The eminent essayist, author and political commentator Charles Krauthammer posited that the ongoing persistence of the disaster that is ObamaCare, could or would start the unraveling of American Liberalism and Progressivism. Quite a leap this idea of Krauthammer's , liberals have argued, since Obamacare is but a small part of the leftist/liberal ideology. Conservatives counter that ObamaCare insinuates governmental control over 1/6 of the American socio-economic life, thus it's current, (and future potential for permanent), rejection by a majority of the American people could only mean that the liberal agenda would be devalued, degraded, and devolved into a soul-less version of itself. And as we all know, once the soul leaves, death follows.
While I would love see it, I doubt Obamacare will result in a liberal exodus that lasts beyond an election or two. The BIG question is whether or not the Republicans can bank on any real movement in their direction. That kind of movement will only happen if the Republican party can produce a candidate with greater appeal; it will only happen if Republicans can erase their negative image. I firmly believe that the POTUS was re-elected based on who his opposition was rather than what his accomplishments were. I was a strong Romney supporter, but it's apparent where our problem lies, with our Republican candidates. Democrats want us to believe that our ideology is failing, but that's not true. The American public agrees with many conservative beliefs, just as it agrees with many liberal beliefs. It's all about what candidate we choose. The debacle that is Obamacare won't win an election; it will only help a good candidate win.
There are many positions that favor the left outside of health care. Are you really expecting a conservative resurgent a la Ronald Reagan? The American public agrees with many conservative beliefs, but with the radical right GOP as the messenger, there are not many followers. If you want to win, you take Christie's advice and moderate. How do you guys erase your negative image, it ain't gonna happen overnight... The appeal is not enough, there has to be fundamental changes in the GOP position on many topics, particularly social issues, otherwise you continue to make enemies of many and diverse voting blocks.
I do not buy this "radical right" rhetoric we keep hearing about. Based on ideologies, William Buckley and Barry Goldwater would be considered the radical right by today's standards. They were merely conservatives. The whole country has shifted to the left, and what was once considered conservative is now considered radical. Today's Republicans would have been moderates just a few generations back. Many of today's liberals would have been considered socialists or radical liberals.
People often relate to a conservative fiscal ideology; the problem is that we haven't had a true fiscal conservative in decades. Republicans need to get back to true fiscal conservatism. People often relate to a liberal social ideology; the problem is that Republicans have quite been unwilling to yield in their social conservatism, and they have been no different that the Democrats when it comes to fiscal responsibility. You can't win elections like that.
McCain and Romney were moderates. Where did that get us? Would we do better running a true conservative? I don't know. I do know that we certainly won't win elections like this.
Was that before or after non-white people were finally recognized as humans?
Don't try to pin racism on Republicans only. Both Republicans and Democrats treated nonwhite people that way. Many Democrats have said and done some amazingly racist things; some Democrats still say racist things:
''I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white from dust, a black from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman.'' – Harry Truman
“I mean you’ve got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking guy.” – Joe Biden
“You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking!” – Joe Biden
Now, if you want to look at legislation that mandates equality, we can look at that too. You'll find that Democrats haven't always been on the right side of the issues when it comes to racial equality.
Let's not forget that Woodrow Wilson was a screaming racist and that Robert Byrd was the Grand Cyclops and recruiter for the Klan.
You are absolutely right.
"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." — Robert C. Byrd
"Although considered a modern liberal visionary giant as President, in terms of implementing domestic race relations, however, Wilson was 'deeply racist in his thoughts and politics, and apparently was comfortable being so.'"
Let us not forget that great Democrat George Wallace or that it was Eisenhower who sent troops to Little Rock to enforce the integration of the schools in the capital of the state the gave us Bill Clinton's favorite racist and great Democrat, J. William Fulbright.
Kindly review your history, and you might uncover the fact that it was the southern liberal politicians ( predecessors of the current liberal Democratic Party) who did not want to end slavery... at a great cost in lives and treasure ( the civil war) to the country. The liberal guilt associated with slavery continues to this day, when they are the first ones (led by the liberal main-stream media) to holler "racism" when there is not a hint of it at all...i.e calling Zimmerman a racist for "profiling" Trevon Martin, when no such profiling occurred. Or shouts racism when someone criticizes Obama for his leftist ideals, ideas and ideologies.
