American Liberalism Unhinged

[SolomonVII]

What's wrong with American liberalism? What happened to the self-assured, optimistic, and practical Democratic Party of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy? Why has Joe Lieberman, their closest contemporary incarnation, been run out of the party? How did anti-Americanism infect schools, the media, and Hollywood? And whence comes the liberal rage that conservatives like Ann Coulter (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1400046610/ref=sib_fs_top/102-9237828-8166521?ie=UTF8&p=S00J&checkSum=hQRfS%2F4SZPWUdSEngYb8RMtK47TXasD3D3dA1QsVmP8%3D#reader-link), Jeff Jacoby (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/12/28/hate_speech_of_the_left/), Michelle Malkin (http://www.regnery.com/books/unhinged.html), and the Media Research Center (http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/bestof/2006/best5-8.asp#6) have extensively documented?



http://archive.wgnradio.com:8080/ramgen/wgnam/shows/ex720/Audio/piereson070924mr.rm[/URL]

[URL="http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5136"]Camelot 2 (http://archive.wgnradio.com:interview)


Maybe a little bit dry for this forum, but it is an interesting analysis all the same.

The conclusion especially is rather shocking even as the reality it describes rings true:


Viewing the United States as crass, violent, racist, and militarist shifted liberalism's focus from economics to cultural issues (racism, feminism, sexual freedom, gay rights). This change helped spawn the countercultural movement of the late 1960s; more lastingly, it fed a "residue of ambivalence" about the worth of traditional American institutions and the validity of deploying U.S. military power that 44 years later remains liberalism's general outlook.
Thus does Oswald's malign legacy live on in 2007, yet harming and perverting liberalism, still polluting the national debate.

[ContentInHim]

Thanks for those articles, CoyoteWild. Too true and I'm of the 60's generation. :(

Loved the Daniel Pipes article - he's super!

[tulc]

:)

[IamRedeemed]

I think that's probably because you are a liberal. :doh:
It makes sense, due to that reason, that he would lose
your audience right there. (at least to me it does)


Quote:
How did anti-Americanism infect schools, the media, and Hollywood? And whence comes the liberal rage that conservatives like Anne Coulter.... (snip)He pretty much lost me right there. :sorry:
tulc(just a thought) :)

[tulc]

:)

[SolomonVII]

Thanks for those articles, CoyoteWild. Too true and I'm of the 60's generation. :(

Loved the Daniel Pipes article - he's super!
Your welcome, CIM. Daniel Pipes is a very level-headed guy. Liberals in general can't stand him likely for that very reason.

The link to the Milt Rosenburg radio interview is also fixed now, if it wasn't working before.
(RealMedia is bit time consuming, but is there for anyone who is interested in doing more than skimming the surface looking for the occassional snippets to use to completely write Daniel Pipes off with).

It is an interesting take on how some conservatives feel. It is not that the moderate liberalism of a JFK is not in some ways admirable, but it is the degeneration of today's liberalism into a feeling of embarrassment or outright contempt over America's place in the world that is most objected to by many of today's conservatives.

Daniel Pipes, conservative though he is, compares the pre-1963 liberalism of America favorably to the far right and the John Birch society.

Unfortunately, it is JFK's style and lifestyle that today's liberals feel are worthy if emulating and admiring, much more than the poltics of this moderate cold-warrior.

[SolomonVII]

He pretty much lost me right there. :sorry:
tulc(just a thought) :)

Anne Coulter and Michelle Malkin are maliciously delicious in their rhetoric. They are able to reach a wide audience because of thier flair, and because they give good face to conservatism too, if I do say so myself.

But is not the over the top nutty allusions to calling Bush a Nazi and conservatives authoritarian fascists, or wishing this or that conservative or supreme court judge dead that are the real problem.

It is comments like the one below that are more indicative of the dreary state of American liberalism today:
"There’s nothing this administration won’t do under the guise of battling terrorism....The only way the American people can stop Bush’s imperial expansion of power short is to turn out in massive numbers to take back one or the other body of Congress from Republican control."
— Eleanor Clift in her weekly "Capitol Letter" column posted on the Newsweek Web site, April 7. [56]

"It's true, it's true!", American liberals will lament in harmony as they continue to self-flagellate America into oblivion.

