ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Politics & Political Science

When Did Being Liberal Become A Bad Thing?

Updated on June 11, 2011
Out Of A Depression And A World War, Not Bad For A Liberal
Out Of A Depression And A World War, Not Bad For A Liberal

I am a self described Liberal. I believe in the power of government to do good without infringing of individual rights. I believe in protecting our environment, regulating the market and defending a woman's right to choose. I believe in equal opportunity for all and believe our public schools should be like cathedrals and our teachers should make six figure salaries. So, when did these views, classfied as liberal, become such a bad thing in America?

Our Founding Fathers Were Liberals In The Classical Sense.
Our Founding Fathers Were Liberals In The Classical Sense.
TR's Liberal Policies Saved America's Greatest Resources Like Yosemite.
TR's Liberal Policies Saved America's Greatest Resources Like Yosemite.
Nobody Thought This Liberal Was Weak
Nobody Thought This Liberal Was Weak

When you look back through American history, Liberals have been at the forefront of change in America. Our founding fathers were liberals in the classical sense. Washington, Adams, Madison, Jefferson and the other founders were moving away from a centralized government to form a government of the people. Sure, they weren't perfect, but their ideals were liberal and the liberal values that formed America changed the world.

Lincoln was a liberal. Yes, he was a Republican. But Republicans in Lincoln's time were considered the liberal party. Despite Lincoln's upbringing and the world around him, Lincoln put forth the ideals of equal opportunity for all and his legacy lives on today.

Teddy Roosevelt was a liberal. How do we know? Because one of his greatest legacies was the busting up of corporate monopolies. TR took down this country's greatest corporations in order to help the common man. Need more evidence, TR was the first political environmentalist and is the reason why so much of America's natural resources are well preserved today.

Franklin Roosevelt was a liberal. FDR guided this country through the Great Depression and the Second World War, all from the seat of his wheelchair. FDR's policies lifted millions of the elderly out of poverty and provided healthcare to millions as well.

Liberals Helped Bring Slaves To Freedom.
Liberals Helped Bring Slaves To Freedom.

 Throught American History, it has been Liberals that have brought real change to America.  Liberals founded this Country, ran the Underground Railroads, fought for civil rights, fought for woman's rights, protected the environment and fought for the common man.  It was liberals that created the middle class and it is the liberals who defend the middle class today.

So I will ask again, when did beng a Liberal become a bad thing? I have to give the Republican Party credit here. The Republican Party has spent the better part of the last thirty years branding the term "liberal" as weak, anti-American and elitist. Liberal has been branded the same as a "communist" or "socialism."

And it has worked. It has worked so well that even many liberals today are running away from the term and themselves. They are trying to call themselves "progressives" or portray themselves as moderates. In doing so, they are leaving the very values that used to be at the core of the Democratic party and is perhaps the greatest reason that the Democratic Congress today is full of hapless leaders with no guts. It is hard to fight for something you are trying to run away from.

Can President Obama Bring Back True Liberal Values?
Can President Obama Bring Back True Liberal Values?

We need  Liberals to stand up once again and fight for true American values. We need to protect the environment. We need to bring real change to race relations in this Country. We need real change in the Healthcare system. We need to fix entitlements so that they work for all Americans. Only a true liberal can bring these changes and the Republicans genuinely do not believe in these policies and the "progressives" are too busy trying not to upset anyone. Where is my FDR? Where is my JFK? I hoped that Obama would have been this leader and still have hope. But the progressives are driving him away from himself. Stay strong Mr. Obama. Remember the example set by Jefferson, Lincoln, TR and FDR. If you stay true to core liberal ideals, you will make change we all can believe in.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 3 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Well, at least the 1950s.

      Thanks for the comment.

    • profile image

      LIBERAL 3 years ago

      Conserving the conservative ideas will keep a society in the Stone Age.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Liberals are evil, huh? What a joke. Liberals founded this Country you claim to love so much. See rest of article. I notice you can't dispute anything I said, just more conservative junk. the KKK was founded by a nice Christian conservative group by the way. Came back in the early 1900's as an anti-immigration oup, you know like today's Tea Party. By the way, members of the KKK today are Conservative Republican.

    • profile image

      bob 5 years ago

      Liberals have always been evil. It is only now that everythings out in the open due to internet and tv that people are starting to see that. Liberals are socialists and communists and every country they've ever ruled has gone down in flames. Yet they still continue to try and make every think they are right and their ways will work. Its been proven that they don't. Liberals are racists who created the kkk and keep minorities down with welfare and other free loader programs. They want government to control every aspect of someones life and want to abolish freedom and free choice. They are the idiots who believe abortion is right and the death penalty is wrong. Yep they love killing babies and freeing murders.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Milo,

      I have to agree with your first point to some extent. SOmetimes liberals do go too far with some policies. The same can be said about Conservatives as well. If you go far left or far right, you know what you have done, you have gone too far.

      My problem with liberals is that no longer are represented. MOst democrats are not liberals. They are moderates who really have nothing to offer. We need honest debate and right now nobody argues from the liberal point of view. Not even Obama. Most democrats would have been part of the Republican party of the early 90s.

      Thanks for stopping by.

    • profile image

      Milo 5 years ago

      I am a conservative and a Republican. But I believe there is crucial value in some of the goals of the liberal agenda but the problem is they don’t know where to stop. “If one sleeping pill is good than a whole bottle must be better!” This flawed reasoning seems to permeate the democratic liberal thinking.

      Case in point the recent Labor Dept. rule banning farm chores for rural kids. Absolute insanity!!! I’m not a farmer but my grandfather in Iowa was and I cherish, CHERISH the days I spent working on his farm. How disconnected from reality do you have to be to even think of something like this?!

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California

      I agree about there being progress. But progress for all. I personally dissapointed in the Democrats of today. They have abandoned traditional democratic policies and have adopted a coporatist attitude. They are the Republican Party of 20 years ago. Everyone has spent so much time trying to reach independents, they have abandoned the left.

      Thanks for reading

    • profile image

      David 5 years ago

      I dont really mind having to become a 'progressive'. To me, its an even better term than liberal at describing who I am. I don't support blind liberalization of welfare or market rules (I'm not a market 'liberal', though I support Adam Smith, market liberals are pretty wacko nowadays). So if the end result of 30 years of Repub stammering is to make us go from liberal to progressive, I'm fine with that, so long as we get some progress done!

    • danielthorne profile image

      danielthorne 5 years ago

      Liberals=Democratic Socialism=Progressives

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Joey,

      Thank you for your thoughtful comment. When I referrred to the founding fathers as liberals, I was speaking in the historical context. For their day, they were radically liberal compared to the monarchy. But as with all Americans, they themselves differed and argued over the role of the Federal Government, some wanting more power, some wanting less. The articles of confederation was an extreme limited government, the Constitution was less extreme, but I agree, government should be limited as much as possible. But government was instituted to protect rights that people have by virtue of being born, to protect the minority opinion, etc. I would say that government has gotten too big, and we can have a civil discussion about what to cut.

      Its funny, the term Liberal, Moderate and Conservative have shifted in the last decade. What is considered a moderate today, was a right wing Republican twenty years ago. In my humble opinion, the liberals of 20 years are all but gone, and few democrats can claim to be liberal, including the PResident.