EA, it is fallacious to compare conservative and liberal as a fix standard over different periods of time what was conservative, moderate or liberal in 1964 is a different standard today. Then, it was considered 'liberal' to have integrated public transportation systems. The country has moved leftward because the reactionary position of an earlier period was anathema and the country had to grow up, face reality and move forward. Now, nobody talks about dixiecrats and such. If the GOP focused on fiscal conservatism I can see where we might have agreement, but they are all over the map now, guaranteeing their continued failure.
The only group inside the GOP tent that are talking fiscal responsibility, less taxes, and less government involvement in our daily lives are the Tea Party folks....the same folks that the Establishment Republicans, liberal mainstream media and their political consorts in the Democratic Party are describing with all sorts of pernicious adjectives such as "wackos", "terrorists", "arsonists". etc. etc.
Not entirely the best way to start a sensible and logical debate when you are calling your opponents crazy jihadists.
AV, why don't they just stick with fiscal issues instead of fussing over contentious social issues? I think that they would find far less resistance from so many. The tea party is involving itself in female contraception, same sex marriage, jihadist Christianity and etc.
The historical perspective of the past 50 years show that Republicans, when they hold the reins of government are neither fiscally conservative nor efficiently in-expensive. Ronald Reagan tried to slow down the rabid growth of governmental intrusion and inefficiency , but was not altogether successful at that enterprise..... for one simple reason: the inculcation into the American mind-set the idea of dependency.
Reagan also had an active leftist Congress most of his two terms. Lefties love to point to GWB's spending ways, but fail to acknowledge that half of his 8 years the lefties ran Congress - especially the collapse years of 2007-2008. They also proudly ignore the MASSIVE deficits of the leftist President and Congress, with that insanity only slowing with sequestration. Now they chafe under their own bargain and want Barrack's brilliant rolling of the wimpy Republicans to disappear so the spend fest can continue.
In fact the deficit began declining before sequestration. The biggest deficit was in Bush's final budget, for FY 09. It declined in FY 10 and has declined since.
BTW, if Bush isn't responsible for the budgets on his watch when there was a divided Congress, then is Obama responsible for negative aspects of the budget given the divided Congress?
The fact is that Republicans repeatedly voted to raise the debt limit during the Bush administration, and never demanded concessions on spending in return. The GOP also created Medicare D, a new unfunded entitlement that will add $billions to the national debt.
What divided Congress? The Senate and the President have been running the budget process since 2009. There hasn't been an Omnibus Budget since Obama's election, the President has submitted budgets, as has the House and the Senate. The President's budgets consistently receiving the fewest votes in the Senate. There was no divided Congress for GWB after the 2006 elections, it was all Democrat. Medicare D was a major priority of Ted Kennedy, how is that possible. It just goes to show, when Republicans adopt Democrat spending priorities it is the people who suffer.
"The historical perspective of the past 50 years show that Republicans, when they hold the reins of government are neither fiscally conservative nor efficiently in-expensive."
You can say that again!
I have said, many times, pretty much the same thing. I am not proud of either side. Republicans have not been conservative, at least not fiscally.
I have no problem seeing the faults within my party. I, however, do not buy into the propaganda that the Left spews any more than I buy into the propaganda the Right spews. The Republican party is not the party of racism. The Republican party is not a party that fails to take care of our environment. Both sides want to end racism; both sides want to take good care of our environment. The two sides just disagree on how to go about accomplishing these goals and the timeframe to do so. The Left has done a far better job making the Right look like racists who do not care about the environment or women. It's propaganda, genius politics.
On women's issues I don't think the Republicans meed any help. Their abortion positions do it all by themselves.
