The evolution continues
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15423) 11 years ago
Through some rather circuitous surfing I ran across this article which I found very interesting. I have come over the last year to agree with most if not all of the basic tenants espoused. I am not sure if if liberalism as defined below is represented by the democratic party or not, and that is beside the point. Enjoy!


Proud To Be Liberal
Why Liberal values are American values


"You are a contentious person....and probably a Liberal," started a recent response to an article I published on abortion rights.
Contentious? Possibly.

Liberal? Absolutely.

Seems these days Conservatives have convinced themselves, and some of the American public, that being a Liberal is akin to being a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. While this may be a great smear tactic for an election year, to believe such a notion proves that the believer is uneducated in the fundamentals of the American political system. Our nation was founded on Liberalism. Embodied in the Declaration of Independence are its three tenets: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The very term, itself, is taken from the same root as the second of these precepts. To be a Liberal is to defend the freedom - the Liberty - of all people who make up our great nation. To be a Liberal is to trust individuals and families to run their own lives as they see fit. To be a Liberal is to create a nation where anyone can excel if they are willing to do the work.

In order to understand the true nature of Liberalism, and to dispel the misconceptions fomented by those whose agenda is counter to our freedom, I will detail the tenets of Liberal thought and dispel the misconceptions so often put forth by Conservative rhetoric.

Liberalism is "Life." It is freedom from physical dangers that can kill or disable us. The Liberal believes it is a nation's job to protect its citizens from physical harm, whether from external sources, such as hostile nations, or internal ones, like crime, disease, or hunger. Without the solid ground of physical wellbeing, our nation and its citizens cannot enjoy the benefits of being free. Liberals believe in a strong military, well suited to defend the nation. Liberals believe in good laws, hard-working police, and a just legal system to protect its citizens from crime. Liberals believe in affordable health care for everyone, to keep our people strong. And Liberals believe in the availability of food and shelter for its needy, not as a hand out but as a reasonable step in moving all Americans toward self-reliance and the freedom that comes with it.

Liberalism is "Liberty." It is the freedom to do as your conscience dictates without impeding another's rights. Fleeing oppression in mother Europe, our founders established a nation where personal belief and self-determination are protected, not persecuted, where hard work is rewarded, not demanded, and where each person is bestowed with the ability to better his or her life because of citizenship, not class. Liberals believe in freedom of speech to protect us from political oppression. Liberals believe in sound regulations to protect us from economic oppression. Liberals believe in just laws to protect us from social oppression. And Liberals believe in quality education to protect us from the oppression of ignorance.

Liberalism is "The Pursuit of Happiness." It is the freedom to create an environment where the individual can excel. What is freedom if it cannot be used to better our lives? A truly free society must be one where its members can rise above their limitations and expand their futures. We call it "The American Dream," and it's alive and well in the heart of the Liberal. Liberals believe in equal opportunities for all to rise above our means. Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our education levels. Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our social status. And Liberals believe each and every family should have an equal opportunity to make this world better for their children.

Based on these tenets, we can see that Liberalism is not the monster it's made out to be by the opposition. It is pro individual and pro family. It is pro community and pro country. Liberalism is, by its very definition, the heart and soul of what it means to be an American. It stands against tyranny of any kind, whether international or domestic. It works to remove abuse and fight crime. And it strives to eliminate the idea of a wasted life by not wasting resources and opportunities.

By this time someone might ask, "if that is a Liberal, then what is a Conservative?"

Liberals and Conservatives received their names for good reasons. Just as Liberals get their label by standing for Liberty, Conservatives get their label from the desire to "conserve" a style of living. They, too, claim they are fighting to conserve our personal rights and our economic opportunities, but they do it with a different ideal than the Liberal. The term they use for the difference is "values." Values are norms or codes by which people live their lives. While most Americans share some common values, such as the right to own property and the right to protect our families, we also have many divergent values with which we raise our children. So if we try to impose values into the political framework of the nation, we are forced to ask, "whose values?" And in the search for such absolutes, we must also ask, "which generation's values?"

As the nation ages and new generations take over leadership, the values of its population change. Where once a woman was valued for how well she cooked, cleaned and entertained, today's women are gaining recognition that they offer as much, if not more, to the work force than men. Where once African Americans were forced to live as second-class citizens, now they have a legal status equal to that of whites, even if we still have a ways to go in actual practice. Changing values brings confusing times for many - especially for those who believe that America was better with an older set of values. These people want to "conserve" a style of American living they believe once existed, what they call, "traditional family values." They want to conserve the system that they believe made America wealthy and strong. Unfortunately that also means they want to force all of us to live according to their values.

Conservatives don't really fight for our rights - they fight for what they think our rights should be - putting limits on our freedom of speech in order to "conserve" an older, more traditional norm of what should be said. Conservatives don't really fight for our family values - they fight for what they believe our family values should be - putting limits on our behavior, even behavior between consenting adults, in order to "conserve" an older, more traditional view of acceptable personal activity. Conservatives don't really fight for our income - they fight for little or no regulations - putting limits on our ability to be treated fairly by large companies, who if left without restriction, can form monopolies that choke out competition and drive down wages.

Conservatives are willing to curb our freedom of speech if it clashes with their interpretation of "traditional" values, values from an older time where woman were in domestic servitude to men, where child abuse, sexual abuse, wife abuse, and homosexuality were all kept locked in closets, where minorities were second-class citizens and discrimination was free from incrimination, and where the inability to plan a family's growth meant an explosion of mouths to feed - a population explosion that today threatens to bankrupt our nation's retirement funds. The Conservative position, therefore, is inherently contradictory. You cannot be for legislating away freedom in the name of "family values" and also claim you are protecting individual and family rights.

