America is not a liberal country.... Never Was!

[RethugAssKicker]

Face it... Yes, we have had periods when liberalism reigned for a short while, such as the period of the New Deal, The civil rights movement in the sixties, which ended in 1980 with Reagan.

We had a period during the Civil War, which ended rather quickly (lasted for about 10 years). And we had a period during the Revolutionary War....(which by the way, I'm not so sure you can really call it a liberal movement)

Other than those periods, we had long periods of Regressive, conservative policies in this country, which maintained the status-quo and pandered to nothing but greed and the expolitation of all peoples including our own!...

We have a hard battle ahead of us to convert a country, who at heart doesn't truly care about the advancement of the human condition and spirit.

[K-W]

1. Like almost all other countries, you have rich and poor,

owners and workers, masters and slaves. Americans like to pretend that we are one nation, we arent and never have been.

There is a rich liberal tradition amongst the downtrodden and marginalized in this country. And even times when popular movements have forced liberal ideas onto the nations institutions. But by and large the nation has always been ruled by elites who have acted in the interests of thier own power and who have sown discord throughout society for the sake of profit.

What most Americans understand to be America is a myth.

[malaise]

8. I knew that before I was a teenager

My maternal grandfather studied at Howard U from 1905. He gave me a copy of Frederick Douglass' "What to a Slave is the 4th of July" before my 13th birthday. I was real lucky.

My father's aunts and uncles migrated to the US in the 1920s. They attended Howard U, NYU and McGill. They were all educated, owned property and had good careers but they told us stories about their experiences and we saw for ourselves.

By the time I read Parenti's Democracy for the Few, no one could fool me about the myth of equality or democracy and not just in the US. It's all bull$hit. The good news is since the fall of the Berlin war, your government has been so vulgar that the myth has been exposed for all who bought into it. It is no accident that rights are being violated and that unions are being destroyed. The corporations have no reason to pretend that they care about people and they control the politicians.

The question is what do people across the world plan to do about this mess.

[whistle]

2. It is certain people of this country who don't care .....

..."about the advancement of the human condition and spirit". They care only about money and how to accumulate more money for themselves. They own stocks in major corporations, sit on the executive boards of institutions and foundations, and operate in the shadows of government making sure that the "haves" continue to have more and the "have-nots" are kept in check. They manipulate the economic, political; and social conditions to always secure their own privilege and enhance their own wealth. To these people, power is money and money is power......that is always possible because the masses allow the privileged moneyed class to manifest that principle.

[zanne]

20. And they justify their actions with the myth of...

"personal responsibility". They never have to share, lend a hand or recognize that greed is a sin, because the only reason for poverty is a lack of drive and "personal responsibility". They truly believe that, if they made it, then anybody can make it. Luck and good health have nothing to do with their success. What a racket.

[zbdent]

3. If we were a conservative country

The national anthem at the football and cricket games would be "God Save The Queen" . . .

DOCUMENTED. The conservatives sided with the British in OUR Revolutionary War . . .

[RethugAssKicker]

14. I'm not so sure....

Many of the opressed... Indians and slaves, sided with the British because they were promised freedom and self-determination. Although I'm sure the British were bullshitting them.

[sui generis]

4. the constitution is pretty liberal

it's just some asshat Americans who aren't.

I keep having to remember that neanderthals didn't die out, they interbred with us, and they are still with us. I would venture to guess from looking at thousands of polls that the moral development of about half of America is at Kohlberg stage one or two:

(from Wikipedia)
"Stage one, individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for themselves. For example, they think that an action is morally wrong if the person who commits it gets punished.
Stage two espouses the what's in it for me position; right behavior being defined by what is in one's own best interest.

Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further one's own interests, such as "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours." Concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect in stage two. "

Until we bring our children further along this scale, social conservatism is going to constantly challenge social progress.

[K-W]

7. A government of white property owners, by white property owners,

for white property owners.

Yah, very liberal.

[sui generis]

32. I agree that what most people understand the REALITY of

America to be is a myth.

If it was perfect DU wouldn't exist.

But it is in striving to improve what we have and in striving to bring the reality of America closer to that "myth" that we prove our own worth. Just pissing and moaning about problems doesn't do anyone a damn bit of good unless you roll up your sleeves and wade in with everyone else.