[SolomonVII]

So did Oswald the communist shoot JFK fo rbeing the cold war warrior that he most definitely was, or is the bigotry of the right, and America in general who is to blame?

[Latreia]

He pretty much lost me right there. :sorry:
tulc(just a thought) :)

A response that has been subtle, affectative, and slyly elusive, it is sonehow becoming just a bit stale and dog-eared, methinks.

When liberalism allied itself with radical activism, then began the real damage.

Basically, the injustices that revolutions are based upon Tend to be assumed by the new regime once it gains power.

Why the authoritarion dictatorships of communism and fascism failed to register with American college professors who have become the sources of infection for today's college grad liberal intellectual elite always mystifies me.

Liberals constantly analyze and condemn all who do not share their views, but seem to be completely unable to maintain some equally insightful self=awareness of their own flaws.

Forgive me if I seem to imply that they have any flaws, mea culpa.

Now I don't even know what I'm talking about....liberals confuzz me brain.


:scratch:

[tulc]

:)

[Albion]

It's true that liberals seem filled with hatred these days, and that liberalism as we knew it historically wasn't that way.

The reason may well be because modern liberalism, having jettisoned all the principles that made liberalism what it was in the past (individualism, freedom, conscience, etc.), is really a modified form of Socialism. That convergence of Liberalism with Socialism has been documented and commented upon many times, so I won't go through it again. However, I'm not speaking only of tax policy or economic matters. We do know that Socialism is deeply into hostility towards one's country, the promotion of class warfare, and opposition to religion. Therefore, when we consider all of this, today's "liberals" are described to a tee.

[tulc]

:)

[Albion]

:D Oh yeah, it's like you're sitting outside my room listening to me receive orders from my KGB handlers! :eek: Amazing!
tulc(power to the people!) ;)

Socialism exists with or without the KGB, you know. For a guy who's written that we should "carry on," here, your hostility seems to drive you to sputter your disaproval every couple of posts or so. Or have you noticed?

[tulc]

:cool:

[Latreia]

Oh, sorry I didn't realize you guys wanted to be alone. :)
tulc(cleaned up the thread from all the liberal distractions) :)

We "guys" simply want to be free of snipes at conservative Christians.

It is amazing how difficult that really is.

Free of that kind of intentions, we would not be alone on this forum, because we could then enjoy each other, which is all that people everywhere ask.

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/icons/icon2.gif

[tulc]

You got it! :)
tulc(it's all yours) ;)

[SolomonVII]

I wouldn't even have minded an informed debate on the information presented here, but that is only possible when all parties agree to delve into the information being presented.

The point is that when Bush is dismissed as an imperialist, so too must a cold war warrior like every liberal's here JFK.

But instead of that happening what happened is the beginning of a myth that had very little to do with the polcies of JFK in the first place.

[SolomonVII]

[quote]A response that has been subtle, affectative, and slyly elusive, it is somehow becoming just a bit stale and dog-eared, methinks.
Well, tulc is the master of the one-liner.
<snip> 'nuff said on that topic.


When liberalism allied itself with radical activism, then began the real damage.


For example, Hillary Clinton has had her own ties with the hard radicals in her college days. One of her main influences though before she opted for a law degree from Yale, was Saul Alinksy, who was no less committed to a revolution for America's brokenness but saw the way to revolution was through changing the system from within.

http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/alinski.htm
We will start with the system because there is no other place to start from except political lunacy. It is most important for those of us who want revolutionary change to understand that revolution must be proceeded by reformation. To assume that a political revolution can survive without the supporting base of a popular reformation is to ask for the impossible in politics.



....
Why the authoritarion dictatorships of communism and fascism failed to register with American college professors who have become the sources of infection for today's college grad liberal intellectual elite always mystifies me.

