Below is a quotation by another poster on this board... I just need to say something important about this sort of thing... Ever since the first days of Ronald Reagan, the neo-conservatives have been on an insidious campaign to turn a very good word into a very bad word in the minds of the American people... That word is "liberal." For the past 25 years, Americans have been bombarded with a crapload of anti-liberal spin and hype, through the mass media outlets that are mainly controlled by big business. Many (if not most) of you have bought into that anti-liberal hype, without ever once bothering to fully investigate EXACTLY what liberalism actually means, or what it entails. Let me give you the names of some famous liberals from our own American history. See if any of these guys strike you as being "stupid" or "bad for America" in any ways whatsoever: ALL OF THESE GREAT PEOPLE WERE LIBERALS: John Locke Benjamin Franklin Thomas Jefferson John Adams Patrick Henry Thomas Paine Frederick Douglas Nikola Tesla Franklin Delano Rooseveldt Albert Einstein Robert F. Kennedy Martin Luther King, Jr. ...and far, far too many other great people to list here. And now, here are a couple of excellent definitions of what "liberalism" means: From an intelligent author on wikipedia: "Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law." By President John F Kennedy: "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." Does anybody have a problem with the above philosophy..? Yes..? No..? If your answer is "No," then please try to explain how "liberal" has become a "dirty word" in America. The reason some of you perceive it to be "bad" is because you grew up during the age of the insidious neo-con dogma that has quite possibly led us to the very brink of ruination in this country. I want all of you to understand this. Liberals are not the bad guys... it's the greedy, irresponsible and downright dangerous whackos known as "conservatives" who have brought us to where we were at the end of last year in American history. Look around... was that the kind of America you could have felt proud of? Don't just give me a glib, knee-jerk and Pavlovian answer to that question. Think it over for a minute, very slowly and with as open a mind as possible. As you are thinking it over, I want you to summon every ounce of intelligence and insight that you can muster and try to imagine what this country would be like right now, if we had spent the past 25 years following liberal policies, instead of neo-conservative ones. Would it be worse than it is now..? Or would it be better..? That is what all of you should be thinking about, whenever you watch the continuing bombardment of anti-liberal jingoism that you've had spoon-fed to you for most of your lives. Please don't be a follower in life. Don't be just another duped, cud-chewing sheep. Don't let your country be sold out from under you to the highest bidders in China, and in Kuwait, and in Saudi Arabia, and in Mexico. Don't mortgage your future grandchildren away just to serve the interests of the greedy, conservative warmongering piglets whose only skill was to ruin the country. "Liberal" was never a dirty word. But "propaganda" is definitely one of the dirtiest words of all and folks, you've been fed a huge lie for more than a quarter of a century. Try to divorce yourselves from that big lie, and use your own eyes, ears and heart to assess what you see happening in America. Nevermind what your friends want you to believe. Nevermind what the mass media idiot box blasts at you all day and night. Nevermind what your parents think or what your teachers tell you. You have a BRAIN of your own. USE IT... and take another look at everything as objectively as you can. Then just do what your heart tells you to do. Following your heart is a hard thing to do, but that's why it takes courage to be a free-thinking individual... and that, my friends, is what liberalism is truly all about. It has nothing to do with being a "bleeding heart," or being "weak on defense," or being "anti-big-business," or being "against god." or any of those other retarded things that you've been told for your entire lives. It's about being DECENT and improving the quality of life not only for the self, but for others. It's about EQUALITY and JUSTICE, and it's about KINDNESS and PEACEFUL PURSUITS. What sort of country do you truly wish to live in...? Think it over carefully. "Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind; for I can apply no milder term... to the general prey of the rich upon the poor. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin "I believe that wherever there is plenty, poverty is evil." - Robert F Kennedy
What you don't realized is that you and "the unknown poster" are two sides of the same coin. Each seeking to demonize the other rather than dealing with actual issues and ideas in a constructive manner.