    • profile image

      Joey 5 years ago

      I understand what you're saying. I've been getting more moderate in recent years, but I'm still searching for what I stand for.. while I agree with your post, the one thing I disagree with is that the founding fathers were liberals. The constitution was founded on limited government. Very, very limited government. Many Presidents have angered the country after they began moving away from the constitution and started growing government.. usually for the better, but our very early presidents weren't the most popular. They promised limited government, and not many kept their promises, and they were never re-elected.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 5 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Allen,

      Are you saying no regulation at all? I too like an open market,and think as little regulation as possible is best, but some regulation is needed.

      Thaks for stopping by.

    • profile image

      Allen 5 years ago

      I don't think regulating a market is a good idea. Let people sell and let people buy what they want.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Fair points all my journey.

      Thanks for stopping by.

    • MyJourney profile image

      MyJourney 6 years ago from Texas, United States

      I think the politicians on both sides have turned being a liberal and being a conservative into bad things. I also think that they have changed what it means to be Republican or Democrat. I liken the parties to unions. Unions, when created, were needed for the purpose of protecting workers. However at some point, the unions became less about protecting workers and more about the business of being a union. Professional politicians and political parties have gone down the same road. I believe they have forgotten that it is our votes that elect them and it is us that they represent.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Thank you Laura and Welcome.

    • profile image

      Laura from Willis 6 years ago

      Great Article. Thanks for making my 1st visit, a good one!

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 6 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Peter, I agree with the sentiment, but there has been parties since the first real election (Adams v. Jefferson). What we need to do is stop deamonizing those who we disagree with (and yes, it has to start with me).

      Thanks for stopping by

    • profile image

      Peter Piper 6 years ago

      Unfortunately, labels such as 'conservative' and 'liberal' split people into two different camps and cause much hatred and bitterness. It's time to go back to the system that existed when this country was founded: no parties at all. We elect people and representatives then get together to debate an issue and decide with no parties dictating to them what to do.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      yes jon

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      bgpappa

      ''Why don't you enlighten me with the Hannity spin about Obama not knowing the difference.''

      I don't watch Hannity, can you tell me. Can you respond to my question?

      CAVUTO on fox '' your world '' clears up a lot of what is happening. He questions both sides, great program.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Why don't you enlighten me with the Hannity spin about Obama not knowing the difference.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      bgpappa

      ''but the Republicans have not provided any explanation how they are going to pay for either.'' Haven't you noticed that the government has been controlled by President Barak Obama and a super majority controlled Democrat Congress. Republicans aren't even in the game, they have zero power to make any decisions or laws.

      ‘’yes, I know the difference between a tax cut and credit.’’ Can you explain the difference between the two. Which one would you prefer and the reasons why ?The question is asked with due respect to your reply.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Jon,

      911 and the war in Iraq have no tie, please don't try to make a correlation. As for the 2003 tax cuts paying for the wars; ok if you call paying for mismanaged wars ok. And it didn't pay for the wars, there were still huge deficits. And yes, I know the difference between a tax cut and credit, but the Republicans have not provided any explanation how they are going to pay for either. They never pay for them, just give them out and then any spending is overspending because there is no money.

      Thanks for the comment.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      bgpappa

      ’Republicans did the good ‘’in 1994 the Republicans with Clinton did good, balanced the budget and cut spending even with a Clinton tax increase.

      In 2000 the Republicans with Bush went on a spending spree. Much of the spending occurred because of a slow economy inherited from Clinton, 911, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sounds factual. In 2006 the Republicans lost majority control of Congress.

      ‘’Bush inherited peace and prosperity,’ Yes he did ,sort of.

      ‘’gave back 2 wars ‘’ so does that mean 911 had no impact as to why Congress ok’d going to war.

      ‘’and the Great recession’’ The first 6 years with Bush and the Republicans in 2000 to 2006 ,prosperity with unemployment at 4.6% (Clinton 4.5% ) and highest receipts to the treasury. The last 2 years with Bush and Democrat controlled Congress in 2007 and 2008 a recession started in dec.of 2007.

      The rest is history.

      ‘’Tax cuts don't fix everything’’ partially true but better than tax credits.

      The Bush tax cuts in 2003 brought us out of a recession, paid for 2 wars and an economic boom up to Dec. 2007.Let me try to explain a tax cut and a tax credit. Which one would you prefer to have, a tax cut or a credit?

      Your response or definition.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Again, your argument always comes down to, Republicans did the good things and democrats did the bad, even though history and simple facts show different. I don't even disagree that Obama has not done everything he promised, but you won't even admit that Bush did nothing he promised. Bush inherited peace and prosperity, gave back 2 wars and the Great recession. Bush didn't reject spending, just cut taxes during two wars. Tax cuts don't fix everything

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      bgpappa

      The Republicans won control of congress in 1994 during the last 6 years of the Clinton administration. Together they turned the economy around, George Bush in 2000 with a Republican controlled congress had to fight a recession, 911, the Iraq war, a start of a recession and in Oct. of 2008 a financial crisis. Past history, did they make mistakes, you betcha.

      The financial crisis ‘’TARP’’ $700 BILLION has been paid back to the government with interest. Let’s not forget that the last 2 years of the Bush administration, the Democrats were in charge, many forget that Senator Obama and the present Democrat leadership was in control of Congress.

      Note! Presidents don’t spend money, Congress does control that aspect, but presidents do have the power to reject spending.

      ‘’that Republicans had complete control for six years, and that the recession started, and was caused, on their watch’’

      In the first 6 years that the Republicans were in power , unemployment was 4.6%, the treasury receipts were record breaking and a barrel of oil was $56.00.The recession started in Dec of 2007 with the start of the housing collapse and the price of a barrel of oil going to $ 125.00 ( Soros and Goldman Sachs hedge funds ) that’s past history too.

      There are many things that Barak Obama promised before being elected, two of those were jobs and the economy. After 19 months with a super majority Democrat congress he has failed to fulfill the promises.

      Many of the citizens that believed in Barak Obama voted for him because of those promises that he made. He is far from what he appeared to be today.

      When the bottom falls out, be opened minded.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Jon,

      Republicans have been out of power since 2006??? President Bush, really??? Against the will of the people, war in Iraq, against the will of the people. Told we had to do it for national security, weapons of mass destruction. Obama's "half truths" are better than Bush's all out lies.

      You won't open you eyes. I admit when democrats screw up,and call them on it. But you won't admit anything bad that Republicans have done to this country in the past thirty years. You won't even admit that Bush was President, that Republicans had complete control for six years, and that the recession started, and was caused, on their watch.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      bgpappa

      The problem is that you haven’t open your eyes yet to see how the American people are misled. President Barak Obama appears on TV at least 4 times a week telling the American people half truths, complaining about the problems supposedly left to him by the Bush administration of which Obama was a Senator during that time and Congress was controlled (2007 and 2008 ) by a Democrat majority Congress. Today the Democrats have 100% control of the government to draft legislation and make law. Note that the Republicans have been out of power since 2006 and are powerless in the present congress.The recession started in Dec.of 2007. After 19 months, two major promises of President Barak Obama , Nancy Pelosi and Senator Reid have not been fulfilled. The record speaks for its self, they are arrogant, inept and incapable to govern our country. They move legislation against the will of the people.