As new generations have placed their own values into the laws that govern our land, Conservatives have sought to fight back by limiting the size and power of the government. Conservatives are willing to give away the very power needed to protect our liberties in the work place. Their idea of a smaller, less-intrusive government means a return to the days where business decisions and profits were more important than clean air and clean water, where a business could abuse its employees without incrimination, and where minorities and women could be passed over for jobs or paid less then white males for the same jobs. Again the Conservative position is at odds with itself. You cannot claim you are fighting for families at the same time that you allow the family bread winner to be overworked and underpaid and allow neighborhoods to be overrun by non-regulated big business. The Conservative would effectively shift power away from the people, who can elect public officials to fight for their rights, and into the hands of private businesses, who need not answer to the public when making decisions that affect us all.

Because Liberals fight to protect every citizen from having other people's values imposed on them, Conservatives like to label Liberals as being evil. The following list shows what Conservatives like to say against Liberals, and then goes on to show why such assertions are false:

Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-family.

However . . .
Conservatives want to define what your family should be

Whereas . . .

Liberals put you in charge of your family
Liberals support your right to define what your family will be
Liberals fight for your family's rights against economic and political oppression

Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-business.

However . . .
Conservatives are pro-money, but that often translates into monopolies, which hurt small business and competition, which hurts us all

Whereas . . .
Liberals protect small businesses by regulating the larger ones and by breaking up monopolies
Liberals protect workers in order to create a healthy workforce that will help businesses grow

Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-religion.

However . . .
Conservatives are often for one dominant religion, and are, therefore, against others

Whereas . . .
Liberals support complete freedom of religion and from religion so that all citizen are free to choose the manner in which faith is a part of their lives
Liberals strive to keep government completely out of a family's religious choices

Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-freedom.
However . . .
Conservatives want to stop homosexuals, stop abortions, stop the women's movement, and stop freedom of expression through the use of censorship

Whereas . . .
Liberals leave it up to the parents to teach such values to their children
Liberals believe each person or family should be free to choose how to behave as long as it does not interfere with another's rights

Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-morality.
However . . .
Conservatives are for one specific kind of morality
Whereas . . .
Liberals are for the morality of free choice, where each person or family decides their own values
Liberals want the government to protect our freedom to choose what is important to us rather than to impose the laws and codes of another's morality

Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-military.
However . . .
Conservatives see the military as a means to impose their values and standards on others
Whereas . . .
Liberals see the military as a vital protection of our freedoms and our liberties, giving us a space in which to pursue happiness

Liberalism's Stance on Specific Issues:

With the desire to promote Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as the central motivation, the Liberal always defends these tenets when deciding how to stand on a particular issue. The following will show why Liberals often take the stance they do:

Abortion/Contraception - Liberty means the freedom to control your body, your reproductive system, and your future.

Affirmative Action - Liberty means having fair opportunities for those in society who are discriminated against.

Education - Liberty means the freedom to learn in order to build a better future for yourself, your family, your community, and your country.

Environment - Liberty means the fair use of our nation's natural resources for all citizens. Where possible, without unreasonable restriction to private enterprise, the government should strive to protect our natural environment so all can enjoy its bounty.

Gun Control - Liberty means the freedom to protect yourself, your family, and your property, with deadly force if necessary. People have a right to keep guns for such a purpose. People also have a right to use guns in sporting activities and in the event that citizens should be called on to form a citizen militia. We do not, however, have a right to own all the latest people-killing technology. The People, through the government, can restrict some of the more deadly weapons being sold today.

Health - Liberty means the freedom to overcome physical limitations in order to better yourself, your family, your community, and your country.

Regulations - Liberty means the freedom to live and work in an environment that best allows individuals and families to grow in the pursuit of happiness. Bad air, bad water, bad living and working conditions only stifle that liberty.

Sexuality - Liberty means the freedom to share mutual intimate affection with the person of your choice, regardless of gender.

Substance Abuse - Liberty means the freedom to decide what you put in your body. Unless the use of a substance is a danger to unwilling victims, its use should be kept legal. In situations where use of a substance may or may not effect bystanders, regulations - such as in the case with tobacco - should be enacted to protect the bystander without denying the individual's choice to use the substance. Smoking and non-smoking areas in public places are a prime example of this.

Taxation - Liberty is found within a system. That system does not happen by itself. It is created and supported by us, the People, and it is funded by our labors. The money we pay in taxes is what allows us to thrive in Liberty and work in fairness. Reasonable taxation is necessary because without it, many of us would find it difficult to get paid even a fraction of what we are paid now. And those who benefit more from the system should expect to pay more to help support it.

Women's/Minority Rights - Liberty means the freedom to be valued and judged on talent and work, not on the physical characteristics over which we have no control.

In closing let me state that freedom sometimes brings situations we don't like. Some people will choose to use their freedom to engage in activities that go against our personal values. It is a great temptation to use our democratic rights to try and enshrine our own personal values - whether they come from religious or humanistic origins - in the laws of the nation. The inherent problem with this is that when Liberty is restrained by any one group's values, even if that group represents the majority of the population at the time, it can easily be changed from one generation to the next, meaning that you could be forced to live under someone else's values as easily as you might force someone to live under yours.

The only true defense of our values is the defense of our liberties.

If you don't want to be forced to live under a foreign set of values, don't force others to live under yours. Instead, fight for the freedom to believe as you want while others believe as they want. Freedom of choice, as long as it does not infringe on another's rights, is the foundation upon which this nation was built. Liberalism is the ideology that strives to defend that freedom for everyone. And for that reason it pleases me to no end to state that I am proud to be Liberal.


