Liberalism exists?

[SHRED]

I am talking about true liberal voices.
They are rarely heard because radio and TV are owned by wealthy conservative interests.
Chomsky, Hedges, Sirota, Scheer, etc...almost never get airtime.

So when CONs bash "liberals" it is doubtful if they understand the meaning of the word much less what a true Left position on issues is.
The fact that they claim the Liberal/Left has so much power is proof that CONs are about as politically astute as a fencepost.



---

[rurallib]

1. They now call W a liberal - just to give an idea

of the geography of right wing landscape.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. If they make Bush a liberal, they can continue to push politics to the right...

by resetting the movable center of politics in America. It is actually a smart tactic.

We do the same thing when we call Clinton or Obama Conservative. Of course, in 1950's terms they are classic Eisenhower style conservatives. Hell, in 1950's terms, Jimmy Carter was slightly right of center, and certainly more conservative than Johnson and Kennedy, and way more conservative than FDR.

[rurallib]

4. I believe that is the job of the media

led by Fox Republican Propaganda network.

[OHdem10]

3. The Conservatives are not dumb or stupid--they know exactly

what they are doing and are executing their plan
with precision.

With a wink and a nod Liberal means Democrat.

In order to make the Republicans dominat, Democrats
must be nearly destroyed.

After the 60s Chomsky has been a dirty word in
Conservative circles. Liberal has been such a dirty
word the Democrats now call themselves progressives.
This is the biggest joke among Republicans.

Words matter. Never forget Liberal means Democrat
and those who do not fight back are complicit
in the Republicans goals.

[progree]

12. Ewww, you're a liberal. Reply: Ewww, you are a CONNEDservative

"Liberal has been such a dirty word the Democrats now call themselves progressives."

Its time to make CONNEDservative a dirty word. Call them CONNEDservatives -- these are the goobers that are conned by the wealthy CONservatives into voting against their economic interests and who think that by advocating for tax cuts for the wealthy, the wealthy will create more jobs for the goobers.

(In one barroom fight in a white working class bar, some idiot asked me if I voted for Obama. I said yes. He said that was dumb. I said the S&P 500 fell by 37% under Bush, and as an investor, I can't afford to lose another 37%).

CONservatives - wealthy right-wingers like the Koch Brothers and Rush Limbaugh who make a ton of money pushing right-wing positions. And by fooling the CONNEDservatives.

CONNEDservatives - goobers, usually low education, low wage, etc. etc. that are conned into being shoe-shine boys and girls for the wealthy.

Other good nicknames: Greed-bangers, and RepubliCONs.

I don't think "regressive" works with these fools, they are proud to go backwards to the 1880s.

[Curmudgeoness]

5. I am sure you meant no offense to fenceposts.

I worry at times that many posters on this site (and all over the country) do not have a clue what a liberal position means.

[Ozymanithrax]

6. Most people have no working knowledge of what Liberalism, Progressivism,

Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, or Conservatism. And I mean even those who profess to belong to one of those 'isms. Real working definitions of these ideological concepts are no longer taught grades K through 12. Unless someone takes a polisci class in college, they will hardly bump up against them in Universities. They work on the same intellectual level as Religion. They believe they are an 'ism, and define it by what those they dislike are are not.

That is why people can put a Hitler mustache and a Swastika on Obama and tell their followers he is a Socialist Muslim. That is why many people on the left interchange progressive, liberal, socialist, and social Democrat.

It has happened because our schools make not real attempt to teach students these things, and each 'ism defines opposing 'isms as "evil" beings that kill kittens and eat their neighbors for lunch.

[Curmudgeoness]

7. A sad commentary, and all too true.

Gotta ask since we are discussing all the isms that are not understood, what is "incrementalism"?

[Ozymanithrax]

8. My own philosophy, that government tends to improve things in small increments.

Really big good changes in policy are very rare and only happen in unusual revolutionary times.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, followed the Civil Rights act of 1957, which itself followed others that made only tiny improvements. The Civil Rights ACT of 1964 was improved by Title IX and additions that provided broader civil rights to women and the disabled. Incremental changes rather than revolutionary change is the norm under our system.

Incrementalism tends to frustrate the hell of of people who fight for change, because we fight the same battle over and over again for an inch of ground. But I will take a small improvement over no improvement.

[Curmudgeoness]

9. I am too impatient for that, but I can see how it avoids frustrations. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

10. Don't see it as a matter of patience, but a matter of history.

It is how things work. Except for times like Egypt just went through, it is universal, at least from my POV.

[Shagbark Hickory]

11. Not really buying it.

The same nut bag that owns rush limbaugh also owns ed schultz's radio show.
They don't care about the content as long as people are listing. The people listening to talk radio are largely conservative. You know the demographics, I won't get into it.

People with liberal or progressive viewpoints arn'te as much into talk radio as we are watching Family Guy or the Wanda Sykes show. And I think you know who airs that. The more sophisticated liberals listen to pbs. We don't need to be told what to think.