[K-W]

36. Discussing what is wrong with society

is a vital step in effecting change.

[SaveElmer]

47. The ideas are liberal..and were radical for the time

It is a testament to them that the ideals expressed in the founding documents, while in execution for white property owners only, were visionary enough so they would not have to be changed significantly to grant rights to everyone.

[K-W]

48. To an extent, but I think most people overstate

how radical and liberal they were.

The system we created wasnt really all that different than the English system which was itself adapting to liberal ideas.

And it isnt like England didnt manage to reform itself over time as well.

[SaveElmer]

51. The political system was not that big of a change...however...

The notion that inherited privilege would no longer be the guiding principle upon which government and society structured, was very radical, and in fact, had never been tried before. However imperfect in practice at the beginning, the notion that a man could rise through society based upon merit was new and radical.

Agreed England eventually did go there, but it took another 150 years, and in many ways they are still dealing with it.

[K-W]

53. I think that is a deceptive issue

They did in fact setup a system where inherited privelidge would be the guiding principal of government. Just like in england, land ownership was the foundation of power.

The difference was that America's ownership wasnt rooted in feudalism, but rather in capitalism so there was no aristocracy. While this was more progressive, it wasnt really a concious choice, it was a result of colonialism.

And the difference was more superficial than actual. At the end of the day you still had power in the hands of wealthy people who could pass that wealth on to thier children.

[SaveElmer]

60. The difference however...

Is that the principles laid down in the founding documents, allowed for a change to that system of privilege. The status quo was successfully changed from within the system. It didn't take long either.

While property requirements were assuredly in place for suffrage at the beginning, these requirements were fairly quickly done away with in most states. By the time Andrew Jackson was elected, I believe most states had done away with, or radically reduced this requirement

Andrew Jackson himself is representative of this change. He grew from very humble origins, advanced through military success, and eventually became President.

This all occurred within the framework laid down by the fathers, not in opposition to it.

Arguments can be made that the system of government that was set up laid the foundation for the system of capitalism that took root in America. While obviously the monied had an immense advantage, it is also true that most of the legal and social barriers which prevented an Andrew Jackson type person from advancing beyond a certain station in England, were removed in America. And while there are many flaws with American capitalism, it did make it possible for movement across class divisions, both economically and socially, that were simply not possible before.

[K-W]

62. I agree with most of that.

But not this statement:

This all occurred within the framework laid down by the fathers, not in opposition to it.

While one part of that framework was a government capable of reforming itself, another part of that framework was limited sufferage. So it was in opposition to the framework even though the framework also contained the means of reform.

[SaveElmer]

66. Yeah maybe...

Well I guess it depends on your definition of framework. Certainly the founders wrote in the suffrage requirements. They also wrote in the means for its change, and many predicted that change as you noted. If you argue, as you do that the suffrage requirments were part of the framework, than you are correct. If you view the framework as more expansive, in terms of federalism and the ability to peacefully change the constitution to alter these requirements, I would argue that the suffrage requirements were not really a part of the framework.

In any case, I guess we both agree that the founders did build in a peaceful mechanism for its change, which is probably the essential point.

[CrispyQ]

72. "the neanderthals didn't die out"

LOL -- how true.

A good book is Thom Hartmann's "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." He discusses ancient cultures vs younger cultures.

Ancient cultures have a "we're all in this together" worldview. They tend to live sustainably, are more flexible, value all community members & value diversity.

Younger cultures have a "you're with us or against us" worldview. Because they don't live sustainably, they are always on the lookout for new resources, & eventually have to 'expand' (steal) their neighbor's resources. They conquer using nationalism, religion & fear. They have a strict hierarchy that determines a member's value to the community & they fear those not like them.

[wtbymark]

5. That's why I like living in the NorthEast

where the liberalism in this country comes from

[Greyhound]

38. Hmm, refresh my memory. Where did all those violent protests

regarding de-segregation, and school busing take place?

[guruoo]

45. You mean the police riots?

[Greyhound]

46. I was a tot in those days, but I remember the news reports from

Boston and the other places up there. The people yelling and shouting about how "those god damned n*****s aren't coming into my kids school".