[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (8/20/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4947) 11 years ago
What a great article and I, too, am proud to be a liberal...thanks for the great article you found, Richard...
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12509) 11 years ago
Our Founding Fathers rebelled against their legitimate government. They were not conservative in any sense of the word. Which is why I am baffled by the Regressives always spouting off about how wonderful they were. Modern Regressives would have been staunch Royalists.

Thank you, Richard. This is much appreciated. Even more than the puns.
Top
Posted by B. Hunter (+108) 11 years ago
Great article... and another proud liberal here!
Top
supporter
Posted by Art (+208) 11 years ago
This is excellent and thanks for sharing.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1674) 11 years ago
There are so many things I would like to highlight from this column, but since I am on my phone, I will have to keep it short. This is the hypocrisy I've never understood. Too many Conservatives scream at the top of their lungs for limited government where they benefit from limited government, and then turn around and demand government interference, especially in those areas where they believe their personal ideals are the only acceptable standards. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy. I would like, however, to acknowledge those Conservatives who believe in limited government in all aspects of life and feel no need to dictate personal behaviors and norms. I can respect their point of view and their consistency in ideology. Thanks for the article Richard, and just like Conservative is not synonymous with Republican, neither is Liberal synonymous with Democrat.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6169) 11 years ago
What she said.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4947) 11 years ago
Richard, in the link I posted, there is a video of this weeks highlights and he notes how the conservatives are doing their very best to ignore Ron Paul...when put together like he does it with film clips from Fox News, etc. it is really amazing how they ignore Paul...Obviously they have all been hand fed the talking points they are allowed to mention...such a racket...
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3716) 11 years ago
I didn't read the whole article, but it's a puff piece. There is very little in it that anyone, liberal or conservative could object to. Those are not liberal values, they are human values, or at least America ones. The contention comes when you get down to the details of how things should be done.

I've hammered this into the ground on this board, but I don't understand why people feel the need to put a label on themselves. Calling yourself a "proud liberal" is just one step towards shutting off your brain. I realize that it's a lot of work to consider issues with an open mind and form an opinion rationally, and not everyone has the necessary education to understand particular issues (myself included) but I would rather see people abstain from voting than to vote based on an ill-considered ideology which may or may not have anything to do with the choice at hand.

The worst part however, is not the fact that people make irrational decisions at the voting box, but that identifying yourself with a particular side in the culture war allows you to be manipulated by politicians. The folks in Washington love the polarized nature of the American people because it blinds their base constituency to their own faults (and their increasingly obvious corruption) and gives them a boogie man to scare people into voting against.

Don't be a liberal, don't be a conservative, just be a person, use your head, and do the best you can. That's my theory at least.

I'll let the comedian Chris Rock finish my point for me. Linking instead of embedding because it's not safe for work, children, or anyone who would be upset by hearing certain words.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...IA4__0DIXE
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15423) 11 years ago
I didn't read the whole article, but it's a puff piece. There is very little in it that anyone, liberal or conservative could object to. Those are not liberal values, they are human values, or at least America ones. The contention comes when you get down to the details of how things should be done.


Levi: If you HAD read the WHOLE article you would know that it does "get down to details of how thing should be done". IMO, the article accurately describes the differences in motivation between liberals and conservatives, and why the conservative way of thinking is rather disingenuous.

While I will grant you that some people may put too much emphasis on "labels", those labels help identify patterns of human value. Those values are then use to form thought about a given issue. I agree that we should always be open-minded and consider all sides of an issue without regard for labels.

However, too often my exact way of thinking isn't up for vote. Having thought grouped together a little through the use of a label makes the process of identifying the key components of an issue and determining how I vote a little easier.

My "excitement" in finding the article is that it articulates and clarifies a new way (at least to me) of thinking about life that I have struggled to explain in the last year or so. There have been several ideas that are part of the conservative way of thinking that have not, in my experience, squared with reality. This article resonated with me in a way that allows me to understand and speak with greater clarity.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (8/21/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4947) 11 years ago
nothing puff about that piece...was well thought out IMO and accurate...most people are so used to being fed denigrating ideas about the word liberal, that they simply cannot think of anything positive to say about it and get really mad when someone brings that word up in conversation in a positive way...have had it happen to me many times in chats I have had both in person and on line...it has always amazed me, how some folks act when that word is used...for the many years before now, lots of time and effort has been spent making sure that word was akin to the devil himself...which is why maybe some conservatives get a tad angry about this article??

[This message has been edited by howdy (8/21/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3716) 11 years ago

Levi: If you HAD read the WHOLE article you would know that it does "get down to details of how thing should be done".


Nonsense. With the possible exception of the wedge issue sexuality and abortion lines, there's not a single line in that article that any decent person, liberal or conservative, would disagree with. The basic point of the article is that being a liberal = being a good person. Therefore, I call it a puff piece.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4947) 11 years ago
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...Shakespeare
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15423) 11 years ago
Levi: I am confused by your "don't label things conservative or liberal" and yet it is okay to label something "a puff piece" thinking. That seems a little inconsistent.

If, as you suggest, the article is "mainstream", I think it is time mainstream America stood up for what we believe in. These values are under attack. IMO, the whole Tea-party crowd wants to pretend as though they are mainstream and speak for all Americans when in fact they are not and do not. I believe that the Tea-party crowd, would disagree with much of what the article says.