This whole "war on women" is a load of garbage. Republicans aren't waging war on women. They're trying to protect the unborn. Some of our resident liberals sanctimoniously talk about how ALL human life is equal on another forum here at HubPages but then fail to recognize that an unborn baby is alive too. It reminds me of Animal Farm. "All animals are equal; some animals are more equal." How convenient for liberals; they were able to identify some magical age that makes you no longer an embryo and now a human. So much for the equality of life. In an odd way, one could easily consider this age discrimination, couldn't one? If liberals are going to say that Republicans are sexist or waging war on women's rights, perhaps Republicans should say that Democrats are murdering the unborn or waging age discrimination. Both attacks would be just as accurate and childish.
I guess I was less than clear. I was not pointing to the specifics of the abortion debate, nor the validity of either sides arguments.
I was talking to the perception of the Republican's position - that they feel the moral authority to dictate what a woman can do with her body. And that they don't really need any Democrat help being portrayed as anti-woman to what I think is a very large segment of American voters.
If, the big IF, they are heard by someone that feels the same as they do - then they are seen as being on the side of righteousness - but if they are not preaching to the choir - then they are seen as the Democrats paint them - moral arbiters of a women's rights to control her body.
Their immigration and voter ID positions are easily distorted - as the Democrats have done - and the Republicans have failed to counter that.
So back to my original response - on too many issues the Republicans don't need a lot of outside help to look bad to the non-Republican populace.
How many Republicans can you name that openly advocate abolishment of abortion? Not many. Republicans won't do that, because it would be political suicide; the most you usually hear is that abortion shouldn't be government funded and that it should be less common. Democrats effectively use scare tactics to get votes when it comes to abortion.
Democrats have done a better job playing the whole politics game of propaganda.
@Credence: Chris Christie might be attractive as a potential presidential candidate to some middle-of-the road conservatives in the Republican Party, I don't think he is ready for "Prime Time"... he still has a lot of things to smooth-out, not the least of which is his combativeness. It might be a good quality to have as a federal prosecutor, but as a presidential aspirant-candidate, then, by a long shot, as a White House resident, I don't think so.
AV, Without a complete failure of the current administration and the present course, the things advocated by the right wing of the GOP will never see the light of day. How do you deny the demographic statistics and the direction the electorate has been going as shown in 2012. Do you really think that Michelle Bachmann, or the current Texas Governor is really going to be taken seriously by the mainstream? With the GOP, the question is are you going to adhere to arcane ideology or are you going to start to win elections?
In war, as in politics, retreat/defeat is not an option. Obama has been retreating ever since he started his program of massive evasion and discombobulation and cover-up re: fast and furious gun running, Benghazi consulate unprotecting/; IRS targeting; NSA spying; and now ObamaCare rolling into a ditch. He has been self-defeating in most of his executive actions, for reasons that are not too difficult to understand: Sheer Incompetence, and Untramelled narcissism.
Have you heard the rumor that he is the antichrist?
Don't you think you would be less vulnerable if you said "the Obama administration" instead of trying to lay it all on him?
Do you think he is personally responsible for the initiation of; F & F, Benghazi, IRS, and NSA - (which started well before he came into office)?
ps. I will give you the Obamacare hit
I don't mean to stir the pot, just trying to find out how you really feel about the man.
I did not in any way infer that he was PERSONALLY responsible for all of these events. I'm merely saying that once these events happened and the possibility that one or two or three of his underlings were involved (i.e by being remiss in their duty and or being abusive in their power) , then I'm sure he was into the discussion on how best to deflect the criticism via evasion, discombobulation and cover up.
Fast and furious may have been initiated by the Bush Administration, but common sense says Obama should have stopped the operation dead on its track. The fact that he did not says much about his governing/decission making style. Now Benghazi/IRS/NSA certainly started during his term. and to say they are not is a total misreading/misinterpretation of current events.
I don't need to reiterate how I feel about his presidency. He came to the presidency on the shoulder of people shouting/singing his praises (because of his speechifying prowess) despite that fact that his achievements before he became state senator/U.S senator, and President were at best skimpy... some say fatuous.
I agree that Charles Krauthammer might be overstating his case for liberalism dying on the vine. After all liberals have existed way back from the days of Adam and Eve......one could (tongue-in-cheek) argue that they were exercising their liberalist idea of free will and destiny by going against God's command not to eat the fruit of "the tree of knowledge". Knowledge in this case could mean the secularist-liberalist view that God has neither importance nor determining value in their affairs.