      Keep searching for the whole truth, in the end you will be surprised.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Jon,

      Maybe me and you are in reality, and most everyone else is in fairyland. Just a thought. But we can actually debate, with facts, and even though you won't change my mind and I won't change yours, an actual discussion ensued. Doesn't get more American than that. Now only if our politicians, on both sides, would step up to the plate and actually debate issues. What a notion

      Thanks for reading

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      bgpappa

      Please join me in fairyland, there's a lot of room there.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      I have read the law, the actual law, not what foxnews says the law is. The Sheriff of Maricopa County has stated publicly how the law is enforced, based on color. What really troubles me is that section that allows private citizens to file suit against law enforcement if that private citizen believes the law is not being enforced.

      Thanks for reading, and if you think this law isn't directed towards Mexicans then you are in fairyland.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      "A law directed at a single group of people based on color, when others are breaking the same laws with no consequences, has some racist overtones."

      Read the law on foxnews.com/yourworld, YOUR statement is UNTRUE.MY FRIEND try to get pass the propaganda out in fairyland

      HAVE A GREAT DAY!

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Jon,

      I hate to tell you, but racism is not gone from America. Yes, the younger generation is more inclusive, but racism still exists. To say it doesn't is either naive or blind. I wish it didn't, trust me, but I have seen it first hand. The difference is that blatant racists are no longer mainstream. You can see racism in the comments on this very post, referring to the guy who made blatanlty racist remarks, not you or any other conservative who brings lively and passionate debate.

      I am not a liberal who claims that to be against Obama means you are racist. I almost have less tolerance for that argument than racism itself. But that does not mean racism doesn't exist, it does. A law directed at a single group of people based on color, when others are breaking the same laws with no consequences, has some racist overtones.

      Thanks for the post.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      bgpappa

      No, it's all about one first breaking a law, color is not an issue. The activists are crying racism, profiling and I Would guess color TOO.

      In today’s society, after many year of discrimination against the colored and other colored skin people, the youth of today are color blind. Generation after generation has evolved and the young now associate with each other, in most cases together, colored with white without second thoughts. The older generations that practiced discrimination are no longer here to discriminate.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Jon,

      The Arizona law is all about color.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      bgpappa

      THE LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO ABOUT COLOR OR NATIONALLY.

      SO WHY ISN'T OUR GOVERNMENT ENFORCING THE LAW? IS THE GOVERNMENT ABOVE THE LAW? SOMETHING IS VERY VERY WRONG.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Well, I agree with you that voice votes should be banned. But when immigration reform is only directed to one set of immigratns, based solely on skin color, I have a problem. No problem with stopping illegal immigration, as long as it includes all illegal immigrants, not just mexicans. We I live, the problem isn't mexicans, its Russians. thousands of illegals starting gangs, prostitution, conterfeiting. Nobody wants to anything about them. But the guys at home depot lookign for an honest days work, they are the problem?

      Thanks for reading.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      bgpappa

      In 1986 Congress passed an amendment to the immigration law.Those same senators were in congress when that vote was taken. That law was passed by a voice too, we now know that the law Don't Work simply because the government is not enforcing the law.same problems again?

      Think about all the $billions, the taxpayers( you and I) are spending to correct the problems thru no fault of our own. The unauthorized aliens and supporters march with signs that read ''racism'', '' we have rights'','' we are people '' throwing bottles at the police and displaying Mexican flags in our cities and towns in our country.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      jon,

      I actually agree with you, no matter who it is. If they are going to vote something, it should be recorded. Voting record is one of the tangible ways to judge your representative. Unfortunelty, these oral votes have been used for years and are supposed to mean that there is no doubt as to the outcome. But there is no accountability either, and that is where the problem lies. Some common ground here.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      bgpappa

      Allow Me to clarify what you thought that I said.It's not a case of Republican or Democrat.A roll call vote is a registered vote on how the Senator voted.A voice vote doesn't expose the bill voter on how he/she voted.In open and transparent government the taxpayer/voter will know how his/her Representative voted.

      Any member of congress can request the roll call vote. My anger is that my Representative did not request the roll call vote.

      In these troubled times in Washington, voters want to know who voted for what.I contacted his office and let them know that the people are watching.

      C=Span televises the procedures in congress.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Jon,

      And how many times did Republicans do a roll call vote. Are you angry that they are spending the money defending the border? Not sure what you point is here.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      bgpappa

      Here's a friday nite quicky.

      Today the Senate passed a bill to spend $600 MILLION MORE to defend the border. The bill was passed by a voice vote meaning that a row call of the vote was NOT recorded.

      That’s not transparent and open government that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid promised the American people if elected.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Jon,

      I doubt it. Washington has been a mess since I was born, and that sure wasn't yesterday, or during Bush or Obama. Right or left, they have both been wrong for many decades. I think we would both agree with that. Have a good weekend.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      bgpappa

      Have a great day.Someday we will know what's going on in Washington.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Its not old, it happened earlier this week. Republicans have never followed pay as you go. They say cut taxes, they cut taxes, but they never cut spending. Deficit spending is what they do. That bill was a pay go. And yes, Democrats could have passed it if a few "moderate" democrats were actually democrats.

      Thanks for reading.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      bgpappa

      That's old stuff, the money would have had to be borrowed. The Dem's could have passed it without the Republicans.The Republican position is the pay-go legislation.The media propaganda isn't reporting the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

      PRESIDENT OBAMA is in campaign mode, on the road telling half truths about the Republicans and still blaming Bush.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      They did pay as they go. Cut the loophole for foreign corporations based in the Caribean that pay no incmoe taxes for money earned in the US. That is pay as you go. Republicans, and some so called "moderate" democrats said no. I don't get it.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      Bgpappa,with due respect, what are your sources of information? I DID NOT SAY THAT YOU WERE UNINFORMED.A DEBATE with misunderstandings is not in anyone's best interest.

      ''By the way, blocking healthcare for 911 emergency workers ''.Please try to understand that the democrats were not following the pay-go laws when they tried to pass the bill.AGAIN THE DEMS REFUSED TO OBEY THE LAW.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Jon,

      Don't really appreciate your rude remarks. I am not uninformed. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am uninformed. You only speak it talking points. By the way, blocking healthcare for 911 emergency workers because Republicans didn't want a tax loophole for international corporations that reside in the Cayman Islands only proves the point; tax cuts or nothing.

      I will give you this, the "moderate democrats" that vote for nothing democratic have not allowed the democrats the full control they earned. These Republicans in disguise should just switch parties. I actually prefer a mixed government when the branches are checked.

      Thanks for reading.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      Bgpappa

      ‘’The Bush tax cuts help nobody but the Uber rich’’. That’s not true, every taxpayer got a tax break. Can you be more specific who the rich were in 2000 to 2008, and who do you think they are today.

      What Bush policies made the unemployment rate drop. Before the Democrats took over Congress the rate was 4.6%.The Democrat controlled Congress’s unemployment record above needs to be understood.