[enigma000]

6. American is illiberal compared to where?

[Greyhound]

59. Pretty much all of western Europe. n/t

[enigma000]

69. Western Europe?

What? France that took 150 years to set their republic straight? Germany under Bismark, the Kaiser and Hitler? Spain under Franco? Italy under Mussolini?

Do not assume a generation of "democratic liberalism" to be the norm there. One disaster, one recession, one exulted leader and Europe is posed to abandon all that it has progressed.

If Bush had been born French or German, he would have destroyed the world by now.

[Greyhound]

70. But we are talking about contemporary times. n/t

[enigma000]

71. OK....yeah...you are right

Europe is more liberal now than the Red State driven USA.

Still, liberalism is more that just the desire for social tolerance, social justice and legalized soft drugs. Part and parcel is the willingness to defend these desires (or rights) with force if need be.

[Cassandra]

9. Democracy is a liberal idea

So is the right to the pursuit of happiness, civil rights, child labor laws, the weekend, unions, minimum wages, Social Security, public schools, freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, dissent, etc.

[RethugAssKicker]

16. Yes.. the words sound good

but has it really been practiced consistently?

[Zynx]

10. Indeed. The American Revolution was not liberal at all.

It was the elites of the American Colonies deciding they wanted their own government. That may be a slight oversimplification, but it is mostly true.

[K-W]

13. Right, but at the same time they needed support from common men.

The revolution couldnt have happened without elites feeling self interested in indepdendence and it couldnt have happened without commoners feeling self interested in independence.

And this did result in a strain of liberalism running through the endeveour but in the end everything was shaped by what was an essentially authoritarian power structure. At the end of the day it was the property owners who decided what America would be.

[raccoon]

31. Which is why I think it shouldn't be called the American Revolution,

because the power structure didn't change. It was the American property owners who were running things instead of the British property owners. It wasn't a revolution in the way the French & Russian revolutions were.

"War for American Independence" would be a better name for it.

[K-W]

37. Indeed, ive never liked the term revolution there.

It was a succession.

[Zynx]

67. Or the "American Secession"

[Zynx]

61. The elites have always been skilled at manipulating the masses.

They remain so to this day.

[K-W]

63. Perhaps, but they didnt have the technology they do now.

So it wasnt nearly as effective.

[RethugAssKicker]

18. Exactly

As I mentioned before, the liberal movement by the slaves and Indians actually joined the British.

[jbonkowski]

11. Most of the population was liberal...

until fairly recently. Propaganda/politics have made a large portion of the population support policies that actually hurt them.

[K-W]

15. Indeed, once the people managed to get political power

it became neccessary to convince the people to work against thier own interests.

[pop goes the weasel]

12. you are absolutely wrong

The United States was founded on liberal principles. The founding documents of the nation all reflect those liberal principles. The free market system that prevails is part of liberal economics. Most conservatives in the US, ironically enough, are defenders of liberalism. They are simply resistant to change, and thus continue to support 19th-century liberalism.

You point out some of the negative developments in American history. Those developments are not the result of conservatism. The trouble is that "liberalism" doesn't mean necessarily mean equality and justice. Liberalism simply implies a less-restrictive political and economic environment, but does not mandate inclusivity. However, with the fluidity that liberalism employs, there is the potential for inclusivity. And because American conservatives are also liberals, though they drag their feet, even conservatives can be brought around to inclusivity after a few decades.

[K-W]

23. Almost nothing in your post is true.

The United States was founded on liberal principles. The founding documents of the nation all reflect those liberal principles.

So thats why only white male property owners were considered citizens?

The free market system that prevails is part of liberal economics.

What is called the 'free-market' system(and is in fact nothing of the sort) is not liberal in the slightest.

Most conservatives in the US, ironically enough, are defenders of liberalism. They are simply resistant to change, and thus continue to support 19th-century liberalism.

That is absurd.

You point out some of the negative developments in American history. Those developments are not the result of conservatism. The trouble is that "liberalism" doesn't mean necessarily mean equality and justice.

Actually thats almost exactly what liberalism means.

Liberalism simply implies a less-restrictive political and economic environment, but does not mandate inclusivity.

