The defects of Liberal Thought

[Mr. Fight the Power]

We should not be commenting on modern American liberals and conservatives. Both terms are bastardizations brought about by the rah-rah politics of the American climate. We Americans are just fat, lazy, and happy. We are more interested in finding a team to root for than actual benefitting ourselves through politics.

It isn't like politics works anyways.

[Didymos Thomas]

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.

McCain, Obama and Clinton are all both conservative and liberal. Though, there are differences in Clinton and Obama's policies. They have different plans for handling healthcare, for example. They don't debate social or economic issues very much because most voters either cannot tell a differences between their perspectives, or wouldn't understand if the candidates tried to enumerate them. For most voters, they are both non-Republican, and that's enough.

While McCain is nominally liberal, I fear his policies in action, just as with the liberal Bush, will draw us closer and closer to authoritarianism. Despite his freedom rhetoric, he would have us on a path towards dictatorship.

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")

Classical liberalism generally applies to those liberals who advocated a limited government, or an open market system. Of course, Mill advocated relatively open markets, so he could be classed among the classical liberals (though, he should not be confused with the libertarian approach to classical liberalism a la Milton Friedman).

But all liberals emphasize civil liberties. Whether they disagree is when they begin to talk about the nature of those liberties and how the government should go about protecting those liberties. Some liberals argue for a sort of laissez faire economy, others think the government must be economically involved in order to maintain equality among citizens.

So, although the meanings of the terms have shifted, Conservative are still, well-conservative. And Liberals seem to me to have forgotten their heritage.

Proudhon was certainly a liberal. How have modern American liberals forgotten their heritage? They advocate a large economic net, and social protections, government intervention into the economy to preserve equality. Are they classical liberals in the economic sense? No, but their economic thoughts are no less liberal because they are still grounded in notions of liberty and equality, which is fundamental to liberalism.

It isn't like politics works anyways.

Sure it does. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This is exactly how those with money, in power, want the political system to work. So that they remain the ones with money and power.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

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.

How can you be intellectually honest with espousing concepts like, " the believer's inability to deal with his environment than from the environment itself ". How can you relegate the personal responsibility of individuals towards non-accountability by providing idealistic determinations of personal behavior. The slippery slope you are climbing is reflective of your critical thinking skills and absolute disconnect from any measurable benchmark of common sense.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

How can you be intellectually honest with espousing concepts like, " the believer's inability to deal with his environment than from the environment itself ".

I am not really sure what is controversial about that "concept". I shouldn't need to provide examples of people being willfully obtuse because the truth is not what they wanted.

How can you relegate the personal responsibility of individuals towards non-accountability by providing idealistic determinations of personal behavior.

I know what all of the words mean, but when you place them all together in that order, I get a little confused. What and whose personal behavior have I provided, how is it idealistic, and where have I tried to do away with personal responsibility?

The slippery slope you are climbing is reflective of your critical thinking skills and absolute disconnect from any measurable benchmark of common sense.

I know that the slippery slope is the definitional argument from the conservative, but you have left me at a loss as to what slippery slope I am "climbing".

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

We should not be commenting on modern American liberals and conservatives. Both terms are bastardizations brought about by the rah-rah politics of the American climate. We Americans are just fat, lazy, and happy. We are more interested in finding a team to root for than actual benefitting ourselves through politics.

It isn't like politics works anyways.

Whatever "politics works" means, the terms, "Liberal" and "Conservative" are useful short-hand terms for describing a set of views this or that person has about politics and social issues. Of course, these terms may be misleading when transferred from a European context to an American context, and one should be aware the the differences, just as one should be aware of how both terms have changed in meaning from time to time. And we can be more accurate when we make distinctions like, A is a social liberal, but an economic conservative. But none of this detracts from the usefulness of these terms as short-hands. One useful distinction was made (I think) by the late William F. Buckley, when he distinguished between "being a conservative" and "being a conservative". A person who is conservative will take a generally conservative approach to political and socio-economic matters, but will not have a rigid set of principles to which he strictly adheres. But "a conservative" will have a rigid set of conservative principle (e.g. on abortion, or on taxes) on which he will allow no deviancy. In my view, a conservative (or for that matter, a liberal) is like a man who insists on driving at exactly the speed limit no matter what the particular conditions are. Someone who is foolish.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Whatever "politics works" means, the terms, "Liberal" and "Conservative" are useful short-hand terms for describing a set of views this or that person has about politics and social issues. Of course, these terms may be misleading when transferred from a European context to an American context, and one should be aware the the differences, just as one should be aware of how both terms have changed in meaning from time to time. And we can be more accurate when we make distinctions like, A is a social liberal, but an economic conservative. But none of this detracts from the usefulness of these terms as short-hands. One useful distinction was made (I think) by the late William F. Buckley, when he distinguished between "being a conservative" and "being a conservative". A person who is conservative will take a generally conservative approach to political and socio-economic matters, but will not have a rigid set of principles to which he strictly adheres. But "a conservative" will have a rigid set of conservative principle (e.g. on abortion, or on taxes) on which he will allow no deviancy. In my view, a conservative (or for that matter, a liberal) is like a man who insists on driving at exactly the speed limit no matter what the particular conditions are. Someone who is foolish.