For example: "Taxation - Liberty is found within a system. That system does not happen by itself. It is created and supported by us, the People, and it is funded by our labors. The money we pay in taxes is what allows us to thrive in Liberty and work in fairness. Reasonable taxation is necessary because without it, many of us would find it difficult to get paid even a fraction of what we are paid now. And those who benefit more from the system should expect to pay more to help support it."

Clearly, the tea-party crowd absolutely wants to destroy the very revenue/spending system that provides our liberty. They are completely opposed to the notion of reasonable taxation or allowing the government providing any services other than a military. They want to use the military, not for the defense of our nation, but to export and impose their idea of "democracy" and religion on beduin tribes who have little ability or desire to attack us. While they do that they economically enslave us to pay for their crusade. That is totally the opposite of the liberty on which our nations was founded. The tea-party values are very different from the values in the article I referenced. If we don't articulate what we believe, we will get run over by the cultural shift that is before us.

Frankly, most of my change in thinking is in the area of "wedge issues" like abortion and sexuality. The oppression that has occurred in this area of our society is appalling. IMO the most frustrating thing is that most of this oppression is based on the people claiming the Bible says things the Bible does NOT in fact say. We need to clearly state what we believe, why we believe what we believe, and identify for all the sources that help us form those beliefs. I think the piece above helps identify some of the terms and motivations which is a necessary step in redirecting the cultural shift the tea-party way of thinking seeks to impose upon us.

If I have to identify or label myself as a liberal, so be it. My eyes have been opened to the social oppression brought on by the religious right (need a more descriptive term), some of which I have spent the last 35 years of my life supporting and contributing to. I for one am purposed to change my way of thinking and going to speak up for a system that provides us liberty in ALL areas of life. I am convinced that the cost, (and there WILL be a personal cost) is worth the price to maintain and expand our liberty and freedom.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4947) 11 years ago
Richard, you are one of the few people I know, that came to the table with one point of view and truly listened to others and had the courage of your own convictions to change your thinking in certain things...I salute you...Few people ever truly listen and even fewer are courageous enough to change if they deem it necessary...
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
I don't think Levi would say your article is 'mainstream' He's saying people can have some of the same goals in mind, yet go about getting there in completely different ways.

I'll put a different spin on it. Your article is pure kool-aid through and through. How anyone can switch from the Ron Paul flavored Kool-aid to this is beyond me

But essentially what you're selling is false religion.

You tell us how wonderful your theoretical 'heaven' is and then espouse that your one-true-path is the only way to get there.

As a conservative, I believe that free will (ie Freedom) doesn't lend itself well to utopianism. Which is where this whole world-view falls apart. I won't go so far (as others have) to state that my political opponents have dishonorable intentions. I just believe that your path doesn't lead where you think it does.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (8/21/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15423) 11 years ago
But essentially what you're selling is false religion.

You tell us how wonderful your theoretical 'heaven' is and then espouse that your one-true-path is the only way to get there.




I am not really selling anything, Rick. Especially not some false religion. While I am not completely sure of what you really mean by "theoretical heaven" (I think you are just trying to sound smart), I am pretty sure that there is nothing "theoretical" about my concept of "heaven". I am very sure that evangelical Tea-party "therapeutic decisionism" and subsequent mandatory pietistic lifestyle is a path that doesn't lead there.

If, with regard to wedge issues, being repressive brings fulfillment to your life, that is your issue, not mine. I have concluded that life is a journey, not a destination. I have decided to enjoy the trip.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (8/21/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bill Zook (+489) 11 years ago
This reminds me of discussions in college lit. and again in high school Eng. classes. Do we perceive a point from the author's perspective, or from our own interpretation? Which is correct? Which is (dare I say, more accurate? Which is more functional? All are value questions and, as Rick said, can be construed to fit many different perceptions.

I used an example with the kids of a square on the blackboard. Within in it I drew another, smaller square. Lines were drawn to the corners. We then pretended to be looking down on a pyramid in Egypt from a plane. The students agreed that, yup we were looking down on a pyramid. Landing, we decided to take a look at this object close up, I then walked in front of the diagram obscuring it from view. I kept talking about taking some husky fellow and moving a large stone aside so we were looking down a long hall.

I stepped aside and they readily agreed that they could see the hallway. The point of the excersise was that they could see what I asked them to see without changing a thing.
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+10306) 11 years ago
Good points Bill.

Seems to me you have to be able to / capable of / prepared to look at things from differing perspectives to have any hope of seeing / understanding what's going on.

It is contrast that gives depth & clarity to vision.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
Liberals put you in charge of your family

Really? Does my family know this? Who gave them this authority?

Liberals protect small businesses by regulating the larger ones

Really? They only regulate the 'larger ones?' In the real world, liberals have happily been regulating everyone. A lot of people will tell you that the large businesses benefit from Liberal regulation the most because they've got the resources to deal with regulation that small businesses don't. Learning how to deal with the mountains of red tape becomes their competitive advantage.

Conservatives are pro-money


Does that mean Liberals aren't? What does that even mean?

Liberals leave it up to the parents to teach such values to their children


Do you believe this? If so, why are Liberals always trying to slip these 'wedge issues' into grade school curriculum?

Keep reading... through question after question listed. Almost all of them show a shocking lack of introspection. Liberals compromise these claimed bedrock 'values' every day.

If you were being honest with yourself, you'd see that behind every line you posted that starts with 'Conservatives' there's really only one of those straw-man arguments I keep hearing so much about.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
Bill, I take what you mean. Unfortunately with politics it's hard to figure out what makes people choose to view things from one perspective instead of another.