The fact that the colleges are filled with such radicals is in itself a very good indicator of the success that Marxist idealists such as Saul Alinsky has had.
But once it is accepted that it is America that is the force for bad in this world, then it is like an enemy of my enemy is my friend.
It is not so much the communists now, but the Islamofascists that the radical left is jumping in bed with. It is not only that Osama bin Laden is at ease quoting freely from Chomsky and Gore, but as the following quote from Andy Rooney reveals, it is often much more subtle thing.



"Some people who hated Americans set out to kill a lot of us and they succeeded [on 9/11]. Americans are puzzled over why so many people in the world hate us....We’re trying to protect ourselves with more weapons. We have to do it, I guess, but it might be better if we figured out how to behave as a nation in a way that wouldn’t make so many people in the world want to kill us."
— CBS’s Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes, September 10. [44]




Again the liberal truism is that it is America is broke and needs to be fixed. It is more of the liberal self-contempt and self-flagellation.
Not that atonement is not a necessary thing, but perhaps much could be learned from the Jews here who limit themselves to the one solemn day of Yom Kippur for such exercises, rather than carry on day after day, year after year, for the better part of four decades.


But perhaps the problem is not that liberals are atoning for their own failings at all. Perhaps it is that they see America itself as some vast right-wing conspiracy that needs to be defanged and detaloned, so that peace will spontaneously erupt.

[tulc]

Well, tulc is the master of the one-liner.
<snip> 'nuff said on that topic.

My ears are burning! :D
tulc(hey, they moved the thread, I thought you guys didn't want discussion?) :scratch:

[IamRedeemed]

:amen: Methinks that peace is something only afforded to everyone
EXCEPT conservative God fearing Christians.


We "guys" simply want to be free of snipes at conservative Christians.

It is amazing how difficult that really is.

Free of that kind of intentions, we would not be alone on this forum, because we could then enjoy each other, which is all that people everywhere ask.

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/icons/icon2.gif

[rmw8855]

My ears are burning! :D
tulc(hey, they moved the thread, I thought you guys didn't want discussion?) :scratch:

Coyote Wild agreed to move the thread to the debate sub-forum so that non-members could respond if they wished to do so.

I wouldn't even have minded an informed debate on the information presented here, but that is only possible when all parties agree to delve into the information being presented.

The point is that when Bush is dismissed as an imperialist, so too must a cold war warrior like every liberal's here JFK.

But instead of that happening what happened is the beginning of a myth that had very little to do with the polcies of JFK in the first place.

However, please address the question asked in the OP and discuss the information presented.

[Joykins]

As a liberal, this is my attitude:

"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right."

I would like to see my country treat *everyone* fairly, take care of its weakest members, protect the people's civil rights, and be wisely cautious in the use of force at home and abroad.

Of course one need not be full of hatred to do this :scratch: I have learned not to demonize my opponents and public discourse in this country would be so much better if more public commentators would do the same.

Matthew 5:21-22

[Izdaari]

As a liberal, this is my attitude:

"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right."

I would like to see my country treat *everyone* fairly, take care of its weakest members, protect the people's civil rights, and be wisely cautious in the use of force at home and abroad.

Of course one need not be full of hatred to do this :scratch: I have learned not to demonize my opponents and public discourse in this country would be so much better if more public commentators would do the same.

Matthew 5:21-22
Liberals would have so much better a reputation, if only more of them had your attitude! :thumbsup:

[Izdaari]

It's true that liberals seem filled with hatred these days, and that liberalism as we knew it historically wasn't that way.

The reason may well be because modern liberalism, having jettisoned all the principles that made liberalism what it was in the past (individualism, freedom, conscience, etc.), is really a modified form of Socialism. That convergence of Liberalism with Socialism has been documented and commented upon many times, so I won't go through it again. However, I'm not speaking only of tax policy or economic matters. We do know that Socialism is deeply into hostility towards one's country, the promotion of class warfare, and opposition to religion. Therefore, when we consider all of this, today's "liberals" are described to a tee.
Aye, and so it happens that as a classical liberal (aka sensible libertarian aka neolibertarian), I wind up having to ally myself with the conservatives most of the time. I'm used to it, but sometimes it feels weird. And often I have no one to vote for that doesn't involve holding my nose.