But where does liberalism ends and socialism begins. Obama denies of course that he is a socialist, despite ample evidence to the contrary, i.e Obamacare being the apex of the socialist ideal of government intrusion into our individual affairs(health care being one of them). Add to the mix of liberal-secular-socialist agenda the idea of an overarching governmental reductionism, then one can see the slippery slope towards communal entrenchment of full government control of our daily lives....then one can also see glimmering in the distance...the un-glory, un-holy vision of nihilism.
'Knowledge in this case could mean the secularist-liberalist view that God has neither importance nor determining value in their affairs'
Your God or my God?
Is there any other God? Unless of course if you worship the devil.
Is there any other God!
Depends what religion you follow.
AV, where does this come from? There are as many interpretations of God worshipped as there are stars in the sky. If we were all on the same page humanity would not all be drenched up to its shoulders in blood deciding whose God is who.
Oh no!!! Not the "religion cause all wars/conflict" argument again. I've heard this fallacious factoid ad nauseam from one of the more rabid atheist on HubPages that every time he slaps my face with it, I get a concussion. This simplistic/anachronistic argument just does not cut it in any kind of rational debate.
You are trying to be clever to avoid addressing the answer to the greatest question that perplexes the world today.
The greatest question? Really?
As far as I am concerned, there never was any doubt that in my mind that spiritual reality exist. Coming from that vantage point I'd say that the interpretation of what that spiritual reality may mean and be composed of varies from religion to religion. Granted, bloody conflicts have emanated from and or generated by those differing interpretations but that is just the nature of human interaction. If you take away religion from the equation, man would still find reasons to fight and kill each other for some other much cherished respective belief systems.
"As far as I am concerned, there never was any doubt that in my mind that spiritual reality exist" To be truthful, there was never a doubt for me either.
The problem with conservatives is that we all have to march to the beat of the same drummer in this area. The reality is that everybody has to come to this realization in their own time and manner. Since you cannot objectively prove the existence of God, the atheist has just as much right to his opinion at the public square as the person with religious belief. So why put it on a pedestal if it just another source of hypocrisy and contention. The difference between the liberal and conservative is not that the liberal is secular-humanistic, it is just that we have to acknowledge that everybody comes to whatever conclusion they want and their views are to be respected as much as I respect my own.
I am not nor are most of the conservatives I know out there in the "public square" in the evangelization/conversion business. It is of course true that some wear their religiosity on their sleeves but to infer that conservatives do not respect belief systems other than their own and tries to impose their belief systems on others smacks of insouciant generalization and speculation.
You do not have to convince me that liberals tend to be secularists in their outlook, but to couple that with humanism as if that is the sole purview of liberals again smacks of insouciant speculation and generalization.
Liberalism might not tank, but the Democrat Party probably will. At least for a few election cycles.
The Democrat Party is the face of liberalism today, but you are right - neither liberalism nor conservatism will ever die - it will be a never ending battle with highs and lows but as long as there are people gullible enough to believe the liberal lies there will be liberalism. It will increase as the lies are spread and decrease as they are debunked. It happened with Carter, now with Obama. The problem is with this government system the conservatives are only a part of a party that continues to lean liberal when in power so Conservatism wains. In another 20 years it will happen again, no doubt.
Since you have invoked Krauthammer it might be wise to share a little more about him like how he transitioned from being liberal to becoming a conservative because like Reagan he originally was a liberal until he "grew up" and saw the truth.
Krauthammer makes the same mistake many liberals made when the Democrats won the presidency, the House, and the Senate in 2008.
Remember it being "the end of conservatism?" Yeah, that kinda didn't happen. And to suggest the problems with the website are going to be the downfall of liberalism is extremely shallow analysis. Of all the things, THAT will be the smoking gun? Balderdash.
Actually, the trends do look like conservatism (at least in the way it's defined in the United States) is on it's way out. The only demographics keeping it competitive are old white men. Once these people pass on, who is left?
The only thing the GOP could possibly do is somehow convince Hispanics, African Americans, Native Americans intellectuals, women, young voters, pretty much anyone who isn't old and white, to vote for them. I don't see that being successful.
