dedicated sheep dogs. Thoreau was right.
 
The idea that you profess to know the liberal mind while being so woefully ignorant of it approaches the status of awe.
 
This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.


How about religion? It seems to me to be worse than politics for turning "people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality."
 
Back
Top Bottom