      ‘’But Republicans have offered nothing but tax cuts. Tax cuts are not the cure for every ill.‘’. Try to understand that the Republicans have zero control of the government since the election of President Barak Obama and a Democrat super majority control of Congress in 2009. The Republicans have offered many amendments to recent laws that were ignored by the leadership. Amendments offered were rejected by the leadership, some not allowed to get to the floor of Congress. That’s a fact. Note that the Republicans have no power except but to a filibuster( only delays actions on bills ).The Democrats are spending without regard to the deficits, increasing the national debt three fold. The Democrats are disregarding the PAY-GO laws that was passed in April and signed by Barak Obama.

      ‘’And Republicans cannot cite the entire stimulus as spending when over a little than half has actually been spent. Can't have it both ways‘’ The stimulus was passed without one Republican vote. It was passed to jump start the economy and to put people back to work. Shovel ready jobs was a reason to pass the bill, so where are the jobs and the economy today. Why has only 60% been spent?

      You and many who trust what the President, Congress and the press are reporting are being DUPED.

      The Senate passed a jobs bill ,$26.5 billion, of which $16 billion was for States Medicaid insurance programs. The balance of $10billion was to save teachers jobs (union public sector ). The Republicans wanted the money to come from the stimulus surplus ( borrowed money ).That’s the way this Congress and President plans to reduce the unemployment problems.

      Some how the uninformed need to get by the propaganda and untruths that our government provides to the public daily. Bgpappa,with due respect, what are your sources of information? Have a good day.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Jon,

      The Bush tax cuts help nobody but the Uber rich, which I am not. Keep the $800 it offers. Just to state again, the unemployment rate fell because of Bush's policies, not Obamas. But Republicans will never admit that, and that is fine. But Republicans have offered nothing but tax cuts. Tax cuts are not the cure for every ill. And Republicans cannot cite the entire stimulus as spending when over a little than half has actually been spent. Can't have it both ways.

      Thanks for the comment.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      bgpappa

      You are an American with a liberal philosophy of life in the good ole USA . Having said that may I comment on your reply.

      ‘’Second, I am ok with tax cuts, but not those that only help the rich’’ The bush tax cuts were tax cuts for all taxpayers. The idea of the tax cuts was to immediately inject money into the economy. Hence better for you to keep your money than to have government take it and spend it ( as happening today) and better for corporation ( so called rich ) to use the money to hire people, buy equipment and expand. A slight difference in thinking between liberal thinking and conservative ideas.

      Let’s not forget that Clinton with a Republican Congress (1994-2000) balanced the budget and left a projected surplus. The Clinton- Republican tax cuts were offset with a huge reduction in government spending. That’s a fact.

      ‘’As for the stimulus, I do think it is working’’I don’t believe so only because the economy hasn’t recovered and there are 14.5 million citizens out of work ( unemployment is at 9.5% ).The stimulus funding now is $ 858 billion ( borrowed money ) with only 60% of it has been used. The media reports that $ billions of the stimulus have been wasted creating a minimum of new workers. Less we forget that President Barak Obama promised that he would go line for line and remove the pork, didn’t happen,

      just another broken promise by the president.

      ‘’ I am a small business owner. I do not get bailouts or even tax cuts. ’’ If a business is registered as a subchapter 8 corporation and file as a sub 8,you are getting a tax break. Small businesses hire 70% of the workforce and a business owner filing a sub 8 will exceed $250,000 in combined income. The Bush tax cuts helped those business to keep a float in 2000 and 2002.

      History for your information. On unemployment.

      Clinton and a Republican majority Congress 1994-2000 4.5%

      Bush with a Republican majority Congress 2000-2006 4.6%

      Bush with a Democrat majority Congress 2007-2008 6.4%

      *** the Bush/Democrat recession started in Nov. 2007

      Barak Obama with a Democrat super majority in Congress 2009-2010 10%

      Ditto above 2010- aug. 9.5%

      Today 8/4/10 in Atlanta the President Barak Obama said the Republicans have offered nothing to solve the problems that he inherited. If you had all the true facts you would understand that the president made some false statements. Somehow LIBERALS tend to have fallen for the administration’s and the mainstream media’s propaganda and half truths.

      Bgpappa, hoping for you to see the light.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      First off, I enjoy debate as well, and yes, clean and respectful is key.

      Second, I am ok with tax cuts, but not those that only help the rich. I make a good living, but I wouldn't qualify for the Bush tax cuts. Why don't I get help. Clinton used middle class tax cuts, which help the middle class who spent more which helped everyone.

      As for the stimulus, I do think it is working. Bush left the economy in a free fall, it takes time to stop the inertia, let alone turn things around. Yes, Democrats have controlled Congress for two years before Obama, but Republicans controlled congress for six years before that with a Republican President. It takes time to turn things around. Republicans blamed Clinton for everything for years after 911, and still do. Why doesn't that same logic apply for Obama?

      The Corporations i am thinking of do not make up small business. I am a small business owner. I do not get bailouts or even tax cuts. I employ people, provide healthcare but under the current system I get very little. The corporations I speak of are the mega corporations - banks, insurance companies, even car companies (and yes their unions) who exert too much influence over the system. I don't really care what entity it is, I dont like too much influence over the entire system. And even as a liberal I will acknowledge that this includes unions.

      Thanks for reading.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      bgpappa

      Small businesses are corporations. The republicans have not been in control of the government since the 2006 election. Check it out because you are wrong about tax cuts not helping the economy in a recession.

      The bush tax cuts were only approved with the help of some of the ( bipartisan ) Democrats. The Democrats filibustered (something like what the Republicans are guilty of doing now )the bill so that 60 votes were required to pass the bill.

      President Kennedy, Reagan and Bush used the tax cut legislation to turn the economy around. Note, in order to make the tax cuts work each of them made drastic cuts in government spending. Something that is not happening today. Treasurer Geithner said today that unemployment could rise from 9.5% to 10% in the VERY near future. Don’t sound like the economy is turning around? Could it be that what the Whitehouse is saying may not be true? Research it and understand how tax cuts work. The US Treasury during the Bush’s years had receipts of 13 trillion, the most ever in our history.

      The whole process makes a lot of sense if the economy needs citizens ( with jobs ) to spend money. the citizens can’t spend money unless they are working ( 14 MILLION UNEMPLOYED ) and paying taxes. When the government takes your money and corporate profits, you have less to spend and corporations have less to spend and increase the size of their business ( hiring )

      The stimulus is not working and spending more money by increasing the debt is not the solution.

      I am enjoying the debate, keep it clean and respectful.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Jon, small businesses are not corporations. For all the talk Republicans do about small businesses, they do nothing to help them. Yes, there are many good republicans who are charitable, but getting taxes cut is not charitable, it is a different issue. Buying things is not charity, hiring is not charity. Those are different issues. And nothing everything is cured by a tax cut.

      Thanks for reading.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      bgpappa

      You said ‘' tort reform is not healthcare reform ''

      When insurance companies pay out adsorbent claims, your premiums will eventually increase. The Republicans offered this amendment to the Healthcare Bill. Pelosi and Reid never allowed the amendment to the floor, denying a discussion and a vote by Democrat and Republican members of congress, bipartisan participation gone aside. That’s a fact.