The most dangerous thing we can do (as a country) when confronted with this situation though is to start dehumanizing the motives of the person who sees things differently. That's what this article, at it's foundation, is attempting to do.

Just like when Rick Perry threw out the 'Treasonous' charge against Bernanke. Bernanke's approach might be misguided, but questioning his love of country over it (implied by the word Treason) does far more harm than good. And on the flip side, to claim that "my team is best because we have noble goals, and you don't" is essentially the same thing.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (8/21/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9506) 11 years ago
And on the flip side, to claim that "my team is best because we have noble goals, and you don't" is essentially the same thing.

No it's not. You're trying to reduce this to a false equivalence - Whether or not the R's are better than the D's, it is sometimes possible to determine if one groups motivations and goals are damaging to the body politic.

Some here like to wave their hands and say "both sides do it", or "a plague on both your houses". In some cases that's defeatist, and in other cases it's just cynicism (and I'm looking at you when you when I say that rick) but we can judge this by looking at who's fighting for your economic interests, and who isn't.

How much money have you seen in your bank account that can be traced to tax cuts there Rick? Where do YOU fall on the laffer curve? Are you a rube or rentier?

Vote accordingly.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15423) 11 years ago
Rick: While it is tempting to respond point by point to your last post, it is clear that you are defining the concept of liberalism through the ice-tea stained red-state colored glasses that you apparently always wear. To that end, it is pointless to banter back and forth. A story about wrestling a pig in the mud comes to mind.

~~~~~~~~~
I have arrived at my viewpoint through a lot of reading and study. There have been several here that for many years have challenged my point of view and I am forever indebted to them for the courage they have demonstrated in challenging my worldview.

I simply started reading some of the articles and sources they posted and contemplated what they said. At first it was challenging to read and ponder information from another point of view. The easy and habitual thing to do was to turn on the radio and see what certain talk-show personalities thought about an issue, and parrot that way of thinking. The funny thing is that you don't really gain much understanding of other points of view by reading and listening to what you already believe to be true. And you will never find out whether it is true or not.

I have always been one to try and understand the origins of why we believe what we believe. It has become increasingly important to me to attempt to understand why others hold their beliefs. It is a fascinating study. Unfortunately, much of what conservatism/evangelicalism/tea-partyism pushes forward as absolute truth is based on faulty assumptions from 1000-1500 years ago. This is especially true of the aforementioned wedge issues.

Politically, a perspective that sees government as a force that can help and protect the poor and downtrodden is, IMO, more logical than one thinks of government as always the enemy. Obviously, government doesn't get it right all of the time. But we have better lives, cleaner air and water, happier kittens and puppy dogs, etc. because of our government and the liberty it provides.

It is also interesting to note that the happiest and most productive time in the early Christian church happened when they practiced, not some form of compete-for-your-own capitalism, but when they practiced pure unadulterated communism. There are numerous surveys that indicate that the residents of the Scandinavian countries of the world who practice a more socialist/communist form of government are also much happier people than we are in the U.S. Who wouldn't want to work 35 hours per week, drink beer and hangout with beautiful strawberry-blond women? There is a lesson there we ought to consider.

As a result of my change in thinking, I hope and believe I have become a much happier, more accepting, and tolerant person. I am learning to genuinely accept and embrace people for who they are without the need to politically categorize them (even spelling nazi's ). Life is too short to spend frustrated with people because they think differently, act differently, or go to bed with someone of the same sex. As I said earlier, life is a journey, not a destination. I have decided to enjoy the trip. Being narrow minded and rigid in my outlook on life and in my relationships with others was filled with stress, suspicion, and fear. I don't want to continue to live that way.

This new way of thinking is not some gnostic secret. It is available to anyone who is willing to truly listen what other people are saying, seek to understand their point of view, study that perspective, and make the required adjustments to your way of thinking.

And since I am rapidly approaching and exceeding "Mr. Crapduck's" essay length I will quit for now.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (8/22/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3716) 11 years ago
They are completely opposed to the notion of reasonable taxation


This is your opinion. However, if you ask any member of the tea party if they believe that "reasonable taxation is necessary" they would all say yes, which is why I assert that the article doesn't say much.

Also, not to jump on Rick's bandwagon, but you are definitely building a straw man. For one thing, you have almost never said the word "conservative" in this thread without adding "tea party" when the tea party is a tiny minority of the right wing in the USA. The reason that they have as much influence as they do is due to another broken aspect of our system (gerrymandering) but that's a topic for another thread. The point is though, that they do not represent the mainstream right wing.

Clearly, the tea-party crowd absolutely wants to destroy the very revenue/spending system that provides our liberty. They are completely opposed to the notion of reasonable taxation or allowing the government providing any services other than a military. They want to use the military, not for the defense of our nation, but to export and impose their idea of "democracy" and religion on beduin tribes who have little ability or desire to attack us. While they do that they economically enslave us to pay for their crusade.


Do you really believe that this is how conservatives feel? Having been one yourself, I would think that you would realize that what you said here is a cartoonish exaggeration and a completely "spun" view of conservative ideas. In other words, a straw man.

As a result of my change in thinking, I hope and believe I have become a much happier, more accepting, and tolerant person. I am learning to genuinely accept and embrace people for who they are without the need to politically categorize them (even spelling nazi's ). Life is too short to spend frustrated with people because they think differently, act differently, or go to bed with someone of the same sex. As I said earlier, life is a journey, not a destination. I have decided to enjoy the trip. Being narrow minded and rigid in my outlook on life and in my relationships with others was filled with stress, suspicion, and fear. I don't want to continue to live that way.


I am 100% behind what you are talking about here. I went through a similar change of perspective somewhere around 2002. What concerns me though, is that you seem to feel that, seeing the flaws in one orthodoxy, the only option is to take up another.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15423) 11 years ago
For one thing, you have almost never said the word "conservative" in this thread without adding "tea party" when the tea party is a tiny minority of the right wing in the USA. The reason that they have as much influence as they do is due to another broken aspect of our system (gerrymandering) but that's a topic for another thread. The point is though, that they do not represent the mainstream right wing.