Sooner, I do not think that I could have said this any better or could add much to it. The rightwinger clings tightly to his or her wetdream on the hope that it will become reality. The demographics are not in the favor of conservative positions across the spectrum of American life.
Cred, this "rightwinger" mantra of yours seems to include all Republicans or conservatives. Is that your view? Or are you only, (constantly), referring to the extreme right folks?
Just as the "extreme lefties" of the democrats or liberal/progressives are a minority group within your party/movement, so are the "extreme rightwingers" to the republicans/conservatives. Yet your responses seem to always be all-encompassing of anyone that does not hold your liberal/progressive views.
Considering you were formerly of one of the most liberal states, and more than once commented on the problems you personally saw with some of the too-liberal/progressive programs - your mantra can at times be perplexing.
ps, "wet dream?" Really? Is Obamacare a liberal "wet dream?" Was Howard Dean the ultimate "wet dream" candidate for you?
pss. rhetoric is seldom a positive addition to a conversation.
No, rightwinger does not include people like Governor Christie and the mainstream GOP establishment who bring a balanced and reasonable conservatism as opposition to the left. If you read the previous post of mine, I talked about a reasonable approach to how the GOP can be a mainstream party and continue to remain so. You did not miss it, did you? I do not disguise my preference for left of center. Do you think the Paul, Cruz or that guy out of Texas and their views have any chance of being mainstream? Those on the far right commit political suicide. I will give credit when it is due, but I do not see that as appropriate in this thread.
I have problems with a left that is too much so, but it is the other side that is causing the problems right now. The summer of love has been over for some time now. So for your edification, rightwinger is = conservative squared!. And lets face it, it is the bat**** faction of the GOP that is currently in control of the party. Enjoy your weekend.
Thanks for the clarification.
I don't know much more about Rand Paul then what I see in the news, (probably like most folks), So although my gut reaction would not be to lump him with Cruz, I do understand him to represent a conservative "small government" mindset.
As for Ted Cruz, I think Obamacare gave him his chance on stage. Also, like Paul, I know very little about him, but if Obamacare continues to lose public support, he may become viewed as at least having the conviction to stand by what he believes - rather than just bow-down to the party leaders.
The Republican party lost me a long time ago, but they did not lose me to the Left. You might have noticed my opposition has been to broad-brush categorizations that I view as almost always more wrong than right.
As a Curmudgeon I consider it my duty to ferret out those pots calling the kettles black.
So perhaps it is just semantics.,, consider me "edi-fied" - Far Right I can understand.
You are correct, GA, Paul represents another wing of the GOP, the libertarians, which oddly enough I prefer over the far right represented by Cruz. I still see either faction as impractical in a 21st century reality. They will never see the light of day with the electorate. I am counting on Obama to get the bugs out and make the needed adjustments to his health care plan. I expect it to be amended and modified for a better fit to what is going on, but it certainly better than what was the status quo, in my opinion, anyway.
Simply stated, ObamaCare is going to fail no matter how much Obama tries to sell it(via incredibly stupid TV /billboard ads) or modify it (by suddenly terming describing it as the Affordable HealthCare Act). The more than 2000 pages of the bill testifies to its empirical incongruity, and ideological insatiability... the American people just does not have the temerity or the perspicacity to imbibe all 2000 pages of it without becoming nauseated to the point of emesis.
You are the eternal opitimist, and as i posited in another forum, when it comes to Obama, liberals tend to see the glass half filled, when in reality, the glass is fast becoming empty.
Not half filled when it is nearly emptied but, rather, filled to the brim and free when it is actually laying by the road side, blackened, smoking, still covered in the firefighter's hose water and wrecked beyond all hope of repair. Hope and change has become rack and ruin.
Who said the failure of the website is the downfall of liberalism? - no one I've heard on the right - they all say and have said before it was passed Obamacare is bad law and will fail and is failing and that the website is nothing compared to what is coming in the law.