      Maybe someone can explain how the ‘’ Student Loan Program ‘’ got in the bill without a debate or discussion. And what does the Student Loan Program have to do with Healthcare Reform.

      Maybe it got there like Pelosi said ‘’ we need to pass the bill to see what’s in it ‘’, apparently many Democrats voting to pass the bill didn’t read it too.

      Bgpappa , I don’t believe I’ll be around that long. There is real clean air in many of states of the union, environmentalist should live there to keep healthy. ’’People before corporations’’, small business owners provide 70% of the jobs in our nation. Do you know who employs the most people other than corporations? It’s the US Government who employs the most workers, they don’t seem to produce profit ( taxes to fill the treasury to run the government ) and are running record deficits at taxpayer expense. In the real work the US Government competes with no one for what they do, they waste taxpayer money at leisure and if need be tax the people.

      You are being disingenuous to say that Republicans hate the unfortunate. I don’t recall if rich Republicans or rich Democrats are the most charitable. If and when the government takes ( taxes ) from the rich the results are that charities will suffer, the rich may stop buying materialistic items ( loss of tax money ), stop hiring or investing in their companies( recession ) and just decide to go where the taxes are much lower( take their money out of country).

      For your information, liberals and conservatives want and do help the poor.

      Enjoyed your comments

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Jon,

      Liberal values: People before corporations. tort reform is not healthcare reform. Yes, environment. We live here, don't you want to breath twenty years from now? Helping others: For such a "Christian nation" Republicans sure do hate helping those less fortunate.

      Thanks for reading.

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 7 years ago from usa

      Bgpappa

      Keep hubbing, one day you will get it right.WE are all Americans first.

      ‘’We need Liberals to stand up once again and fight for true American values‘’

      What are the American values liberals are fighting for in today’s society?

      ‘’We need to protect the environment’’

      Protect the environment from what ? Civilization ?

      ‘’We need to bring real change to race relations in this Country’’

      What kind of change are you referring to; the past, present or future ?

      ‘’We need real change in the Healthcare system. ‘’

      Maybe like tort reform, allow insurance providers to sell between states for more competition, pay doctors for their services or government to take over the system and provide a single payer system and tax the rich to pay ?

      Can you list your ideas for changes?

      ‘’We need to fix entitlements so that they work for all Americans ‘’

      Maybe like denying illegals using the entitlement systems at a cost to the taxpayers for about $ 300 billion a year..

      Interested in knowing how a liberal can make the present system better for citizens and non citizens?

      ‘’Only a true liberal can bring these changes ’’

      Progressive liberals have had control of our government since 2007 up to the present 2010 with President Barak Obama leading the way. The way to socialism?

      ‘’ If you stay true to core liberal ideals, you will make change we all can believe in.’’

      President Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress ( approval rating 11% )has had super majority control of the government since Jan 2009.

      With the signing of the Healthcare Reform bill, take over of the Student Loan programs, government ownership in auto companies and Fannie and Freddie Mac and the Finance Reform bill, the government has taken 60% control of the economy. Not bad for President Barak Obama in the first 19 months in office. Are we on the way to socialism?

      Somehow the Obama government forgot about fixing the economy and the creation of jobs. There are 14 million now out of work, unemployment is 9.5+ % and President Obama takes time to be on the campaign trail ,talk and news shows weekly.

      Let’s all pray for equal justice for all and hope that what Obama’s plan for social justice for all fails only because it is contrary to our constitution and the will of the people.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Thanks KKalmes

    • KKalmes profile image

      KKalmes 7 years ago from Chicago, Illinois

      Hello bg, 252 comments... must be a record!!! for stamina at least... good to see you fighting the good fight still!

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Tyranmax,

      Thanks for the comments. I wish I had time today to reply to them at, but I don't so I will have to come back.

      Quicky, I am familiar with the report from UCLA. It is a very good argument. Some of it is persuasive even, some of it not. My problem and the reason I said that was the person I was arguing was just arguing in talking points such as "FDR" extended the depression. Doesn't know why, doesn't know history, he just heard Rush say it so he said. You on the other hand, bring some game, and thus have my respect.

      Thanks so much for commenting.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Tony, me too. Of course it is up to liberals as well to admit truths, even if "democrats" don't agree.

      Thanks for reading.

    • tryanmax profile image

      tryanmax 7 years ago

      I've had some time today, so I decided to step up where Mac fell down some months ago. You (gbpappa) asked if there were any facts to back up whether FDR's policies extended the depression. I don't know if a study conducted by UCLA counts as hard evidence, but is it worth a read, I think: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policie...

      As for Coolidge and Hoover, I think it is absolutely incorrect to lump them together. Their policies were so opposite, only one or the other can be held responsible for causing the Great Depression.

      Coolidge came into the White House as V.P. to Harding. When Harding took office after Wilson, he found himself inheriting a depressed economy with double-digit unemployment (estimates typically range from 17-20%) and runaway inflation. He responded by slashing taxes and reducing national debt, against the advice of Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce. Coolidge took over after Harding’s death and was later re-elected in his own right. As president, he continued the policies of his predecessor, including ignoring much of Hoover’s advice. The Harding/Coolidge policies are credited with the economic prosperity of the 1920’s. The times were so prosperous in fact, that private U.S. citizens were able to provide ample famine relief to the people of the Soviet Union despite there being no official ties between the two governments.

      By contrast, the following Hoover presidency was marked by policies extremely similar to those of our current president. Hoover entered office with a plan to reform the nation's regulatory system. He saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans by regulation and by encouraging volunteerism. He expanded the Federal civil service. His stance on the economy was based largely on voluntarism. He canceled private oil leases on government lands. He even went on a seven-week goodwill tour of several Latin American nations.

      When the 1929 stock market crash occurred, Hoover responded in a way that could please neither a classical economist nor a Keynesian. He urged many business leaders not to lay off workers or cut wages but he refused to create new government assistance programs or run a budget deficit. In response to the rise of 'Hoovervilles', he approved legislation to spur new home construction, and reduce foreclosures. Then the Hoover Administration passed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, authorizing funds for public works programs and government-secured loans. Finally, with the Depression in full swing, he implemented one of the greatest tax increases in history to pay for it all.

      During the 1932 presidential election, FDR blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, and placing millions on the dole of the government. He accused Hoover of attempting center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible. His running mate characterized Hoover’s actions as socialist. Ironically, FDR’s subsequent New Deal was almost entirely an expansion of programs Hoover started.

    • tryanmax profile image

      tryanmax 7 years ago

      gbpappa,

      Earlier you said that you object to the belief that government has taken on the role of governing over those don't govern themselves properly. I replied saying I only extrapolated that from the modern liberal philosophy. However, there is an example of this very thing which was just signed into law this March. On March 23, 2010, Democrat President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act after it had been passed by both Democrat-controlled Houses of the 111th Congress. Among its various provisions are several that, I assert, purport to govern those who don’t govern themselves “properly.”

      Among the governed are insurers, who will be severely restricted in the types of private contracts they many enter into with their policyholders and are legally obligated to implement procedures and programs which were previously not required by law. You may say that these insurers were exploitative in their dealings, but we have a tort system to deal with that. Therefore, this law must be seeking to circumvent that system by making insurers govern themselves “properly.”