Nonsense.

However, with the fluidity that liberalism employs, there is the potential for inclusivity. And because American conservatives are also liberals, though they drag their feet, even conservatives can be brought around to inclusivity after a few decades.

No conservatives are not liberals, not even American conservatives. That is doublethink at its finest.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. There's So Much There...

Most of the folks (Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Franklin, Jay, etcetera). involved in the founding of this country were classical liberals... Classical liberals envisioned an independent people governed with their consent by a limited government... Many of today's conservatives want to "conserve" classical liberalism... That's why you have conservatives such as Milton Friedman calling himself liberal because he wants to go back to the traditional liberalism of John Locke... What you are referring to is traditional liberalism which while it favors individual rights sees a much larger role for goverment in managing the economy and ameliorating social inequities....


That's Political Theory 101...


What makes the terms liberal. socialist, conservative, etcetera so controversial is that they have been misused..

[K-W]

34. Conservatives are not liberals. I cant even believe this is an issue

of contention.

Are we really that Orwellian now?

Most of the folks (Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Franklin, Jay, etcetera). involved in the founding of this country were classical liberals... Classical liberals envisioned an independent people governed with their consent by a limited government...

Some of them were classical liberals. Most of them were self interested property owners who gave lip service to liberal ideas because they were popular. And whatever they may have envisioned, what they created was not "an independent people governed with their consent by a limited government" so does it really matter whether or not they espoused liberal values?

Many of today's conservatives want to "conserve" classical liberalism...

One cannot conserve something that doesnt exist. Conservatives today, like conservatives throughout history are engaged in resisting liberalism which should be fairly obvious from reading the republican platform.

That's why you have conservatives such as Milton Friedman calling himself liberal because he wants to go back to the traditional liberalism of John Locke...

Well, yes. In America particularly we have many people who have liberally rationalized conservative policies. But this is a far cry from saying that conservatives are liberals.

What you are referring to is traditional liberalism which while it favors individual rights sees a much larger role for goverment in managing the economy and ameliorating social inequities....

No, that isnt what I am referring to.

What makes the terms liberal. socialist, conservative, etcetera so controversial is that they have been misused..

Which your post aptly demonstrates.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. You're Conflating Theory With Practice And Making Debate Impossible...

My point is that classical liberalism, traditional liberalism, and conservatism are competing and in some cases overlapping philosophies....


The fact that leaders "campaigned" on and than betrayed these philosophies doesn't mean these philosophies have no meaning....
After all Hitler ran as a socialist.....


If someone tells me they are a classical liberal, a traditional liberal, or a small c conservative I know from where they are coming from ideologicaly...

[K-W]

54. Im not sure we really disagree.

My point is that classical liberalism, traditional liberalism, and conservatism are competing and in some cases overlapping philosophies....

Sure, but what does that have to do with whether or not conservatives are liberals, which was the claim that I responded to originally. You would seem to agree with me that conservatives are not in fact liberals. Whether or not they overlap, they are different and in some cases mutually exclusive philosophies.

Also, the word democracy for instance, means different things depending on your philosophy. I dont think the modern conservative conception of democracy, which essentially puts the people in an advise and consent role agrees with the liberal definition of democracy, which is self rule.

Alot of this is the butchering of language, which I know you mentioned earlier.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. These Words Are So Ripped From Their Moorings I Don't Know What They Mean

And conservatives are as varied as liberals....


There is a big difference between a Burkean conservative and George Bush's conservatism .....


Most conservatives are not liberals bust some conservatives want to maintain the classical liberalism of the seventeenth and eighteenth century .... They would best be called libeterians or classical liberals...

[K-W]

65. Which words would those be exactly?

And conservatives are as varied as liberals....

There is a big difference between a Burkean conservative and George Bush's conservatism .....

Which in no way relates to anything I have said.

Most conservatives are not liberals

No conservatives are liberals. They are destinct philosophies that are in many ways in opposition to each other.

bust some conservatives want to maintain the classical liberalism of the seventeenth and eighteenth century ....

No if they were liberals, they would be liberals, not conservatives. Why would you call a liberal a conservative unless your goal was to render the words meaningless?

They would best be called libeterians or classical liberals...