Most likely my perception here is the result of living in the reddest county in one of the reddest states. All the local political buzz is about how great it will be with Bachmann or Perry in charge. And where are the Giuliani's and Zell Millers?

What concerns me though, is that you seem to feel that, seeing the flaws in one orthodoxy, the only option is to take up another.


Valid point. Actually, the most significant changes to my thinking are in the human sexuality arena.
Top
Posted by Jan Cornutt (+279) 11 years ago
Fyi, our forefathers were termed Classical liberals, which at that time were against big government and for less govt intervention in peoples lives. Modern day liberals are termed Revisionist liberals who are for a bigger govt and one that will "take care of the peoples need" (Gov't health care, Medicare, Social Security..etc,etc, Spread the wealth) For the gov't to do that they would have to control everything. The gov't has proven they can't take care of much except themselves. As the saying goes: Put the Gov't in charge of the Sahara Desert and in less than 5 years there would be a shortage of sand.....korkII
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12509) 11 years ago
Sorry, dear, the Founding Fathers were screaming, dyed-in-the-wool LIBERALS. They rebelled against their legal government. Pretending that they were "conservative" is ridiculous. Stop trying to rewrite history to make your political points. The term "Classical Liberal" just means "People who were Liberal but I don't like thinking of them that way."

The purpose of government is to do what individuals cannot. That includes taking care of those who need assistance for whatever reason and whose families cannot afford to do it themselves. I realize that good regressives believe the poor and sick should die and decrease the surplus population but then you will run even shorter on wage slaves at Wal-Mart. The poor buy stuff, when they can afford it, and that also helps the economy.

IF you truly think government is evil, try anarchy on for size.

[This message has been edited by Amorette Allison (8/22/2011)]
Top
Posted by Jan Cornutt (+279) 11 years ago
Sorry Amorette, The purpose of government is NOT to run each individuals life. Each state is supposed to be sovereign (sp) and if people are in need of something it should come from state and local govt's not the federal government. As far as the term classic liberalism goes, look it up on the internet and while you are at it look up revisionist leberalism also. I feel the fed govt should not be involved in peoples personal lives. The states should administer to it's people.....korkyII
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9506) 11 years ago
Amorette Says:
The purpose of government is to do what individuals cannot.


Korkey Hears:
The purpose of government is to run each individuals life


These are not the same statement.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15423) 11 years ago
Each state is supposed to be sovereign (sp) and if people are in need of something it should come from state and local govt's not the federal government.


I believe that way of thinking was one of the casualties of the civil war.

I feel the fed govt should not be involved in peoples personal lives.


I'd appreciate an example of how the federal government is involved and by extension interfering in your life. Yes, we all have to deal with the IRS. I have heard this complaint numerous times. I have probably complained about this myself a long time ago. The question is... is it really true? Other than the IRS, I cannot think of an instance where the federal government has personally told me anything. Let's hear an example.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (8/22/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6169) 11 years ago
Korker would rather have 50 states telling us what to do than one federal government. Think of the benefits. Manufacturing autos, guns, and child car seats would be so much easier when companies have to comply with 50 different standards. And think of having no EPA! Why mining, manufacturing, and agricultural companies would have no trouble trying to maintain 50 different standards of compliance. States would compete with each other to have the laxest standards to encourage companies to do business in their state. Does Korker really think his taxes will go down under this kind of government? How will the states pay for all the new responsibilities they will have?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15423) 11 years ago
Why mining, manufacturing, and agricultural companies would have no trouble trying to maintain 50 different standards of compliance.


I have dealt with some mining situations on a state line. Can't haul MO topsoil into KS or vice versa. What a logistical nightmare. And quite frankly, I would rather deal with OSM than with Wyoming DEQ.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
Sorry, dear, the Founding Fathers were screaming, dyed-in-the-wool LIBERALS. They rebelled against their legal government. Pretending that they were "conservative" is ridiculous. Stop trying to rewrite history to make your political points. The term "Classical Liberal" just means "People who were Liberal but I don't like thinking of them that way."


You're trying to apply the modern definition of a word to the understood definition of 200+ years ago. Whether you were liberal 200 years ago was based on an entirely different set of definitions than what it means today.

They rebelled against their legal government.


Irrelevant. Liberalism in the classical context, and despite current connotations, has nothing to do with rebellion or even pressing for change, even if that's what it's proponents sometimes did. It really has to do with individual liberty. If you want to adhere to the classical definition of liberty, we would likely all be described as liberal... modern conservatives and modern liberals alike.

The modern conservative vs modern liberal conflict is really the product of two splintered factions of classical liberalism. It's not easily summed up, but if I had to try, what modern "Conservatives" are trying to conserve is by definition Classical Liberalism. What modern "Liberals" are trying to move towards has different names, which I'll let you pick for yourself. Social Liberalism, Modern Liberalism... whatever you want to call it.

In the end they're all just names. But it's not accurate to say Classical liberals are the same as Modern Liberals. They are night and day (when viewed from our current perspective.)
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12509) 11 years ago
Willfully misinterpret what the "others" say and re-write history to reflect your opinions and yowza! You are right and everybody else is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
Most likely my perception here is the result of living in the reddest county in one of the reddest states. All the local political buzz is about how great it will be with Bachmann or Perry in charge. And where are the Giuliani's and Zell Millers?


Funny though because I've voiced my skepticism about Bachmann or Perry. Thankfully when when you mentioned Giuliani, it made me remember...

http://milescity.com/foru...6467#26533

All the way back in 2008... I mentioned Giuliani as a possible compromise candidate, but you ripped him because his conservatism wasn't quite pure enough.

Fast forward, and now you're accusing me of being the Tea-Party absolutist. Which takes me back to...

Seems these days Conservatives have convinced themselves, and some of the American public, that being a Liberal is akin to being a card-carrying member of the Communist Party.


Replace Communist with Tea, and you're playing the same game.

Valid point. Actually, the most significant changes to my thinking are in the human sexuality arena.


Conservatives have a phrase for this phenomenon. It's called becoming a Sulky Sullivan.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