So, like the good liberal you are you start with a proposition no one proposed and use it as the basis of your argument ignoring the facts. And "Actually", the trends do look like conservatism is on the rise as polls show the young vote is leaving the left in hoards, now they are seeing the results of a lying left, feeling the pain of Obamacare, polls show a dramatic swing. The young Americans who were central to Barack Obama’s election in 2008 and 2012 are sick of the president, with a large and growing majority disapproving of the job he’s doing. In this, they’re just like their elders. A new Quinnipiac Poll finds that only 36 percent of voters between the ages of 18 and 29 approve of the job the president is doing while fully 54 percent of the kids give him the thumbs down (10 percent didn’t know or care enough to respond to the topic). Back in March 2009, 62 percent of 18 to 29 years approved, compared to just 20 percent disapproving. On top of that Obama's polls are at record lows in every category. If that continues I doubt anyone can say that is good for liberalism, except maybe YOU. Maybe before voicing your uninformed opinion you should think about doing a little research.
Krauthammer did not say that the botched website would cause the demise of liberalism... but rather the underlying philosophy of ObamaCare, which is more governmental intrusion and subsequent subversion of our individual rights to reasonably and empirically decide for ourselves what is better/best in our daily lives..... in this case our health care.
In trying to deal with the problem of the un-insured and trying to fix it via "universal health care", he is using an axe( drastic, total overhaul as in Obamacare), instead of a scalpel(as in incremental changes by way of reforming medicaid/medicare; Tort reform; health insurance reform).
ObamaCare is slated for failure because of its rabid liberalist ideology.... and therein lies the rub.
Oh yeah, I remember when Japan implemented universal healthcare with insurance provided by the state. Such a shame the country crumbled and died the way it did...wait, what? It didn't?!
Japan is in real economic trouble and has been for decades now. When your silos are full of grain it is hard to notice a famine until you start eating your seed corn. Japan is, like the United States, eating their seed corn. But simple lessons are wasted on lefties.
But all that is so typical of capitalists who are sitting on record profits (seed corn) and not using them in order to preserve their short term gains at the expense of long term and more solid gains.
Now who was that lesson wasted on?
Seed corn is more than a mere surplus. The wealth of a nation eroding over decades is significantly more disastrous than businesses' desire to protect financial gains from the caprice of the left.
Can you not respond to anything without invoking the left?
Business has not been motivated by a need to protect profits from the left. It is much more to do with shareholders seeking short term gains. Invoking the left is no more than evasion.
The implication is that businesses sit on profits out of spite or greed, it has more to do with protecting employees, investors and officers from the avarice of the left.
I can't quite work out how the left might deprive the capitalists of their record profits that might be thwarted by sitting on the money.
By claiming it as property of all. Sitting on profits rather than risk their seizure by greedy leftists who recognize no property rights is a very reasonable and prudent position. Moving business out of a country that is set on burdensome regulation, high minimum wages, antagonism toward private property and the out right attack on or seizure of businesses is also prudent. Jobs go where they are easiest to create.
You do realize workers need to make enough money to live on, right? And $7.25/hour is nowhere even close to the amount needed?
Then why are there people working for $7.25 an hour?
Because businesses would rather hang on to their money than invest it in people.
Making a quarter of a living wage is at least somewhat better than none of a living wage. At least on $7.25/hour, you can afford a one-room apartment without any electricity or water to keep warm in while on a diet of crackers and water.
Exaggeration is a wonderful tool, isn't it? At least until the reader stops to think that an "apartment" without electricity or water is illegal in the US. Or that people eating nothing but crackers and water (collected from street runoff as the "home" has no water?) will starve within a couple of weeks.
Might be better to at least stay realistic and mention that it is possible with a roommate or two. By eating cheap foods or raising a garden.
Why do you hate young, black men? When the government forces an increase in the national minimum wage that is the demographic that loses the opportunity to learn job skills through ENTRY LEVEL employment like fast food service, custodial work or house keeping. Lefties must despise black people. Their policies have created miserable urban schools, stripped poor families of their fathers and priced them out of the employment market. Why do lefties hate urban minorities and the poor?
If they ever invent a time machine, I'll buy you one for Christmas and send you back to the early 1900s.....then you can live in your utopia where no one is paid a living wage and workers are treated horribly.
Perhaps you should set your books aside....