No, only libertarians are best called libertarians and only liberals are best called liberals. Conservatives are best called conservatives.

They are different philosophies.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. Let Me See If I Can Divine The Intention Of Most Folks In This Thread

It seems they are a defining liberalism as a philosophy that promotes individual liberty and social justice....


To me that's garden variety liberalism, traditional liberalism, or welfare state liberalism....


By that definition America is a centrist nation that has leaned to the liberal or conservative side at different points in its history.....

[K-W]

68. ok

It seems they are a defining liberalism as a philosophy that promotes individual liberty and social justice....

That is more or less a satisfactory definition of liberalism.


To me that's garden variety liberalism, traditional liberalism, or welfare state liberalism....

No, its liberalism. You needn't add adjectives. And it has nothing in particular to do with the welfare state.

By that definition America is a centrist nation that has leaned to the liberal or conservative side at different points in its history.....

I guess we have different standards for liberty and justice.

[applegrove]

17. We are all Liberal Democracies in the West. These Bushbots are

not planning to stop 1) rule of law 2) subsidies to corporations 3) subsidies to military 3) subsidies to science & tech 4)intellectual property regulation 5)private property regulation 6)middle class & poor subsidizing rising price of oil with lower wages thus fighting inflation 7)monopolies to pharmaceuticals 8) subsidies to political supporters (christian charities)9) intervention in the markets to keep American dollar high 10) intervention in the markets to keep gold low 11) etc.

They are into regulations and a mix of public/private policies same as any Western mixed market economy. They just choose to use Keynesian economics to spend on wars as opposed to education or help for the vulnerable or safety-nets for the unemployed & families.

Don't let them tell you they are for free markets. They bully & go to war to keep dollar the lingua fran-ca & to ensure the greatest terms for corporations. (Venezuela wants 30% of the profits off its oil in order to restructure land rights and give the massive poor a chance at middle class - shoot them).

Liberal means trade free of elite control over it all. Mixed markets mean a mix of market, subsidy, regulations, and monopoly power. Neocons are the same - they just make different choices.

It is one set of rules for them - another set of rules for everybody else.

[KharmaTrain]

19. It's Like A Pendulum

Look at any period of American history where there was some form of poltical or economic repression and it's almost always followed by an era of change in the other direction.

The robber-baron era of the 1880s and 90's led to the development of the labor and Progressive movements that led to many big changes under Teddy Roosevelt.

The "roaring 20's" repression...Red Scare, economic plundering of the poor by the rich that led to the Great Depression...then led to the New Deal and the establishment of SSI and other services.

The McCarthy era of the 50s...and its social repression led to a lot of the social changes of the 60s.

Some will even say there was a Progressive economic era in the 90s to counter the corporate plundering of the 80s...as many small businesses and individuals did well economically during that time unlike any since the post WWII years.

I see a time coming where the repression we've lived under will collapse upon itself...it's already starting to. It won't be overnight but it will happen, if only because of the arrogance of Repugnicans and their constant short-term mindset that always gets them in long term troubles.

Lastly, I'll submit this country was never a Democracy...it's a Republic...as our top leaders are not directly elected and the set up of the different houses (especially since the Senate was originally an appointed position rather than elected) left the people with little true representation. The system was built for dissent but never for equality.

[RethugAssKicker]

27. A pendulum that swings

much more on the Conservative side... Our periods of liberalism were short.

[KharmaTrain]

55. All Things Balance Out

Most of my lifetime I've lived under what I would call a moderate atmosphere in this country...neither too liberal nor conservative. Both sides found ways to balance the either out.

Yes, there were times where the balance shifted...like it has over the past 5 years, but it could be said the "liberal days" of the 60's extended 10 years. It's all in perspective.

IMHO, the last 2 years of absolute Repugnican rule have scared a lot of people. They're seeing through a Schaivo, a Katrina, higher gas prices and so on, that their best interests really aren't being looked after. I suspect we'll see a shift in the next election...the question will be how far and how deep.

[ProfessorGAC]

21. We Will Agree To Disagree

I cannot come up with the words to express exactly how wrong i think you are.

You are describing a desire to see REVOLUTIONARY change toward equality in a country that, from the beginning, was vast, highly populated, and strongly regional.