[rmw8855]

Aye, and so it happens that as a classical liberal (aka sensible libertarian aka neolibertarian), I wind up having to ally myself with the conservatives most of the time. I'm used to it, but sometimes it feels weird. And often I have no one to vote for that doesn't involve holding my nose.

That holds true even when you are a republican & probably democrats too. ^_^

[Albion]

Aye, and so it happens that as a classical liberal (aka sensible libertarian aka neolibertarian), I wind up having to ally myself with the conservatives most of the time. I'm used to it, but sometimes it feels weird. And often I have no one to vote for that doesn't involve holding my nose.

Of course, but that's what happened, historically speaking.

Classical Liberalism was overtaken by Democratic Socialism which gradually became less and less committed to democracy. As a result, Classical Liberals tended to make common cause with Conservatives--mainly in the USA--because of what they jointly opposed in Socialism.

Both Classical Liberals and Conservatives value limited government, property rights (or the human right to own property, we should say), and rule of law--all of which modern "Liberalism" has steadily retreated from.

[Cromwe11]

what we see in liberalism today, and in America in general, is the result of the fact that ideas have consequences.

Francis Schaefer talked about this in "A Christian Manifesto" more than 20 years ago... the "liberal" philosophy NECESSARILY produces drasitically different results than the "Conservative" philosophy.

Even the worst of ideas begin looking inocuous and tolerable, it is only once they have progressed far down their INEVITABLE path, that their true nature is revealed. We today are just beginning to see the true nature of the philosophies of liberalism. We are just beginning to see the fruit from seeds sown a hundred years ago.

If you look back to men like CS Lewis, or Francis Schaefer, they saw it clearly in their day and predicted exactly where we would be. Even further back, if you read GK Chesterton, he clearly saw what the ideas beginning in his day a century ago, would eventually produce.

[HowardDean]

As a liberal, this is my attitude:
I don't even know what people mean by liberal anymore. It seems to mean anyone who isn't a conservative. I am a leftist, myself.

[SolomonVII]

Of course, but that's what happened, historically speaking.

Classical Liberalism was overtaken by Democratic Socialism which gradually became less and less committed to democracy. As a result, Classical Liberals tended to make common cause with Conservatives--mainly in the USA--because of what they jointly opposed in Socialism.

Both Classical Liberals and Conservatives value limited government, property rights (or the human right to own property, we should say), and rule of law--all of which modern "Liberalism" has steadily retreated from.

It all depends on how much freedom one is willing to trade in for the security blanket thqt bigo government can provide.
It was the equality of opportunity that was classically described to liberalism, as opposed to unequal opportunity according to class that used to be the domain fo the right.

But the days of the ancien regime have long since faded intop history.

Even for the liberalism of the early 1960's, equalith of opportunity was the type of equality that was being expressed by the liberals of those days, be they JFK or FDR.
However, this is what changed in liberalism since that time. It is no longer an equality of opportunity that is desired, but an equality of results.

Ergo, the very act of being realitively more successful makes one guilty. Equally miserable then becomes better than being more successful than others in the pursuit of happiness.

So it is a complete 180 degree turnaround. Classical liberalism understood that it was the priveledge of the governing class that needed to be curbed. For freedom and liberty to be possible, it was preceisely the government that needed to be fettered.

[SolomonVII]

[QUOTE]what we see in liberalism today, and in America in general, is the result of the fact that ideas have consequences.
The pprhase that 'ideas have consequences' is so important. The ideas that a society grasps onto, and lets go of, can have far-reaching consequences.


Francis Schaefer talked about this in "A Christian Manifesto" more than 20 years ago... the "liberal" philosophy NECESSARILY produces drasitically different results than the "Conservative" philosophy.

The cradle-to-grave social contract that the left is opting us into necessarily produces a people in which self-reliance has no consequence, for example?

On the surface, it is posed as selfish and immoral for the conservative to resent the taxes involved in such a venture.

But then, the real selfishness is discovered when the benefits are required to be cut back as a result of bankruptcy of the state, who can no longer afford to bankroll such an enormous venture adequately.
"Not my benefits, thank you very much" is the reply of any electorate, when faced with such a a choice of benefit reduction.