I was simply saying that the conditions for what constitutes "a conservative" or "a liberal" in American politics are sensationalized and brings about a climate where either designators implies that someone has a specific set of views. However, I would say that Locke, Montesquieu, Bastiat, and Mill fall under the title of "a liberal" even though they were certainly not dogmatic or rigid in their opinions.

I am a libertarian, albeit at the rather radical end by way of Proudhon, Tucker, Bakunin, and Austrian political-economic thought. Unfortunately, with the advent of Ron Paul and Neil Boortz, I foresee a similar standardizing and dumbing-down of libertarian thought as well.

I agree with your sentiments that those who fall under or accept those titles are generally foolish, but I don't think it is necessarily the case, and furthermore it is why I don't think we should be addressing such individuals.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

I was simply saying that the conditions for what constitutes "a conservative" or "a liberal" in American politics are sensationalized and brings about a climate where either designators implies that someone has a specific set of views. However, I would say that Locke, Montesquieu, Bastiat, and Mill fall under the title of "a liberal" even though they were certainly not dogmatic or rigid in their opinions.

I am a libertarian, albeit at the rather radical end by way of Proudhon, Tucker, Bakunin, and Austrian political-economic thought. Unfortunately, with the advent of Ron Paul and Neil Boortz, I foresee a similar standardizing and dumbing-down of libertarian thought as well.

I agree with your sentiments that those who fall under or accept those titles are generally foolish, but I don't think it is necessarily the case, and furthermore it is why I don't think we should be addressing such individuals.

They were certainly classical liberals. But Mill was not "a liberal" in that he was prepared to temper his views to the situation. But, in these days, and in America, Mill would have been thought to be conservative, although, of course, not "a conservative". Rush Limbaugh is not only conservative, but he is a conservative. The same kind of distinction, I imagine, can be made between being a libertarian, and being a libertarian.

But do you see the difference between "a X" and just someone who is X?

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

I am not really sure what is controversial about that "concept". I shouldn't need to provide examples of people being willfully obtuse because the truth is not what they wanted.

You said " 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.

How can you possibly separate an individuals personal decision (belief) that is based on their interpretation of their empirical environment, and then indicate it is their inability to view and react to their own environment correctly (according to you), and that is why stereotypes continue to exist. The statement is nonsensical and extremely self-serving.




I know what all of the words mean, but when you place them all together in that order, I get a little confused. What and whose personal behavior have I provided, how is it idealistic, and where have I tried to do away with personal responsibility?

I said,
How can you relegate the personal responsibility of individuals towards non-accountability by providing idealistic determinations of personal behavior.

Because how you provided a ridiculous concept on the differences between the environment and the actions or beliefs that are produced by the environment. They are one and the same (where else can we get our information). Can't you see the self-indulging idealistic premise that you just create, whereby providing non-accountability ( or simply the freedom to make decisions) to individuals, because the interaction of the environment and the individual was just not quite right. The process of interfacing with the natural world is what it is, and needs to be defined as Reality.


I know that the slippery slope is the definitional argument from the conservative, but you have left me at a loss as to what slippery slope I am "climbing".

I said,
The slippery slope you are climbing is reflective of your critical thinking skills and absolute disconnect from any measurable benchmark of common sense.

By providing environments to explain the processes that remove the ability or accountability of individuals is clearly an idealistic proposition fraught with innumerable pitfalls, that clear thinking individuals generally recognized.

Consider this! Do not always believe what you think. And always,always test with the tools of empirical evidence and practicality.

[Didymos Thomas]

The inadequacy of the original definition has been sufficiently explained. Let's get back on topic and drop the personal back and forth.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

The inadequacy of the original definition has been sufficiently explained. Let's get back on topic and drop the personal back and forth.

The leading edge of enlightenment only welcomes the inherent methodical discipline of articulate thought, and thoroughly dismisses the plodding cadence of careless liberal ideals.

Ruthless Logic 2008