Willfully misinterpret what the "others" say and re-write history to reflect your opinions and yowza! You are right and everybody else is WRONG WRONG WRONG.


http://plato.stanford.edu...bBetOldNew

For classical liberals - sometimes called the `old' liberalism - liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life -including employing her labor and her capital - as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom (Gaus, 1994; Steiner, 1994). A market order based on private property is thus seen as an embodiment of freedom (Robbins, 1961: 104). Unless people are free to make contracts and to sell their labour, or unless they are free to save their incomes and then invest them as they see fit, or unless they are free to run enterprises when they have obtained the capital, they are not really free.
...
What has come to be known as `new', `revisionist', `welfare state', or perhaps best, `social justice', liberalism challenges this intimate connection between personal liberty and a private property based market order (Freeden, 1978; Gaus, 1983b; Paul, Miller and Paul, 2007). Three factors help explain the rise of this revisionist theory. First, the new liberalism arose in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a period in which the ability of a free market to sustain what Lord Beveridge (1944: 96) called a `prosperous equilibrium' was being questioned. Believing that a private property based market tended to be unstable, or could, as Keynes argued (1973 [1936]), get stuck in an equilibrium with high unemployment, new liberals came to doubt that it was an adequate foundation for a stable, free society. Here the second factor comes into play: just as the new liberals were losing faith in the market, their faith in government as a means of supervising economic life was increasing.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (8/22/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15423) 11 years ago
Funny though because I've voiced my skepticism about Bachmann or Perry. Thankfully when when you mentioned Giuliani, it made me remember...


My mention of Giuliani was in response to Levi's assertion that the tea-party is a very small part of the entire conservative movement. If that is actually true, why, with the exception of Gov. Gary Johnson, are all of the republican candidate trying to appeal to this "small faction"? It seems like "mainstream conservatives", like Giuliani, should have a cakewalk to the party nomination. The facts appear to be that the tea-party is in firm control of the republican party. For a variety of reason, mostly that I have a vastly different understanding of "wedge issues" in the Bible, the republican party is becoming is very repulsive organization to my way of thinking.

Fast forward, and now you're accusing me of being the Tea-Party absolutist. Which takes me back to...

"Seems these days Conservatives have convinced themselves, and some of the American public, that being a Liberal is akin to being a card-carrying member of the Communist Party."


Sorry Rick, nothing I have posted accused you specifically of anything. My intent in starting this thread was simply to share a change in my way of thinking. I used the original article because it resonated with my way of thinking and I had hopes it would provide a terminology basis for further discussion. It wasn't really intended to turn into another three ring circus.

I have no desire to play word games, as you suggest. If being a member of the tea-party works for you (or anyone else) that is not my issue. If it doesn't that is okay as well. If you someday have a change in your point of view to a green party communist that is fine by me. I was simply explaining why I believe the new view I have works better for me than what I believe the tea-party offers.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (8/22/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15423) 11 years ago
Sorry, dear, the Founding Fathers were screaming, dyed-in-the-wool LIBERALS. They rebelled against their legal government. Pretending that they were "conservative" is ridiculous.


Absolutely correct.

Conservatism emerged out of the restoration of the English, Scottish, and Irish monarchies. It embraced and defended issues such as hereditary status, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. Liberalism on the other hand opposed these issues. Conservatives were royalist.

Liberalism promoted issues such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, free trade, and the freedom of religion.

The notion that Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, etc are cut from the same political cloth or system of belief as Jefferson, Franklin, or Washington is laughable and intellectually dishonest.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (8/22/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4947) 11 years ago
Wow, Richard, you go guy!!! Hats off to your writing skills lately and beliefs...Loud applause from my keyboard....
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1908) 11 years ago
Is there some kind of alien seed pod involved with all of this?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
Hoorah! I hereby anoint you all Classical Liberals. Where should we get started...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...liberalism

Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, was to provide most of the ideas of classical liberal economics, at least until the publication of J. S. Mill's Principles in 1848.[40] Smith addressed the motivation for economic activity, the causes of prices and the distribution of wealth, and the policies the state should follow in order to maximize wealth.[41]
Smith saw self-interest, rather than altruism, as the motivation for the production of goods and services. An "invisible hand" directed the tradesman to work toward the public good. This provided a moral justification for the accumulation of wealth, which had previously been viewed as sinful.[41] He assumed that workers could be paid as low as was necessary for their survival, which was later transformed by Ricardo and Malthus into the "Iron Law of Wages".[42] His main emphasis was on the benefit of free internal and international trade, which he thought could increase wealth through specialization in production.[43] He also opposed restrictive trade preferences, state grants of monopolies, and employers' organisations and trade unions.[44] Government should be limited to defence, public works and the administration of justice, financed by taxes based on income.[45]


Funny I never took you guys as big proponents of the invisible hand. Glad we're finally all part of the same club.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
Richard... "it is clear that you are defining the concept of liberalism through the ice-tea stained red-state colored glasses that you apparently always wear"

Rick... "and now you're accusing me of being the Tea-Party absolutist"

Richard... "Sorry Rick, nothing I have posted accused you specifically of anything."


Yeah, you lost me on that one.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10023) 11 years ago
Just look it up in the dictionary ...

1913 Websters wrote:
CONSERVATIVE - Of or pertaining to a political party which favors the conservation of existing institutions and forms of government, as the Conservative party in England; -- contradistinguished from Liberal and Radical.

We have always been conscientiously attached to what is called the Tory, and which might with more propriety be called the Conservative, party. Quart. Rev. (1830).

1913 Websters wrote:
LIBERAL - One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters; an opponent of the established systems; a reformer; in English politics, a member of the Liberal party, so called. Cf. Whig.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15423) 11 years ago
Okay... so I did "accuse" you of something. My bad.
~~~~~
Ironically, if you examine the undertones of this thread, there is a demonstration of conservative thought versus liberal thought.