Even the worst of ideas begin looking inocuous and tolerable, it is only once they have progressed far down their INEVITABLE path, that their true nature is revealed. We today are just beginning to see the true nature of the philosophies of liberalism. We are just beginning to see the fruit from seeds sown a hundred years ago.

If you look back to men like CS Lewis, or Francis Schaefer, they saw it clearly in their day and predicted exactly where we would be. Even further back, if you read GK Chesterton, he clearly saw what the ideas beginning in his day a century ago, would eventually produce.

[Albion]

Even for the liberalism of the early 1960's, equalith of opportunity was the type of equality that was being expressed by the liberals of those days, be they JFK or FDR.
However, this is what changed in liberalism since that time. It is no longer an equality of opportunity that is desired, but an equality of results. So it is a complete 180 degree turnaround.

Yes, there has been a fairly recent turnaround on that particular point. It is perhaps the culmination and logical end of a sequence of turnarounds.

[Izdaari]

.

[Izdaari]

The pprhase that 'ideas have consequences' is so important. The ideas that a society grasps onto, and lets go of, can have far-reaching consequences.
Indeed they do. It was the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand) (among other things, a deeply committed Classical Liberal) from whom I first heard that phrase. "Ideas have consequences" was one of her favorite sayings. And though she was wrong about a lot of things (the existence of God chief among them), I thank God she was there to help educate me during my teen years. Without her, my understanding of many things would be the poorer.

[Albion]

Indeed they do. It was the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand) (among other things, a deeply committed Classical Liberal)

In fairness to Classical Liberals--and there still are some around--let's rather say that her philosophy, "Objectivism," has some similarities to Classical Liberalism.

[Izdaari]

In fairness to Classical Liberals--and there still are some around--let's rather say that her philosophy, "Objectivism," has some similarities to Classical Liberalism.
Aye, there are and I'm one of them. :D

Objectivism is not the same as Classical Liberalism, no, not by a long shot. But the political component of Objectivism, once you isolate it and separate it from the rest of her philosophy, was I think pretty much the same as Classical Liberal politics. The reason Rand never called herself a Libertarian, a Classical Liberal, or anything else besides an Objectivist, is because she opposed separating the philosophy from the politics.

[Albion]

Yes, you know your stuff as most people dealing in these matters don't.

So is it that you are at home on "Conservative Christians," knowing that Objecivism is bitterly hostile to both?

It's just a thought, not an objection.

[Izdaari]

Yes, you know your stuff as most people dealing in these matters don't.

So is it that you are at home on "Conservative Christians," knowing that Objecivism is bitterly hostile to both?

It's just a thought, not an objection.
Well, Rand was a militant atheist, so saying she was bitterly opposed to Christianity is fair. And she hated political conservatism for its willingness to compromise principle... though that didn't stop her from voting for Nixon. ;)

I was an Objectivist in the early '70's but I'm not one now. Ideas do have consequences, and following Christ rather than Rand does change one's thinking. Even so, I still think Rand was largely right about politics and a number of other things. C.S. Lewis was my early mentor in Christianity, and on that I'm probably still more in tune with him, and with you, than with most others.

[Albion]

Well, Rand was a militant atheist, so saying she was bitterly opposed to Christianity is fair. And she hated political conservatism for its willingness to compromise principle... though that didn't stop her from voting for Nixon. ;)

I was an Objectivist in the early '70's but I'm not one now. Ideas do have consequences, and following Christ rather than Rand does change one's thinking. Even so, I still think Rand was right about politics and a number of other things.

Well said.

However, I since have noticed that I misread the first line in your previous post: Aye, there are and I'm one of them.

I took "there are" to refer to my saying Objectivism has some similarities to Classical Liberalism (IOW, that there are similarities), but I think you must have meant to respond to my other comment that there are still some Classical Liberals.

Of course, this would be the only logical place around here for a truly Classical Liberal like yourself. And for that matter, even traditional Conservatives find a lot to like in Rand's writings.

[Izdaari]

Well said.