Again, your post, is devoid of any geo-political/historical perspective.
Japan is an island nation and as such, it was isolationist in its worldview, until Commodore Perry sailed into Tokyo harbor and started to open it up to the outside world. It rejected all forms of foreign dilution of any kind specifically as it relates to its societal l milieu, thus the homogeneity of its cultural structure and composition. The Emperor became the people's only source of anomie, bias, and mantra thus imperial imposition was so easy to implement.
It was Japan's hubris (military/economic) that led it to try to impose its imperial design on other Asiatic nations, never mind that the USA was right smack on their path. Thus the Pacific War during WWII, and Japan's ultimate defeat after the atom bombs were detonated on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Gen. Douglas MacArthur's post war occupation and rehabilitation of Japan included several progressive modification to its socio-political structure, i.e. democratization, thus the new era in Japanese economic growth and development, that made it possible to enact what you now term "universal Health care".
This "universal health care" would not have been possible if Japan was as multicultural and heterogenous as the USA. This health care would have been a lot more draining to the Japanese economy if its supported millions of illegal immigrants pouring through a porous border, much like the border between the USA and Mexico. None of those two factors were a hindrance to what you call Japanese universal health care
Hilary will give the right a run for their money. Why?
What does the left say?
"It’s really hard to watch the president and the secretary of state and not think how they cannot be embarrassed by this deal ... (Iran's Nuclear Deal) This is a sham from beginning to end. It’s the worst deal since Munich.” ~ Krauthammer
Iran gets access to less than $7 billion out of the more than $100 billion that sanctions have stranded in the international banking system -- and that's all it gets -- and this is somehow "the worst deal since Munich", in which all of Czechoslovakia was effectively delivered into the hands of Adolph Hitler?
You are ignoring the most important part of the Obamapeace with Iran, if they like their weapons grade Uranium, they get to keep it. It is a deadly destabilizing of the balance of power in the Middle East, that is why the Saudis are cozying up to the Israelis. It is a stupid agreement, nothing surprising there from an administration that can't launch a simple website. Even the French have reservations about American competence, THE FRENCH!?!?!?!
I think you picked the wrong point to argue as good or bad.
I think the most damaging point is that just by making a deal - the U.S. has legitimized Iran's nuclear efforts.
The rest is just details of scope.
So what was the alternative, are we ready to go to war over this issue? Is this not an outcome that we want to avoid? Is not what happened better than the current status quo? What are we REALLY prepared to do to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, deploy an already stressed American military for another war? Food for thought?
When have events not drawn Americans into a war, When Iran uses its new found invulnerability to attack Israel or Saudi Arabia what can the UN or NATO do with out the United States?
...Send in someone else?
You do realize we're not the only ones with an active military, right?
You do realize that Iran is invulnerable now, thanks to that the most destructive President this country has ever had. Who do you suggest? China, Russia? It is so reassuring when lefty reply, they have so little useful to say.
Implying that a nuclear program still in its infancy equates to unquestionable invulnerability.
What infancy? Who is there to stop Iran? The Iranians are no longer subject to any restrictions, there is no way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Obama has put the United States at the disposal of Iran. If one cannot and will not be stopped than one is invulnerable.
Tell me, who is to protect us against the USA?
They do have rather a lot of nuclear weapons.
Count yourself lucky, Britain is also a nuclear power, why do you think the Cold War was cold. There is no greater guarantor of peace than a loaded weapon close at hand.
Yeah, John, that is a good question who says that the US can keep its stockpile but restrict everyone else? I think that that is the ultimate in international arrogance. I am not going to sit comfortably while my enemy has a gun and I remain unarmed. This is basic common sense and human nature, certainly the reality in the Middle East.
If you want to be my leader then you better be prepared to lead by example.
Fine, as long as the US is a participant in a decision to go after Iraq, not starting WWIII unilaterally because the political right needs a bogey man to distract from the real issues of our time.
Unilaterally, what war has the US pursued unilaterally, except Obama's war on Pakistan.
Recent history? What about the attack on Iraq, brought to you by the Bushwhacker. Don't go simple on me, Retief, you and I both know that this unfortunate war is against Al Quieda and not Pakistan.