On the one hand we have a couple of individuals who are approaching the conversation from a royalist, authoritarian, federalist, let's win one for the king at all cost, absolutism point of view.

On the other hand there are several who have approached this conversation from a "here is an interesting thought", "you are at liberty to agree or disagree" that has no real need to "win".

From this I conclude that if a worldview is so unnatural and contrived that it requires an authoritarian/federalist approach to ensure its dominance, it surely must be flawed. Liberty is an immense blessing and we should all strive to enjoy, appreciate, and practice sharing it with our neighbors.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (8/23/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
1913 was the height of the Progressive Era. The entire term "Classical Liberalism" was coined because the core tenets of liberalism had changed over time, especially during the progressive era. Look in the 1828 version of Websters, and you'll see what I mean.

Besides, trying to talk about political philosophies in terms of dictionary-short definitions isn't probably the best way to go either way.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
Ironically, if you examine the undertones of this thread, there is a demonstration of conservative thought versus liberal thought.

On the one hand we have a couple of individuals who are approaching the conversation from a royalist, authoritarian, federalist, let's win one for the king at all cost, absolutism point of view.


Ah yes. The dreaded Authoritarian Monarchist Federalists.

Wow.

I'm going to take 'groups of people only related by the fact that Richard no Likey' for $200 Alex.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1588) 11 years ago
Richard, drinks on me.

Way to go. It is hard to make such a change as yours. I did it about 15 years ago. but as you say it is an ongoing evolutionary process-what one believes in. When I have time I will give you a rundown.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10023) 11 years ago
Redefining the revolution as a "conservative" movement is like rebranding creationism as a "scientific" design. Just sayin'.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4452) 11 years ago
I don't know why we bother having this discussion. Anymore, if you're actually a conservative you're really a Libertarian or Ron Paul Repulican. If you're a member of the Tea Party of any other group of hypocrites that are going to "protect our freedoms" by legislating bedroom behavior you're a procreateing idiot and deserve to be known as such.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4947) 11 years ago
Regarding the tea party, it really is too bad that arrogance combined with stupidity isn't painful...
Top
supporter
Posted by Dona Stebbins (+823) 11 years ago
It is painful, but only to those who have to watch!
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
I'm not redefining anything as anything. I'm saying it's dumb to try to redefine what happened 200 years ago using words as they're defined today.

For instance...

Madison and Hamilton often called themselves Republican (because of their support for a Federal Republic), even though they were pushing for a more powerful Federal government than existed at the time. Meanwhile, Jefferson would've called himself a Democrat, except at the time that meant States' Rights and Enumerated Powers. From what I gather though, since Jefferson was for the status quo, he was really a Conservative, while Madison and Hamilton would be the Liberals.

None of which makes any sense, because if I'm allowed to use today's definitions for the words they themselves used, I'm allowed to claim solidarity with either side however I want.

And if you're going to lump Federalists and Royalists together because at some point both dared defend an existing institution... essentially what you're saying is that the principles themselves didn't matter, only the eagerness or unwillingness to change.

That, on it's face, just doesn't make any sense. But it's also a standard that cuts both ways. Because for every 'conservation' of rotten institutions, ie the Monarchy, there's another example of a 'liberalization' that brought about rotten institutions.

The whole exercise is pointless. There is a place in history for those who were willing to change for the better. But there's just as much of a place for people who stood up and were unwilling to change because it was the right thing to do.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (8/26/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4452) 11 years ago
You know what the founding fathers didn't care about? Who you're procreateing.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4947) 11 years ago
GOP Highway
Top
supporter
Posted by Chris Gamrath (+377) 11 years ago
Richard wrote "Ironically, if you examine the undertones of this thread, there is a demonstration of conservative thought versus liberal thought."

Having read through most of this thread this morning, this made me laugh out loud! To say that the undertones of a thread on here have turned into conservative vs. liberal is ironic, is like saying it's ironic the sun came up this morning and that the sky is still blue!!!

I've seen sports threads, obituaries, and even which computer is best posts turned into that same "ironic" thing.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
Yes, howdy. Now we've gotten to the core of the modern progressive argument.

Richard was trying to get there. Was just a little more wordsy.
Top