Your assesment is not inaccurate, WillNever, but in my opinion you lost credibility by displaying a lack of understanding for what 'conservative' means. Furthermore, it is misleading to say that those people you listed, such as Jefferson, are 'liberals'. Perhaps, but not in the modern sense of the word; 'libertarian' is much more accurate, and conservatism is much closer to libertarianism than it is to left liberalism. Left liberalism is the enemy to freedom; right-wing liberalism is fine. As to my first point, you either fail to understand what conservatism is about, or are deliberately putting it in a bad light. Neo-con is not con. George Bush is not a conservative; the people trying to sell out the country are not conservatives. Conservatism is about a humble, non-interventionalist foreign policy, strict adherence to the Consitution in regards to civil rights and the protection of privacy, and smaller government. In this manner, I find conservatism far preferable to the 'liberalism' of the modern day, that liberalism which is simply a soft form of marxism. Conservative is the good word. Take prominent conservatives such as: Milton Friedman Margaret Thatcher Reagan (to an extent) Thomas Jefferson Winston Churchill Benjamin Franklin John Wayne Etc
The same Thomas Jefferson who wanted to make Congress pay for "The Louisiana Purchase" is a conservative? Mmkay. Do yourself a big favor: forget everything you think you know about liberalism and conservatism, norse, and this applies to anyone else as well. Forget what you've been hearing from Joe Lieberman, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and similar self appointed "libertarian" demagogues. Wouldn't you rather be someone who thinks for himself, rather than someone who hitches his star to the next favorite internet celebrity politician? I know I would, and I think you need to as well. A leader is supposed to listen to you, not the other way around. Think on that. The conservative that I have described is reasonably representative of the majority of self styled conservatives in this country. If you believe that you are not that sort of conservative, then this thread may not apply to you. But historically speaking, conservatism has its roots in traditionalism and that is the basis on which most conservatives today still operate. If that still applies to you, then I suggest you change your ways... before you help to destroy Thomas Jefferson's dream forever. In the meantime, let's take a look at a definition of conservatism, the conservatism that *most* conservatives and wishy-washy libertarians use to describe themselves: "Core conservative principles include a trust in God and country, and many U.S. conservatives support a fiscal policy rooted in small government, laissez faire capitalism, and supply-side economics. In foreign policy, American conservatives usually advocate some moderate aspects of "American exceptionalism", a belief that the U.S. is unique among nations and that its standing and actions do and should guide the course of world history. If the ideas behind conservatism remind you of something else in history, then you aren't the only one. When Hitler rose to power in Germany, he followed some similar ideas to those. He made excuses for Germany to become the world's only power, he incited rabid nationalist fervor among its citzenry, and he manufactured a national enemy, the Jews, just so that he could "sell it" to the people. Sound familiar? It should. Hitler also had some of his own troops dress up in Polish uniforms and then stage a mock battle against other German troops. Naturally, this clever lie resulted in exactly the sort of public outrage that Hitler was counting upon and well... within days, he invaded Poland -- a nation who had never once done a single bad thing to Germany. Does this remind anyone of the big lie told by our own leaders, just before we invaded Iraq..? Remember all of that cleverly manufactured manure about "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction," that turned out to be nothing more than a huge, bold-faced lie..? Now take a good look at the above definition again, and go back to my original post and compare it to what liberalism is, and think carefully, one more time, without any preconceived judgments from your parents, teachers, the television, or any other self-appointed demagogues that you hitched your star to. Use YOUR brain, and decide what sort of country you would rather be living in... a liberal society that is free, peaceful, respected, and caring of its citizenry... or a conservative society that is internally divisive, full of predatorial corporations, traditionalists, and is in constant economic turmoil. The choice is up to you. There is only one correct choice, however. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Your choice is a false choice based on false premises. Now instead of name callling and false choices, let's have an honest discussion about the merits of modern liberalism. PS The irony of complaining about how "liberal" has been turned into a dirty word; and then immediately launching into a campaign to turn conservative into one seems lost on you.
Looking forward in order to understand the past? So it only took conservatives, what, a couple centuries to catch up to Franklin and Jefferson? Face it, historically liberalism has the enviable roster. Certain of its prominent names only become conservative well after the fact, when the principles that made them so liberal in their day have ossified or become corrupted. Like Jesus, for instance. And then there are those who I wonder about insofar as what will the world look like when, say, Lord Byron, Mary Wollstonecraft, Thomas Paine, and Emma Goldman, among others, are hearkened by society's conservatives. Freakin' John Wayne. That's awesome, dude.
WillNever: have you read my thread along similar lines?, its quite an interesting discussion Norse do i have to keep quoting parts of that interview to you? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95015 You oviously failed to read or understand this before responding
When young we tend to think with our hearts more often but as we get older we start to use our brains.
