What we call liberalism and conservatism today, isn’t ...

[ReubenSherr]

Feh. I equally guarantee a staunch Fox viewer just to the political Right of Hannity was responsible for that one. {LOL}

Lol that "staunch Fox viewer to the political Right of Hannity" was me

Just making a point

In my opinion, the only fair definitions of liberalism and conservatism involve liberals pushing change for the sake of change, and conservatives resisting change for the sake of change

 

[Bullseye]

And “conservatives” haven’t done precisely the same thing.

Do you think Theodore Roosevelt would recognized the Conservative or Republican federal platforms as conservative?

How about Goldwater, would he?

Teddy leaned toward progressive.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Of course we understand that a certain group of conservatives is allergic to books, especially reference books, and they prefer to make up words and meanings as they go along. Allowances must be made, and so long as the dimwits aren't taken seriously discussion can procede.

Again, if you want have any sort of insight into how American conservatives function, move here

Your pretentiousness and arrogance in analyzing American society is extremely irritating - how many American conservatives have you actually spoken with in person?

 

[Bullseye]

Yes, but reread my OP. That’s the point and it’s getting lost.

“Conservatives” aren’t and neither are “Liberals”, and the coopted terms are adding to the nonsense that others are availing themselves of to create the disharmony and distraction that give opportunity for corruption.

I think it's a fool's errand to try to brand any politician as a "true" liberal or conservative. Compromise, deal making, and self-serving crop up in their positions more often than "is this what a true conservative/liberal would do?".

 

[Bullseye]

Let me try it again from a different tack...

Conservative and Liberal are terms that carry a certain amount of politcal gravitas. "Liberals" and "Conservatives" who aren't give themselves instant credibility by conflating their political ideology by usurping the branding, and muddle the issues, creating conflict and polarization.

If we could clear things up by getting Liberal and Conservative back to their actual political meanings, calling Corporatist nation builders what they are and seizers of private property in the name of the state what they are... In other words, forcing the extremes on both flanks out of the parties into the fringe where they belong, the majorities of both parties may find a lot more room for compromise, the noise levels would retreat, and there would be a lot less fog to hide corruptive actions of those spreading their money around purchasing influence.

What the heck is a "Corporatists"?

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Its been downhill ever since the U.S. propped up right-wing dictatorships in South America, most infamous being Chile's Pinochet, who by and large pioneered the practice of neoliberalism that has been adopted by tyrants the world over such as Erdogan in Turkey, the Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi in India or resurgent Japan under the neoliberal LDP. They use this false "Reaganomics" pretense to consolidate authoritarian practices and crush the opposition, consistently citing the "economic proliferation" in Chile during the Pinochet regime as justification. In many ways, Trump is also a neoliberal. Same with Biden. And Hillary. Etc etc

 

[Bullseye]

T. Roosevelt believed in small government. He didn’t hold well with big business either, making strong use of the Sherman Anti-trust Act to break up cartels like Rockefeller’s Standard Oil., among others.

He believed in spend as you go, balanced budgets.

He would be a Libertarian these days.

Your average Republican these days falls into one of three camps, with crossover allowed: nation building neo-cons, corporatists, and Christian Fundi’s. Like I said, with a large segment belonging to two or more categories.

Again with the "corporatists", :roll:. All a corporation is is a legal entity that allows groups of people to join together to conduct a business while limiting their personal liability to the amount they invested in the company. Corporations still depend on their abilities to develop and market goods and services people and other businesses are willing to pay for.

 

[Grand Mal]

Again, if you want have any sort of insight into how American conservatives function, move here

Your pretentiousness and arrogance in analyzing American politics is extremely irritating - how many American conservatives have you actually spoken with in person?

Move there? From here? Now there's a laugher. If you only knew where and how I live...
But I said 'a certain group'. Are you going to deny that there's a group of Americans who identify as conservative and express contempt for anything remotely academic and consider that common knowledge and common sense trump scholastic? What is it that made you interject a definition you just made up when you have a dictionary at your fingertips?

 

[ReubenSherr]

Move there? From here? Now there's a laugher. If you only knew where and how I live...

According to what you posted (publically) to me on another thread, you live on an island off the coast of Canada

How many American conservatives have you met there?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

In America, liberals are the opposite of conservatives. Liberals are in favor of social justice for example, and free health care.

But if this was Europe, I would agree with your definitions.

I lean slightly left on a lot of issues, I lean slightly to the right on a few others, and some of my views are both at the same time.
There's no cubbyhole for that so I say I am liberal and people get what that means.

I don't honestly give a damn what all this meant in the 18th century.
I'm not ignorant of it, I read Adam Smith and I read Von Mises and Hayek et al.
I still just don't give a damn because it's 2020 and people use the vernacular they use, and I can't do a damn thing about it.

I lean a little to the left for the most part, period.
And I subscribe to two things more than my political lean:

1) country over party
2) conservatives need liberals and liberals need conservatives, but both must strive to be sincere and constructive - see #1

 

[AmNat]

T. Roosevelt believed in small government . . . He believed in spend as you go, balanced budgets.

Indeed. Modern Republicans are positively Keynesian compared to him.

He didn’t hold well with big business either, making strong use of the Sherman Anti-trust Act to break up cartels like Rockefeller’s Standard Oil., among others.

Teddy Roosevelt was from a time when the President actually ran the executive branch of the government. Today we are governed by a permanent bureaucracy and over the last thirty years or so that bureaucracy has decided (for better or worse) that antitrust action is not worth its time. Neither Republicans nor Democrats seek any statutory changes to the antitrust laws, and beyond that their policy views don't matter.

He would be a Libertarian these days.

