The defects of Liberal Thought

[Didymos Thomas]

The definition is funny because it is a generalization about a population that seems to mimic said population's motivations. Conservatives, by definition, are characterized by their tendency to prefer what is already established, while liberals tend to be viewed as wanting to inject new ideas and ways of doing things.

I think the definition fails because the generalization is too broad concerning liberals. Consider modern American libertarians, for example. They are liberal in that they are preeminently concerned with individual rights, and are also the archetype of American economic conservatives.

Don't get me wrong, it is witty. I'll probably end up quoting it from time to time, but not as a definition for conservative or liberal.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

The definition is funny because it is a generalization about a population that seems to mimic said population's motivations. Conservatives, by definition, are characterized by their tendency to prefer what is already established, while liberals tend to be viewed as wanting to inject new ideas and ways of doing things.

I think the definition fails because the generalization is too broad concerning liberals. Consider modern American libertarians, for example. They are liberal in that they are preeminently concerned with individual rights, and are also the archetype of American economic conservatives.

Don't get me wrong, it is witty. I'll probably end up quoting it from time to time, but not as a definition for conservative or liberal.

Of course it is not an adequate definition, nor is it intended to be. That is why it is in " The Devil's Dictionary" and not in Webster's. (You can get Bierce's Devil's Dictionary on line. It is well worth reading). But I just asked whether it doesn't have a grain of truth in it.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

But I just asked whether it doesn't have a grain of truth in it.

Seems to be nothing more than a stereotype or charicature to me. Stereotypes may be some distant tangent of something true -- but that doesn't by definition invest them with any truth -- they're too contaminated by the time they become stereotypes.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Seems to be nothing more than a stereotype or charicature to me. Stereotypes may be some distant tangent of something true -- but that doesn't by definition invest them with any truth -- they're too contaminated by the time they become stereotypes.

I beg to differ Sir. How does some numerical percentage of truth equate into zero percentage of truth, unless it is unequivocally disproven (appears to to inconsistent). On the contray, stereotypes ( I thought stereotypes were, Pioneer, JVC, Kenwood) exist or continue to exist, because their are constantly reinforced. There is no better testament then the arduous taskmaster of time (constantly challeged or reinforced). From a practical standpoint, the emotions derived from the accusations of stereotypes, is simply the difficult process of reconciling the current truth of the situation, and the idealistic destination. This does not indicated that change will not occur, but it is useless and counterproductive to use guilt as a force for change, especially when it tries to take on Reality.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Seems to be nothing more than a stereotype or charicature to me. Stereotypes may be some distant tangent of something true -- but that doesn't by definition invest them with any truth -- they're too contaminated by the time they become stereotypes.

Well, isn't it true that conservatives want to keep things much the same and preserve the status quo, and that Liberals are interested in changing the status quo and substituting something different. If you want confirmation listen to a few of Obama's speeches. In fact Obama seems to think (or, at least, try to get his supporters to think) that change just for the sake of change is good.

Now, of course, it is an exaggeration that Conservatives want to preserve what is evil, and Liberals want get new evils to replace the old evils. However, it is true that change is not always for the good, and of course, it is true that preserving the status quo is not always for the best either.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

How does some numerical percentage of truth equate into zero percentage of truth, unless it is unequivocally disproven (appears to to inconsistent).

That's a fallacy. Picture the following stereotype: Germans are inherently genocidal. I mean look at WWII and look at the Herero Genocide, which were both committed by Germans. Seems ridiculous to call ALL Germans genocidal, right? So try to unequivocally disprove it -- you can't, because Heinrich Himmler and Lothar von Trotha were Germans who led genocides. So that stereotype can NEVER be unequivocally disproved in light of these two exceptions.

Logically, a positive assertion can never be unequivocally disproved unless you are omnicient and you know of all instances. So I can say that bunny rabbits are bloodthirsty killers, and that statement can NEVER be disproved.

And to be derived from something that is true is not the same as being true. The stereotype that Jews are obsessed with money is derived from the Christian prohibition of usury during medieval times, which created a professional niche in which Jews were allowed to enter banking and finance but Christians were not. That doesn't mean Jews were obsessed with money -- but the hatred against Jews during that (and subsequent eras) transformed that historical fact into a stereotype. So where's the truth in this age-old stereotype about Jews?