      Any private citizen who or entity that provides employment to 50 or more fellow citizens will be coerced into offering health insurance or face a $2000-per-employee penalty. In 2008, more than 95% of employers with at least 50 employees offered health insurance, so I can only interpret this as a move to make the other 5% behave “properly.”

      Anyone with the business and culinary savvy to have built or acquired 20 or more restaurants will be required to display the caloric content of their foods on menus, drive-through menus, and vending machines. Additional information must also be made available upon request. But that would probably have been the proper thing to do, anyway.

      But enough about all those exploitative institutions. What about the individuals who, starting in 2014, will either have to secure some form of health insurance or face a being fined? It is, of course, a very good idea to be insured. And now we have a law to guarantee everyone will be “properly” insured, or at the very least, they will pay an annual fine to the government for the privilege of exercising their personal liberty. Freedom for a fee.

      I’ve picked on the recently passed health care law because it is prescient and overwhelmingly partisan on the part of the Democrat party, which is widely regarded as the liberal party. You may disagree with that regard, I certainly do, but that is how they are generally perceived.

    • tryanmax profile image

      tryanmax 7 years ago

      bgpappa,

      You ought to state that, ESPECIALLY as a liberal, I think there are too many laws.

      I agree that politicians are too worried about looking busy, and not worried enough about how their actions actually affect things. When it occurs at the State level, at least it is close to the voters, and should be a little easier to deal with. Unfortunately, our national elections have been drastically altered in form from their original plan. Not to delve in too deeply, I just think that the 12th and 17th Amendments only served to avoid solving certain problems by replacing them with different ones. I also think most people would do good to better understand the Electoral College system. I’m sure many don’t even know it exists and still others would like to see it replaced by a popular vote. In many ways, I share in Lew Rockwell’s reverie (http://mises.org/etexts/classical.asp).

      Oh, and thanks for the comments on my original reply. Perhaps I will polish it up into a hub of its own.

    • tonymac04 profile image

      Tony McGregor 7 years ago from South Africa

      Fascinating Hub and discussion. Liberal is a term of respect and decency and I'm happy to be "smeared" as one!

      Love and peace

      Tony

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Tyranmax

      I think a big problem with the current crop of laws is a bigger problem with our politics. Politicians need to pass laws to give a sense that they are doing something. So there are more and more laws that are reactionary rather than based on principle. Three stikes and you out in Califonria example. Easy to support, hard to fight against in an election year, but as written makes no sense for many things. I am all for laws that make sense, and even I as a liberal think there are too many laws.

      My comment about conservatives was an example that it sways both ways. It comes from a point of view. Conservatives don't like liberal laws and liberals don't like conservative laws, but they both must do something so both pass laws.

      Thanks for my comment.

    • tryanmax profile image

      tryanmax 7 years ago

      I must point out that I never said that government has already taken on the role of governing those who don't govern themselves "properly." Only that I extrapolate that line of thinking when examining modern liberalism.

      I know what you mean when you say that history is interpreted through each person's own biases, and to a point that is absolutely the case. But unlike politics, history does also concern itself with matters of indisputable fact. You yourself were unable to escape this aspect of history when pointing out where certain restrictive laws come from.

      And I agree that there are many rules, generally social in nature, that overreach on the individuals' rights. I make no bones about where many of them came from, though I hardly see social conservatives as having anything in common with classical liberals.

      Hopefully, you have come to the conclusion that I regard myself as a classical liberal and Constitutional conservative, but neither liberal nor conservative in any other senses. As such, I view social conservatism as a form of progressivism, albeit a form at odds with the progressivism found amongst progressive liberals.

      The remedy I would put forth regarding laws that go a step to far is simple, abolish them, repeal them, overturn them. I believe all liberals should demand of their Federal legislators to cull the body of law, because overbuilt legal codes become minefields and potential tools of tyranny. Besides, it is an infringement not only on the rights of the people, but of the States.

      I personally think that a healthy mistrust of government power, when it is great, is a core component of any type of liberalism. I cannot say the same for socialism or progressivism. The modern liberal needs be wary of this in light of the fact that his movement attempts to straddle both classical liberalism and socialism and/or progresivism.

      Going back to Beck, I'm glad that you've at least given him the time. (I personally recommend avoiding the Mon.-Thu. installments, but torture yourself if you like. You can get the same stuff from Limbaugh in a much more digestible form.) I am still adamant that his historian guests are worthwhile. If nothing else, they point arrows toward topics in history that were never even hinted at in my high school texts.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Tranmax

      you are never too late to chime in, and your comments are always welcomed, even if we disagree. That is what debate is all about.

      As for Glenn Beck, I do watch his show on occasion, and watch his history. While he does bring in experts, they are experts with a point of view. Like politics, history is interpreted through the thoughts, beliefs, biases etc of the holder. Rarely, if ever, does he bring in anyone who would disagree with him. But it is a point of view, so I watch it, even if it makes me sick. You can disagree with anyone, but never dismiss.

      I enjoy your take of classical liberalism versus modern liberalism, and actually agree with much of what you said. My only objection is the belief that government has taken on the role of governing over those don't govern themselves properly. I agree, government does make rules that people have to follow: such as you can't murder or commit fraud, which you agree. But what rules are out there that go to far. I would say that there are quite a few including parenting and reproductive rights. But most of these laws weren't pushed by liberals, but by conservatives. I think the problem, as always, is that people put labels on things until it meets their own objectives, and then call it something else. Hypocarcy. Both sides are guilty.

      You comment was very articulate and reasoned. Please come back anytime.

    • tryanmax profile image

      tryanmax 7 years ago

      I’m a little late to the conversation, but I find the topic fascinating, so I signed up just to chime in. Hopefully, this can reignite the conversation and we can gain further insight. I apologize in advance if I repeat anything covered in the replies. I focused mainly on the article, but I mainly skimmed the responses.

      I see you’ve done your homework on liberalism and U.S. history, so obviously your question is in earnest. I will begin by making a suggestion that I honestly don’t know if a self-described Liberal will take: I recommend tuning into Glenn Beck’s television show for a few Fridays. Just Fridays. It is that day that Beck devotes to U.S. history that you probably didn’t learn in high school. Before you assume that it is just Beck’s own version of history, know that he brings in multiple experts every week and their discussions are rife with references. Beck doesn’t want his viewers to take him for his word; anything you are skeptical of can be looked into.

      Back to the question at hand. Before one can begin to answer just when “liberal” became a bad thing, one must realize that, politically speaking, there are two types of liberalism: Classical Liberalism and Modern (a.k.a. Progressive or Social) Liberalism. You correctly identify the founders as classical liberals. Debate can be made about which type of liberal Lincoln was, but T. Roosevelt, as founder of the Progressive Party, was decidedly no longer a classical liberal. By the time we reach FDR, a clear shift in the dominant form of liberalism had become complete.

      Generally, liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom") is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality. Classical liberalism centers concepts of limited government, individual freedom (namely religion, speech, press, and assembly), and free markets around this basic concept, embellishing it little. To the classical liberal, the role of government is focused only on the legal, or justice, system, hence such phrases as “equality before the law.” When the government’s locus of control expands beyond this one area, it is no longer classical liberalism.

      Modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism in that it recognizes a legitimate role for government in addressing economic and social issues. This is a troublesome deviation from classical liberalism in that it implies that the right of individuals to govern themselves can be usurped by the government when some individuals don’t govern themselves “properly.” Obviously, I am not speaking of flagrant violations such as murder or fraud, but of less clearly defined issues such as prejudice or poverty. The classical liberal no more wants these latter things than the modern liberal, but the classical liberal is willing to let a free society work out these issues on its own. The social liberal seems to be more impatient. This becomes more troublesome when one observes that only a strong and, probably, centralized government could perform and act on such an assessment of propriety with any meaning or authority. One begins to question whether this is liberalism at all?

      Also, modern liberalism includes a focus on expanding civil rights. This is perfectly in line with classical liberalism, except where classical liberalism has already taken hold. Take the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: it openly grants all rights not explicitly addressed in the constitution to the States and the people. Now, I agree that in practice, this has not always been upheld. But the law of our land ensures civil rights from its inception. Under these circumstances, the supposed addition of more civil rights would really be either for political show, some form of entitlement, or even an infringement of civil rights.

      Now, marking the difference between the forms of liberalism doesn’t pinpoint when “being a liberal became a bad thing.” Nor does identifying when the shift between liberal forms occurred. The point when being liberal became a bad thing is when the populous recognized that one form had replaced the other and decided they didn’t like it. Without nailing down a date, I’d say that has happened fairly recently.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      thanks niall.tubbs.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Thank you so much for the honor of a link and for your comment. Feel free to jump in anytime.

      Thanks for reading.

    • KKalmes profile image

      KKalmes 7 years ago from Chicago, Illinois

      Hello bgpappa, I don't know what to say this was one of the most spirited comment sessions, but after about a half hour I had to bail... you are much more gracious than I am to some of the factless rhetoric and vitriol. You are by far, along with Ralph Deeds, two of the best informed writers in the hub arena. I bow to your decency and good nature.

      You are now linked to my most recent political hub... great read!

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      really, extended the Great Depression? Do you have any facts? Why not mention Coolige and Hoover, the men who started the depression, or as I like to call them, the first George W. Bush.

      Thanks for the comment.

    • profile image

      Mac 7 years ago

      Must have skipped history class, Why would any one mention FDR, the man who extended the great depression.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Not really, you waved reason and calm bye bye a long time ago. You welcomed back once your off your meds.

    • Tucci78 profile image

      Tucci78 7 years ago from New Jersey

      Oh, most certainly "calm," and thoroughly reasoned. As for the length of my comments, there's the perpetual observation that handling political error - such as "Liberalism" - is like dealing with a necrotic and infected decubitus ulcer.

      Think of the "Liberal" as a stinking, suppurating, bone-deep bedsore.

      In order to resolve the pathology, you've got to debride. That means cutting away the diseased substance of the bedsore - or, in your case, your "Liberal" rottenness - in order to achieve a clean surface from which to begin the healing process.

      This is commonly a tedious, persnickety procedure, and it must be approached meticulously. In the case of the disease that is "Liberalism," the body of errors (moral, epistemological, and political) is so broad and deep - and the filthy, rotting flesh is so beloved of the "stupid, evil, and insane" persons espousing it - that extirpation has to be conducted with precisely the same approach one takes when bringing the patient with decubitus ulcers to the operating theater.

      Perfect calm is the attitude, and good reason - the application of "evidence-based medicine" - is what's required in either case. What you'd like other readers to take as "over reaction" is merely the exercise of appropriate and objectively warranted thoroughness in the address of the pathology in question.

      And, naturally, it's making you "freak out."

      Well, hell. Why not? You've absolutely no other way to respond, have you?

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Your response was neither calm or reasoned and was a typical over reaction to anyone questioning conservatism. I write a line describing the person who you quoted, and you freak out. What next, are you going to argue that I wasn't born in the United States or I am a communist.

    • Tucci78 profile image

      Tucci78 7 years ago from New Jersey

      Now, now. How like a "Liberal" to imply that a cold, calm, reasoned assessment of your moral, political, and intellectual bankruptcy must be borne of no cause other than "upset."

      You're the one with no electrical activity going on above the level of the thalamus, bgpappa. Were there measurable neural function in your knob rostral to the lizard brain, you wouldn't be a "Liberal," now, would you?

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Not sure what upset you, don't really care.

      Thanks for the comment.

    • Tucci78 profile image

      Tucci78 7 years ago from New Jersey

      bigpappa, let's charitably assume for the moment that you're stupid and/or insane instead of simply evil.

      This might understandably account for your errors in the comment above - unless, of course, you're just lying.

      First, I have not advocated that "drugs should be legal" - the "legalization" of substances currently prohibited under obtaining federal, state, and local laws. Instead, I have explicitly stated my position on the desirability of DECRIMINALIZATION, with the understanding that these officers of civil government have neither truly legitimate power nor responsibility for "controlling" the creation, conveyance, or use of any psychoactive substances whatsoever.

      I've made the moral argument in that discussion ("It's the individual's body, not the property of the government"), the practical argument ("Prohibition doesn't work, except as a government price support program for dope dealers"), and the legal argument ("The War on [Some] Drugs is unconstitutional").

      I've never once argued that putting the manufacture, sale, and "recreational" employment of drugs on the CDS schedules into the status of "legality" - government sanction and therefore control - is either a desirable or a viable policy.

      As we libertarians like to say, "laissez-faire."

      Not "Mother, may I?"

      Second, regarding gay marriage not being a problem for me (no matter what might be my personal opinion either of homosexuality or homosexual persons), if you're familiar with my stance on that subject, you'll note that it derives from the fact that insofar as marriage touches upon civil government it is in marriage's status as a form of contract.

      One of the very few legitimate functions of government is the enforcement of contract.

      Now, being a "Liberal," I'm certain that you chant "civil rights" as a daily mantra without knowing dick about what it really means, but part of what civil rights entails is the right of the private citizen to expect of the "Malevolent Jobholder" of government the provision of services stipulated in statute law and implementing regulations, and it's been made clear over the past half-century that even scrupulously written statutes and regulations designed to deprive certain populations of services provided other certain populations are violations of the principles behind civil rights.

      Remember "Jim Crow" laws, bgpappa? "Separate but equal"? Freedom riders? Rosa Parks?

      Okay. Insofar as I've been able to determine, the difference between "gay" and "straight" is about as significant as the difference between "African American" and "European American" when it comes to the enforcement of contract and the provision of other "Malevolent Jobholder" services under what passes for legitimacy in law today.

      There are pecuniary considerations of definite and mensurable value associate with the marriage contract, and heterosexual couples take advantage of those beneficial qualities of matrimony as a matter of civil right.

      Especially given that the provision of the same services to homosexual couples does not degrade the material quality of "Malevolent Jobholder" service to straight people, and those gay men and lesbians are certainly getting hammered through taxation, inflation, and every other form of government predation just as viciously as us straight folk, the assertion of their civil right to something of the same service - especially in the enforcement of contract - seems perfectly reasonable to me.