However, I since have noticed that I misread the first line in your previous post: Aye, there are and I'm one of them.

I took "there are" to refer to my saying Objectivism has some similarities to Classical Liberalism IOW, that there are similarities), but I think you must have meant to respond to my other comment that there are still some Classical Liberals.

Of coures, this would be the only logical place around here for a truly Classical Liberal like yourself. And for that matter, even traditional Conservatives find a lot to like in Rand's writings.
Right! I'm still a Classical Liberal, but not still an Objectivist, though I once was. Now I don't even mind being called a Conservative, if it's preceded by a suitable adjective, such as "Goldwater" or "South Park". :D

So far as my Christianity, I'm more a conservative Anglican like yourself than anything else. But I'm also charismatic, somewhat WoFy, and more than a little Emergent.

[Albion]

Right! I'm still a Classical Liberal, but not still an Objectivist, though I once was. Now I don't even mind being called a Conservative, if it's preceded by a suitable adjective, such as "Goldwater" or "South Park". :D

So far as my Christianity, I'm more a conservative Anglican like yourself than anything else. But I'm also charismatic, somewhat WoFy, and more than a little Emergent.

There must be some term for that...but I can't come up with one. ;)

[Izdaari]

[/color]

There must be some term for that...but I can't come up with one. ;)

Mmm, Izdaarian? A denomination of one? ^_^

I hear there are at least a few Episcopalian churches out there that sorta fit that description, but not near me. Oh well. I'm pretty happy with my present AoG church.

[Albion]

I hear there are at least a few Episcopalian churches out there that sorta fit that description, but not near me.

There are quite a few that are charismatic...and some that are charismatic while being also doctrinally conservative or traditional. They are found in almost every part of America, but that doesn't make them 'near you' in the sense of being a short drive on Sunday. I can't say that I know of any that are WofF-like, but you only said that you were somewhat inclined that way.

[Izdaari]

There are quite a few that are charismatic...and some that are charismatic while being also doctrinally conservative or traditional. They are found in almost every part of America, but that doesn't make them 'near you' in the sense of being a short drive on Sunday. I can't say that I know of any that are WofF-like, but you only said that you were somewhat inclined that way.
I'm in the Seattle area, and I don't know of any charismatic Anglican or Episcopalian churches a short drive away. It's all good. I like my AoG church, and when I need a liturgy fix, I head down to St. Mark's Cathedral (Episcopal and pretty liberal, but the liturgy is traditional).

Yeah, the WoF stuff isn't a big deal. I get more than enough of that by watching the Daystar network (Joyce Meyer, Ken Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, et al). I don't agree with them all the way, but they're good teachers and have some valid points.

[SolomonVII]

Maybe the realization that Bill Gates has liberated more people from poverty and want through his 'selfish' business ventures of Microsoft than he ever will through his philanthropy and do-goodism is a very Randian idea. It would have been her own experience and disgust with the 'religious ideals' of Marxism and how it wreaked economic chaos and havoc with her Eastern European homeland that would have led her to such a conclusion. (Just how many Ukranians starved due to sheer incompetence of the Marsixst will never be fully known, for example).

But as Bill Gates himself may have realized, wealth as the ultimate goal is just too shallow to be ultimate, and leaves one hungering for more. Especially when the greed is sated completely, one realizes just how much one hungers and thirsts for something other.

This is where the Christian message and personal charity, and an ultimate desire to love the world and give can give direction.

It is not as if the miracles of the loaves and fish will ever solve for world hunger, for the manna that comes from heaven alone fosters only the resentment of dependance.
Is that not a lesson fo the Bible too?

But the very idea of wanting the world to feast alongside of you, thristing for the world to drink from your bounty as Jesus thirsted for the woman at the well to drink from his, wilfully desiring that all may partake in the bounty that human hands themselves have produced- this is Christian transcendance that Ayn Rands objectivism just does not really touch.
(And to the extent that she does touch on this, she has never really left Christ at all now, has she?);)

The goal after all never can be for wealth in and of itself. Our real hunger is not that of a beast. Being created in the image of God, we will always thrist for much more than just this.