Teddy Roosevelt came from an era where (among other things) criminal laws against sodomy and pornography were universal. There's no reason to think he opposed such laws, so he would be well to the right of any Republican or Libertarian today.

So as I said, what we've seen over the last hundred years is a continual movement to the left by all parties. The divide only seems to be widening because Republicans don't move as quickly as Democrats.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Teddy leaned toward progressive.

Socially progressive [for his time], fiscally conservative. That would make him Libertarian.

 

[ecofarm]

Before anyone is labelled libertarian, I think we need to look at foreign policy. If they're an interventionist (relative in their time), they're disqualified.

Any arguments about ideological philosophy congruence aside, there are no libertarian hawks. That's a party thing if not an inherent ideological position.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

What the heck is a "Corporatists"?

Corporatism: the control of a state or organization by large interest groups, frequently corporations or other well monied interests.

Modern US Corporatists are a combination of special interest groups and those politicians whose efforts are affected by their span of control [corruptive, purchased, influence] and gear their political efforts to things that improve corporate profitability, frequently over the interests of the electorate.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Again with the "corporatists", :roll:. All a corporation is is a legal entity that allows groups of people to join together to conduct a business while limiting their personal liability to the amount they invested in the company. Corporations still depend on their abilities to develop and market goods and services people and other businesses are willing to pay for.

Not when those principles are applied to the political. Then it is an entity that uses the power of money to change the politcal landscape, usually with corruptive effect.

There is a difference between corporations and corporatists. Though some corporations practice corporatist politics: Agriculture, pharmaceutical, oil, military industrial complex, others.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Without getting lost in the minutia, the point of my OP was that what getting labeled "Liberal" and "Conservative" aren't. They are fringe positions being pushed by individuals that have an agenda, and that is to muddy water to create fertile ground for hiding corruptive acts and influence purchasing which profits their special interests, at the price of our own.

We are getting used folks. While Dems v. Pubs, Elitists v Deplorables, etc, etc, etc... gets thrashed out people are profiting from the noise and confusion.

 

[Grand Mal]

According to what you posted (publically) to me on another thread, you live on an island off the coast of Canada

How many American conservatives have you met there?

Here? Two, though I think one at least has shifted her affiliation. They were both strongly pro-Bush when I met them and conemptuous of Obama but their marriage failed and she went back to California but came back here. All she'll say about it is she feels more Canadian than American after 20 years here.
The other Americans here are what you would call liberals and I would call leftists. Old hippies.
The type of conservative I described, suspicious of academia, is based on many I met here in this forum. I won't name nyms but you probably know them.
Do you know any liberals?

 

[ReubenSherr]

Do you know any liberals?

Lol I live in California - are you serious? :lamo

 

[Bullseye]

Not when those principles are applied to the political. Then it is an entity that uses the power of money to change the politcal landscape, usually with corruptive effect.

LOL, sure. :roll:

There is a difference between corporations and corporatists. Though some corporations practice corporatist politics: Agriculture, pharmaceutical, oil, military industrial complex, others.

Suew :roll:

 

[Bullseye]

Corporatism: the control of a state or organization by large interest groups, frequently corporations or other well monied interests.

Modern US Corporatists are a combination of special interest groups and those politicians whose efforts are affected by their span of control [corruptive, purchased, influence] and gear their political efforts to things that improve corporate profitability, frequently over the interests of the electorate.

So, basically a mythical creature used to stifle discussion.

 

[Bullseye]

Before anyone is labelled libertarian, I think we need to look at foreign policy. If they're an interventionist (relative in their time), they're disqualified.

Any arguments about ideological philosophy congruence aside, there are no libertarian hawks. That's a party thing if not an inherent ideological position.

You may be conflating the Libertarian Party with libertarian principles - the two don't completely coincide. No one takes a blood oath to support libertarian ideology.

 

[ecofarm]

You may be conflating the Libertarian Party with libertarian principles - the two don't completely coincide. No one takes a blood oath to support libertarian ideology.

Try calling yourself a libertarian as a hawk and see how that goes.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

So, basically a mythical creature used to stifle discussion.

The concept goes back, philosophically, to Aristotle’s time as defining the corruptive practices of money in politics. So no.


Anyone here study civics? At all?

 

[ataraxia]

My main concern with conservatism today, especially the libertarian strain, is that they do not believe in human rights anymore, and consider them socialist policies. I am referring to the rights delineated in the Universal declaration of human rights in 1948. This document was spearheaded by the United States and pushed around the world after the horrors of the two world wars. The belief was that this would create more just, stable, and prosperous societies and democracies more like the western democracies. These rights included things like the right to food, shelter, clean water, a basic education, and access to healthcare. These are no longer questioned in any developed economy in the world. It is interesting to see that they have now come under siege right back here at home where they started.

To me, a nation which does not try to protect these basic human rights for citizens is operating under social Darwinism, or the law of the jungle. You can certainly can have a lot of freedom in the jungle, but you can no longer consider it a civil society.

 

[ReubenSherr]

My main concern with conservatism today, especially the libertarian strain, is that they do not believe in human rights anymore, and consider them socialist policies. These rights included things like the right to food, shelter, clean water, a basic education, and access to healthcare.

Liberals believe in guaranteeing these basic rights to a select few groups of people, at the expense of everyone else

You do understand that under Obamacare, people with underlying conditions could finally get coverage, while millions of other Americans were no longer able to afford the skyrocketing premiums, and could no longer access healthcare

Neither party has a plan for guaranteeing every American all of these items

The criticism of Sanders was that he was promising everything to everyone in order to pander to every different group out there, and that, once he became President, he had no intention of being able to finanically manage all these promises