Shifts like that require patience to await the EVOLUTIONARY changes toward greater equality and opportunity. The fact that this shift has occurred at the broadest level, and then filtered into the tighter regions is a clear indication of a society willing, over the course of time, to embrace change and progress.

If you want to be a revoluationary, so be it. Just not my style. But, this country has been more liberal than you, or the conservatives, or the press would have us believe. You just bought the hype.
The Professor

[K-W]

24. Any attempt to catogorize the whole country as one thing or another

is pointless.

Ignoring the liberal traditions in this country is just as dishonest as ignoring the authoritarian traditions.

It depends to a large extent on what one means by 'America' but such generalizations should simply be avoided.

[ProfessorGAC]

28. I Think We're Agreeing

I'm not attempting to categorize people. I'm looking at the movement of society. When looking at the whole of society, one CAN categorize the shifts over time. And, this country has, indeed, slowly (perhaps glacially) moved to more long term respect for the individual rights, particularly apropos minority populations.

The Professor

[K-W]

39. Yes, we are. EOM

[bleedingheart]

22. The country was "discovered" by Puritans and Capitalists

[underpants]

25. Thanks for the laugh

First of all the Puritans didn't last. Plymouth Rock and the Mayflower Compact failed.

Jamestown is (read carefully) "The first permanent English settlement in the New World" -Having grown up near there we were conditioned to ignore all the qualifiers there.

permanent-The Puritans in NE failed and left (after breaking their contract which basically established a socialist system)

English-okay here is the eye opener. By the time the Va.Company got to Jamestown (and yes it was a purely capitalist excercise) the Spanish were as far north as Tennessee. The Va.Co. notes that they had to avoid the Spaniards, who dominated the Eastern seaboard, to even get into the bay.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1122_041122_spanish_fort.html

[bleedingheart]

57. All the explorations into the New World were for the benefit of the few

on the top of the feeding chain...the monarchs who funded the explorers.

As for the Puritans, they and all the other religious zealots from Europe that would settle in the US over the past 200+ years did so because the Europeans couldn't stand their mouth-breathing bible humping...or they were persecuted.....the French Huguenots for instance had good reason to get out of France..

[porphyrian]

26. Most Americans have always been populist, though.

Breaking ideologies down into the liberal/conservative binary is ultimately flawed, and makes me question your motives in making your assertion. At any rate, if we must force the binary, most Americans throughout our history, given the opportunity to choose only to side with either the Democrats or the republicans, would choose the Democratic party.

[MojoXN]

30. What the hell do you expect...

America was founded by religious zealots who thought that EVERYTHING was a sin. Especially anything having to do with sex. With roots like that, it's no wonder that America is a conservative doucheland today.

MojoXN

[wiggs]

33. Disagree. Look at the issues.

If you were to ask the public where they stood on a variety of issues, I believe you would find they fell on the democratic side more often than not. DEMS HAVE THE ISSUES, and what determines your political leanings should come from where you stand on issues. Environment, education, social security, medical care, Iraq war, foreign policy, deficits, size of government, choice, etc....

HOWEVER, this country has been successfully and deliberately polarized so that party affiliation matters more than the issues. There are many who will NEVER say they are democratic or liberal, even though they might think progressively on most issues. They will also vote conservative for party loyalty.

This is where we are: a nation that is progressive on the issues yet will vote against the issues for the sake of party loyalty. It is dysfunctional, undemocratic and dangerous. We got here due to media disinformation, pundit whoring, and GOP planning.

Party identification rules.

[izzybeans]

35. Perhaps reading into history with contemporary lenses runs rampant

in this thread.

One lesson seems evident here: contemporary progressives must too hold their own feet to the fire to discover just what prejudices we might hold. Otherwise this echo effect on whose ideas are bigger LIBERALISM than the others will never end, just becuase we've never questioned ourselves (read: our founding father's were prejudicial bastards, some of them with a genocidal rage, even though their ideas resonate with modern liberals). If not future debates will look like", "see many of these so called liberals supported a xenophobic immigration policy buttressed by a myopic nationalism, or something. They must not have been liberals. Forget those assholes." Does that invalidate the minute push forward we might make in extending the franchise?