That's not 'government spending' in the sense of gov't provision, it's just buying new land. So no, it's the same Jefferson that refused to buy the land until the Consitution was amended to allow it; Jefferson was a strict constitutionalist and, if anything, libertarian (which is closer to conservative than left liberalism) Like madanthonywayne said, it seems odd that you are promoting liberalism, degrading conservatism, and then telling us to 'think for ourselves' I have no problem with traditionalism, as long as it is a matter left to the individual and not ascribed to law. Utter bullshit. No libertarian goes by that definition, and no true conservative does either. Why would I? I'm an atheist anyway. Conservatives are about smaller government and less government intervention and a humble foreign policy, how in the hell do they even remotely resemble Hitler? Fascism and libertarianism are not similar at all, last time I checked. Again, those are not conservatives. You're doing the same damn thing that you accused others of doing to liberalism. I'd rather live in the free society; the free one with free markets, and minimal government interference. I'd live in the one that was peaceful internationally and non-interventionalist. I'd live in the conservative one. Also you make traditonalists out to seem to be bad. Elaborate. I tire of your arrogance; there is no 'correct' choice. If I wanted government control, I'd go with fascism over liberalism anyday. However, your 'choices' are complete shit. So no, I'd choose the conservative laissez-faire, non-interventionalist society anyday over the corrupt, bureaucratic, pansy lib'ral society. I agree entirely. Tiassa, this isn't a contest. I read the whole damn thing. What's your point? :bugeye:
Norse, you're still not doing what I suggested. You came into this conversation already fully decided on your beliefs and have been giving knee jerk reactions on that basis, instead of thinking calmly and carefully about what has been said. For instance, you insist that, because the above set of beliefs I described doesn't happen to be your sort of conservatism, that it isn't actually conservatism at all. Meanwhile, that set of beliefs represents the traditionalist basis that conservatism was first based on in the days of Edmund Burke. It's the basis that most conservative writings since that time have been written by, and it's the basis that most conservatives today operate. I think it's safe to say that if ANYONE can claim to adhere to conservatism, it's the philosophers who first invented that word and those who continue to operate by its original definition today. In that case, you would be the deviation from them... which makes you the poseur, not all of them. The same holds true for your insistence that Thomas Jefferson was not a liberal. That would be the same Thomas Jefferson who believed that schools must be paid for by the general public. And indeed the same Thomas Jefferson who believed that the public needed protection from predation by the rich, also having written that "we Americans must crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Now, I know that you aren't an American norse... so the ideals of these American historical figures may be rather vague and ethereal to you, but trying to "claim ownership" of the beliefs of one of them doesn't make any sense, not when those beliefs fly directly in the face of things that you have gone on record supporting: such as the abolition of public schools, the proliferation of large businesses, the acceptance of a serious income gap, and the federal government not being allowed to buy property for its citizens. Those are all things that Thomas Jefferson, because of his liberal minded ideals, vehemently opposed. It's time to take your mind out of the toilet, norse. The fact of the matter is that few truly useful people were conservative in American history. Is it any wonder that the majority of the people you named as conservatives were either (1) leaders of a foreign country who were thrown out on their bums by the people (Thatcher) or (2) actually liberals (Jefferson, Franklin) or (3) actors in cowboy western movies (John Wayne). Why don't we just throw Sylvester Stallone on the pile? Then what a bunch you would have. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Left liberals are worse than conservatives. If you mean capitalist liberals, then that's great. That is, in my opinion, the best path for us to follow; but left liberalism? No. This isn't the United Soviet Socialist States of America.
What makes them worse than conservatives besides your own opinion of the matter? Do have proof of this, or will you just spout things like "they hate [insert biased statement here]," so they are bad. Really man, both sides of the coin exist for a reason...to balance the other. Furthermore what it means to be a conservative or a liberal will evolve as the world changes, so how can such a generalized statement even be considered valid at all?
Obviously it is only my opinion; according to WillNever, though, it's the 'correct' choice. Kind of like Hitler decided that Nazism was the 'correct' choice.
That is a ridiculous statement and you know it. Why not argue with well thought out points instead of villfying the other side with worthless analogies and comparisons?
But why continue the cycle and make the same inflammatory for your side? Why not just take the high road?
I've already explained it in my initial response; then, it just degenerates into him demonizing conservatism in the same manner he accuses others of demonizing liberalism. And then, of course, saying it's the 'correct' choice.
So then why dont we make arguments for what we feel are the "correct" or incorrect choices based on the views and accomplishments of either side instead of calling each other nazis?
Capitalist liberals are to the left, norse. The people I have mentioned were all capitalist liberals. Meanwhile, the people you support (Chuchill, Thatcher, Reagan) were all known for aggressive foreign policy. You need to aim for a little consistency if you're going to tell people that conservatives support humble foreign policy while naming a bunch of imperialist piglets. I know why you named them, though. Because truth be told, the only people who DO support your beliefs are notorious for their outspoken presence on the internet -- and only on the internet. That explains why most of Ron Paul's popularity was instigated and supported mainly by people who dwelled on the internet for absurdly long periods of time. His force of popularity ended there, however. That is because libertarianism is a cute little "designer ideology" that is conceivable only in its purest and most theoretical form, the form that flourishes in the marketplace of ideas, because it ignores most of the potentially controversial issues that libertarianism is unequipped to answer or simply takes no stance on -- which is most often the case. De facto libertarianism is highly impractical and favored amongst armchair theorists only, whose power ends once you switch your monitor to the off position. As for supporting Ron Paul: let me remind you that Ron Paul is himself a FORMER member of the libertarian party who has since switched to the republican party in order to run a libertarian-oriented campaign under that affiliation. Others have done the same, and the libertarian party of the USA has for a long time been tainted by scandals and a reputation of being nothing more than a refuge for wacky republicans who seek to promote their values under the guise of a different cause. Joe Lieberman has done the exact same thing: pretend to be an "indepedent democrat" while constantly acting like a republican and only formally switching when it's convenient. But no matter where Lieberman and Ron Paul take refuge, it's still the same bucket of crud. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