      Obviously, it's not something most "social" conservatives find to their taste, apparently because of emotional, religious, or other psychopathological failings in the conservative character.

      They certainly don't have lucid and objectively supportable reasons for their positions on the "gay marriage" issue, do they?

      But like you "Liberals," these social conservatives are evil, stupid, or insane, so their sputterings are not to be accorded any weight in public argument.

      One treats with them in the fashion recommended for handling a vicious Rottweiler. You say: "Nice doggy! Nice doggy!" while looking around for a brick.

      To conclude, consider not only reading Mr. Gabb but also Dr. von Hayek, notably the closing essay in his *Constitution of Liberty* (1960), titled - appropriately - "Why I Am Not a Conservative."

      Were you capable of learning - and, who knows? you might be - Hayek's a nice place to start.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      intersting to cite Gagg,

      A liberatarin who believes drugs should be legal and gay marriage is not a problem. He only wants the right to rail againt homosexuality, not outlaw it. Conservatives in America should be careful not to qouate Mr. Gabb, they may start agreeing with a liberal agenda.

      Thanks for the comment.

    • Tucci78 profile image

      Tucci78 7 years ago from New Jersey

      jiberish, in the words of Sean Gabb regarding "Liberals" in his own country:

      "These are bad people. They must be regarded as such in everything they do. And we must hope that they will one day be punished as such."

      Especially when labels accurately reflect the qualities one must in all reason utterly despise, condemn, and oppose, they work just fine.

      Which is why, of course, "Liberals" and other prehensile gentry - evil, stupid, or insane - want to blank out the concept of labeling as such.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Agreed Jiberish

      Thanks for the comment.

    • jiberish profile image

      jiberish 7 years ago from florida

      I have researched and wrote on several of the topics addressed in the comments and the Hub, and have come to the conclusion that all the labels are worn out. It's time to change our mindset, and find common ground.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 7 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Wow, Liberals are ok with 49% of the population being eaten. All because we want healthcare.

      Thanks for the comment.

    • Tucci78 profile image

      Tucci78 7 years ago from New Jersey

      bgpappa, labels are a tool of conceptual thought. One assigns labels on the basis of observed qualities and conditions and uses them because - if they're accurately congruent with factual reality - they work.

      The label "Liberal" as we presently employ it in American politics has drifted from its original meaning (arising in the 19th Century with works like John Stuart Mill's *On Liberty* and extended in Ludwig von Mises' *Liberalism*) to serve as a weasel-word for what is in reality socialism.

      The toxic reality of modern "Liberalism" is that its advocates are in fact people vehemently and violently dedicated to the infringement of the most basic human rights.

      Indeed, they degrade the concept of rights by asserting - deliberately or out of simple stupidity - that positive calls upon the possessions or effort of certain people can be morally carried out by political means, without practical or ethical regard for their victims' rights to life, to liberty, or to property.

      Think of the "Liberal" as the kind of person perfectly happy to see 49% of the population killed and eaten by the other 51%, just as long as everybody gets to vote.

      The policy of the American "Liberal" today is what French economist and political writer Frederic Bastiat so eloquently characterized in 1850 as "legal plunder."

      Whether you call the modern American "Liberal" a socialist, a progressive, a fascist, or simply a predatory thug, there can be no denying that - whatever false flag he tries to fly - he's an enemy of individual rights and therefore as bad a "Bad Thing" as it's possible for a human being to be.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 8 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Thanks for the comment,

      I agree, labels are bad generally. But because of guys like Rush I felt inclined to write this.

      Thanks for reading.

    • T_Augustus profile image

      T_Augustus 8 years ago from Detroit, MI

      Interesting article bgpappa. Frankly I was introduced to the term by Rush Limbaugh, and of course he used it constantly as an insult. I had to watch his show 3 times before I realized that he was referring to Democrats when using the term "liberals". In time I've rejected the label because I don't care to be labeled, especially by Rush Limbaugh. I'd rather be called a Democrat. Actually my personal preference would be T or Augustus.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 8 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Thank you so much. I think the discussion afterwards was much better than what I originally wrote. An actual debate, passionate, but for the most part articulate, and yes, from both sides.

      Thanks for reading.

    • Steviebeth1227 profile image

      Steviebeth1227 8 years ago from Nashville

      WOW!!! What a great read. The article was great and the discussions it sparked were also great. I am joining your fan club and can't wait to read more of your articles.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 8 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Agreed. Thanks for the comment.

    • Chef Jeff profile image

      Chef Jeff 8 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

      Webdemon, Churchill, hardly a Liberal or Progressive, was also a fan of Mussolini. I also read that many Conservatives liked Hitler's Germany. Just as Progressives were and are not all evil, neither were or are Conservatives. History works best when all sides are told. We have yet to learn that in our schools, our politics and our writings, but it is true.

      Democrats, mostly those from the South, did indeed embrace slavery, but some Democrats simply had no political view on it. Those who became the Republicans back in the 1850's & 1860's did not immediately embrace anti-slavery positions. Neither did they embrace programs for the former slaves after 1865. The people who did were Abolitionists - also called Radicals in their day. Only after 1863 did Lincoln even embrace an anti-slavery view, and then only reluctantly. He did it mostly for political reasons, but no matter the motive, he had a struggle in his own party by those who did not want emancipation.

      The issues are usually not so simple or straightforward as we like to imagine. Trying to link Democracts to Socialism is like trying to link Conservatives to Fascism. The links just don't work very well when you get beneath the surface and critically think them through. Applying the 'isms' of other nations do not correlate very well to our own politics.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 8 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Thanks for the comment and thanks for your input.

    • Chef Jeff profile image

      Chef Jeff 8 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

      You are correct. The tail is wagging the dog, so to speak. Fringe elements of both parties shout the loudest and others start to think "This must be normal, so I'll go along."

      It is neither normal nor healthy. No nation survived long with either a Right or Left wing fringe group running things. People like Hugo Chavez, for example, may rule for the moment, but he, too, will soon be gone.

      Great hub!

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 8 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Thanks for the comment.

      But to be fair to conservatives, the liberal leaders are not what they used to be either. Both sides have lost principle and focus and are minions of the special interests. Both sides need leadership and values.

    • Chef Jeff profile image

      Chef Jeff 8 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

      Clare Baros, Washington was indeed referring to the government of Great Britain, which was supposed to be the most enlightened of it's time. It was not. Neither is ours. We are, however, trying to find the better path each and every year of our existence. That is our purpose, to take what we have and make it better.

      If we were not trying to do this, our system, our government, would have failed long ago. Conservatives of today are not the same Conservatives of yesterday, not even remotely. show me the Lincoln, the Rockefeller, the Teddy Roosevelt amongst the Conservatives of our time? Where is the great lkeader, the man who really understands how to rule amongst these ranks?

      To my mind the Conservatives are doing to the GOP what the 1960's Liberal Radicals did to the Democratic Party back then - tearing it asunder with no good reason.

    • profile image

      ClareBaros 8 years ago

      Thank you for the bridge.

    • bgpappa profile image
      Author

      bgpappa 8 years ago from Sacramento, California

      Thanks for the comment.