Why Unhappy People Become Liberals

SC, I do believe you are being insincere. You could research this subject if you so desired and for all I know you have.

Based on your post it seems you have embraced the dictionary definition of liberal.

[urlhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:liberal&sa=X&ei=uv7uTLS6JISingeQ2-WSCg&ved=0CBMQkAE][/url]

Which supports the statement I made in my previous post.

Please consider what "tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition " means over time. Once it meant "an economic system based on private property uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit". This was when peoples moved away from authoritarian/Monarchy type governments. Thus, the classic classic liberals were our founding fathers.

The next round of "change" that adopted the liberal moniker was the social liberal/fascist movement(s) in the early 20th century. Some suggest the basis for which started in the later 19th century. Do not be turned off by the "f" word when you consider that economic system:

"An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme[12], meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[13]" (Does this sound familiar? It was easy to quote Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

This later round of liberals believe there is an unjust inequality of power/wealth that leads to a less-than-equal liberty and has become focused on developing a theory of social justice or more equal outcomes - thus social liberals (a completely different animal).

So, both groups are dictionary liberals (change/progressives) but have much different ideologies as related to the "progressive" thought of their respective times. It will be interesting to see what liberals will be like in another hundred years of change.

It is easy to ignore the history of social liberalism (failures of socialism/fascism/communism) when a person can embrace being a dictionary liberal and reap the psychological reward/ignorance of being an ultimate progressive. Perhaps you are more of a classic liberal than you think.

scuse me...but socialism is neither fascism nor communism, it's not what we have either. Only the easily duped believe we have anything close to socialism in this country. We do have social morals and freedoms that set us apart from dictatorships, communism, and fascist countries, but socialism it aint. Nice try though.

I understand. Your statement has been repeatedly stated by social liberals and I expect nothing less and even more claims of how duped and ignorant I am....

daisypusher wrote: I understand. Your statement has been repeatedly stated by social liberals and I expect nothing less and even more claims of how duped and ignorant I am....

Perhaps then it is time for you to examine why you hold on to a belief that is untrue.

BTW...I. did not call you ignorant, only mistaken inyour belief that we are, or will be, a socialist nation. Yes, we have a social consciousness, but we are not socialists. Look up the definition, you'll see I am right. If, of course, you are not so set on believing liberal=socialist that you cannot see the truth.

Now consider your statement(s). Where did I state what form of government we have? It seems that an irrational response spewed forth, an indication that rational thought may not have been involved.

And did you consider history as I did. Fascism, Communism, Socialism all appeared at the beginning of the 20th century for a reason. It was due to German intellectual thought in the later 18th century. So while you may get defensive (denial) concerning these economic systems, they are various expressions of a common philosophy and beginning. But what does a dead dupe know...

Liberals seek to strike a balance between the good of society and the good of the individuals. We recognize that it is the strong commonwealth of our society that allows Americans to succeed at higher rates than many in other countries. As the commonwealth is dismantled and moved into private hands we see that success rate diminish consistently. We want a government that is strong enough to protect us, responsive enough to listen to us, and small enough not to impede us. It is discouraging that the right wing media has decided to paint us as supporters of welfare queens who seek to force everyone into a gay marriage, but only after indulging in an unneccessary abortion; Who seek a soviet style communistic society while simultaneously buying a big screen tv for everyone on welfare. If you guys could take a serious look at the stereotype you hold for liberals and compare it with the actual flesh and blood ones you know (if you allow yourself to know any that is) you'd see how utterly ridiculous it is. We all work hard to succeed, we own businesses, we go to church, we have family dinners, we care for our kids and our parents, we despair at politicians that are more interested in getting re-elected than in governing well. In other words, we're a lot like you. It's sad that you're too busy hating us to see that. It's sad that you can't see that a divide and conquer strategy has been deployed and is working brilliantly. We're too busy fighting to demand better of our government. Now let's see if I can get off this soapbox without breaking a leg.


Oh- BTW -

Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[5][6] Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined extreme right-wing political views along with collectivism.[7][8][9] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

So what is the BTW? Is it a disagreement of the definition of economic fascism or the claim that it is "extreme right-wing political views along with collectivism?"

It shows that fascism is not liberal at all. It is a close relationship between corporations and government. It's definitely where we're heading, but it's not being directed ideologically from either side of the voting public but by the corporations themselves and the politicians they control. To pretend that Liberals love corporations and want them to have a larger voice in our government shows that you truly have no idea at all of what a liberal is. You've watched propaganda for so long that you've been deluded, much as the Germans prior to WWII were deluded into thinking Jews were subhuman, greedy dogs.

F.A. Hayek, a nobel winning economist and a contemporary with the rise of fascism writes in The Road To Serfdom that fascism is a result of socialist policies (many more arguments/statements for this case are presented - it is truly what the book is about). Unless you can provide a similar contemporary that supports your position (anyone later is revisionist history) and with such high credentials, then it seems that I have won the contest for appeal to authority. And if a people believes in individual rights - how can a system of centralized planning evolve? Sorry - centralized planning is a component of socialism and currently social liberals.

Yes, we are in total agreement, Mussolini argued that fascism was corporatism. And yes, that is where it seems we are headed. And how can that happen? With increased central planning... And when in history have great leaps and bounds in central planning taken place? Roosevelt's new deal, Johnson's Great Society and Obama's health care - Every time leftists have dominated government. And yes, I will agree that corporations along with the puppets in government are advancing corporatism/fascism in this country. So what political party played puppets to the health care/pharma business? Costs were not reduced..... But clients and profits definitely increased. Increases in government will always result in more corporatism, especially when some groups believe the role of government is to promote the "general welfare". What political ideology uses this clause to increase the size of government? I think it is the groups that knowing increase the influence of government are the one responsible for increasing corporatism. If the social liberals do not want to be credited with corporatism - perhaps they need to join the tea party...

daisypusher wrote: So what political party played puppets to the health care/pharma business? Costs were not reduced..... But clients and profits definitely increased.

True liberals did not want this health plan, we were holding out for a single payer system, and I still hope in the future this country will go that way. Only then will Americans have true freedom and equality.