Progress my friends is measured by how far we extend these "self-evident truths" to the entire populace. Those biggotted "anti-liberals" at least provided the start point from which we must be progressive advocates.

[librechik]

40. no the Constitution & Bill of Rights are a LIBERAL CONTRACT

Guaranteeing our "Freedom" (=liberal, see?) Our war against England was a war of liberals ("freedom") over conservatives (rule of the powerful over the weak)

Tories and Conservatives have gone about trying to destroy the liberality of the Constitution, because it removes their freedom to prey on us, oppress us, and tax us without representation and due process. For 200 years. Are they stubborn? You bet. They never accepted the results of the Revolutionary War.

Our periods of conservatism, (like now) are an anomaly, a breaking of the contract of freedom. I used to be so proud of our country for resisting the psytools of nationalisim and religiosity to further their political agenda. I have been shocked and dismayed at how easily our Republicans have taken those psytools up and used them brutally and obliviously in the last few years. It is blatantly, heartbreakingly UNAMERICAN.

AMERICANS ARE LIBERALS

NEVER FORGET IT

[RethugAssKicker]

41. Disagree.

Our Constitution is a liberal document... But just that a Document of words... In actual practice, generally we have maintained very conservative policies.

Sort of like the so-called Christians of the world. Generally, speaking they do not practice the words of Christ.

[librechik]

43. indeed--but base human activity is the force liberals fight against

it's a neverending dialectic between the ideals of human progress and those who would enslave us all. But because we have the constitution we have a legal power now(since we don't have brute force, like them) to reign in the overlords (and the overlord wannabes) Will the rule of law triumph over the rule of the savage? Tune in next year...

[kentuck]

42. I think you are correct....

Most liberal "times" in our nation were reactions to some grievous wrong or injustice.

[Iris]

44. I see the opposite - Republicans (or conservatives) get control for

a little while and then Democrats (or liberals or social progressives) get back in office and clean things up for another day.

[MissMarple]

49. The Constitution points the way, We are responsible for the progress.

We are always cleaning up conservative messes. It has been a lot of drag, bump, sidestep, backtrack... drag, bump, sidestep, backtrack.

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address reflects the original promise in the Constitution.

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…. be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth.”


We have the opportunity to expand progressive ideals, we have to work to make them happen. In many ways, government has a conflict of interest between the well being of the American people and the best interests of government and of the influential. We have been letting the "sugar daddies" take control and they are not looking out for general good of the American people. No one ever said this was going to be easy, that it would always be fair, except for the very naive and the hoodwinkers.

[The Revolution]

50. The American people are pretty liberal for the most part

The republicans are just good at hammering on one or two issues and getting people to vote for them who probably don't agree with any of their real policies.

[TahitiNut]

64. Fallacy Alert

"Liberalism" is all about change ... progress in achieving a "more perfect union" and "justice for all." "Conservatism" is all about status quo and the protection of privilege and entitlement, where entitlement is literally a government-anointed perquisite often antithetical to equity and justice.

The Constitution must be regarded as a launching pad, not a destination. In carefully and assiduously defining an amendment process, it provides a vehicle for achieving that progress without bloodshed. Let's be very, very clear: human societies will liberate themselves, one way or another, just as water will reach the sea no matter how high the dam.

When the Constitution was first written, it was understood and (to some degree) expected that slavery would be abolished twenty years hence. That 'expectation' was, like most, a premeditated resentment that cost hundreds of thousands of lives ... eighty-five years later.

No government is legitimate that does not continuously, in a spirit of self-improvement, seek to attain justice. Justice, both social and economic, is the sole ethical rationale for government.

Quality assurance in all things is guided by an honest assessment of results. As we see, over the last twenty-five years, an increasing economic inequality, we are propelled to observe that this increased inequality mirrors an increased inequity. If one were to argue (as many do) that some degree of inequality of outcome is, indeed, the result of perfect equity, it begs the question of "how much?"

This is at the heart of the schism between liberals/progressives and conservatives/fascists. It is clear that the latter subscribe to inequality of outcomes at the level of banana republics, while the former point to outcomes in societies such as Canada, Norway, and France.