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Well, isn't it true that conservatives want to keep things much the same and preserve the status quo, and that Liberals are interested in changing the status quo and substituting something different.

Do conservatives who want to overturn Roe vs Wade want to maintain the status quo? Do conservatives who want to end social welfare programs want to maintain the status quo? Do conservatives who want to expel illegal aliens want to maintain the status quo? Was Prohibition a maintenance of the status quo or was it something new?

Do liberals who want to prevent logging in national forests, i.e. conservationists, want to substitute something different? Do liberals who want to continue funding social programs, schools, the arts, etc want to substitute something different?

[Didymos Thomas]

Liberal and conservative do not rest at opposite ends of a spectrum. Liberals come in a wide variety, many of which are considered to be, at least in some respect, conservative, ie, Libertarians. Most American conservatives, despite their claims, are fundamentally liberals because they tend to vocalize concern with liberty and freedom as being their primary political concern. Though the equally ambiguous "security" has become popular.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Liberal and conservative do not rest at opposite ends of a spectrum. Liberals come in a wide variety, many of which are considered to be, at least in some respect, conservative, ie, Libertarians. Most American conservatives, despite their claims, are fundamentally liberals because they tend to vocalize concern with liberty and freedom as being their primary political concern. Though the equally ambiguous "security" has become popular.

Liberals are diverse, and so are Conservatives. But, nevertheless, both share common characteristics, otherwise they would not be classed together. There is clearly a close similarity between Clinton and Obama (in fact, between them, the difference between their ideologies and policies is so minimal, that the only issues between them seem to be personal. They don't debate economic or social issues because they agree on those). On the other hand, there is clear difference between Obama and Clinton, and McCain, since McCain is still conservative.

The meaning of the terms, "Liberal" and "Conservatives" have changed from the 19th century when we now talk of "Classical Liberalism" which emphasized civil liberties (see John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty") Nowadays, Liberals are mostly concerned with economic and social issues. It is now the Conservatives who are emphasizing both civil and also economic liberty which they see as inextricably tied together. So, although the meanings of the terms have shifted, Conservative are still, well-conservative. And Liberals seem to me to have forgotten their heritage.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

And Liberals seem to me to have forgotten their heritage.

Modern liberalism in the US has been borne of really just a few major historical figures and events. First, the international liberalism as espoused (really idealized) by Woodrow Wilson, with a sense that the US should be concerned about the well-being and freedom of people outside our country. Second, the environmental movement was politically legitimized by Teddy Roosevelt, more than anyone else. Third, social liberalism took modern form under Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, but really extends back through the labor crises of the early 1900s and all the way back to the abolitionist movement. Finally, economic liberalism was a phenomenon largely led by FDR during the Depression and WWII, then supplemented by Johnson in the 1960s (i.e. with Medicare).

All of these are historical phenomena that are largely the interests of self-identified liberals, and they constitute the major themes in modern American liberalism.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

I beg to differ Sir. How does some numerical percentage of truth equate into zero percentage of truth, unless it is unequivocally disproven (appears to to inconsistent). On the contray, stereotypes ( I thought stereotypes were, Pioneer, JVC, Kenwood) exist or continue to exist, because their are constantly reinforced. There is no better testament then the arduous taskmaster of time (constantly challeged or reinforced). From a practical standpoint, the emotions derived from the accusations of stereotypes, is simply the difficult process of reconciling the current truth of the situation, and the idealistic destination. This does not indicated that change will not occur, but it is useless and counterproductive to use guilt as a force for change, especially when it tries to take on Reality.

Reinforcement of beliefs comes, more often than not, from the believer's inability to deal with his environment than from the environment itself. Fear, insecurity, and ignorance are even stronger perpetuators of ideas than their negations.

Because of that, your opinion that the stereotypes confronted by liberalism reflect reality, and your attempt to attack "liberalism" with a small set of vague criticisms, I have a good idea of which of those sets of motivations I referenced drive your opinions.