An attack on the soil of a foreign and sovereign state is an act of war, whether lefties and Obama are comfortable with that label or not. As for the Iraq War, you are aware that the United States was accompanied by a larger coalition of nations than participated in WWII. The unilateral label is the product of the American leftist propaganda media. Why don't you tell all those brave British dead that they weren't in Iraq.
Are you ready to go to war over a country on the opposite hemisphere, if so, then you go alone. it will take a Pearl Harbor type assault to have the American people get behind the war lords, but the unscrupulous rightwinger has crossed that line before....
hmmm... once more my limited knowledge forces me to only offer my thoughts instead of world shattering solutions. As I think the Brits might say; It is "a bit of a sticky wicket." (sounds cool even if they would not say something like that)
In this case... I can't shake the thoughts of a Chamberlain/Kerry comparison.
ps. I have never thought we, (the U.S.) would go to war with Iran.
Yes. Unfortunately, yes. I believe our country has lost too many lives and squandered too much of our money in wars. I believe that we really need to stop being the world's police. I believe that we need to pull troops out of some nations and worry more about domestic issues. Still, we cannot allow a nuclear Iran under any circumstances. Yes, military action should definitely be on the table. I say that with great, great hesitation, but I say it emphatically. A nuclear Iran would result in a far more precarious balance of power and a greater danger for humanity. We can't sit by and allow that to happen. We must do everything possible to negate that possibility. If diplomacy and sanctions fail, we must go to the next unfortunate stage, military force.
Read: I want to stop policing the wold... but we should totally go police the wold some more.
The arrogance to assume #1 that the US has any right to tell any other country what it can and can't do inside it's own borders anymore than it can be told what to inside it's own.
#2 that only the US and some other privileged nations can have nukes
#3 Daring to call yourself a fiscally responsible then advocating for a war that could cost several trillion.
Hilariously enough these people are the same ones who cry wolf about international oppression when elected US governments voluntarily agree to international arms conventions or global warming treaties... because hypocrisy is the favorite conservative pastime.
Call it what you want. I don't care what you call it. Our world is less safe with any country having nuclear bombs, including even America. Our country, along with all other countries with nuclear bombs, is unwilling to give them up. A nuclear Iran further endangers the world.
I didn't call for a war. I said that military action should still be on the table. A single strike might be sufficient to stop the nuclear threat.
EA, Pakistan is a nuclear power, who in my opinion is as least as dangerous. What about, China, Russia, India, and lets face it Israel as well. What makes the conservative continue to produce more bogeyman? Quite frankly, I don't care about Iran, they know that a hole will be where their country once was if they cause trouble even if they are nuclear armed. If action is considered necessary, I want a global consensus from the UN and not a go it alone from the US. Another fools errand, another clear distinction between left and right. We circle the globe with military installations, spend more than everybody else combined and wonder why those on the left want to rein all of this in when we always say that domestic programs must be subject to knife, first. I don't buy it. You say that you are tired of being the world's policemen, how serious are you about ending that status?
There is a time and a place for military action even if one is hesitant to deploy and even if one does not want to be the world's police.
We are protecting our own citizens by making sure that Iran does not get a nuclear bomb. That's not being the world's police. That's protecting our own citizens. There's a big difference.
I wish many of those countries did not have a nuclear bomb, but that's not really the issue. Will the world be safer with another nuclear power? Nope. You seem to justify Iran's nuclear ambition based on the fact that other countries with nuclear bombs are just as dangerous. How does that justify a nuclear Iran? That's like saying it's only right to allow a terrorist to arm himself with a stinger missile, because other terrorists already have one.
Well, perhaps many of these countries wish that we did not have' the bomb'. If you have it and others have it, why can't I have it? How are our citizens particularly affected, when the US exists in another hemisphere? There is no difference at all, just arrogance of the United States and the west. You are being put on the spot, are you prepared to wage war against Iran unilaterally? Will you abide by the consensus of the global community in regard to addressing Iran's nuclear ambitions or are you just a cowboy at heart?
What do you consider the global community? Are you talking about the United Nations? If a strike becomes necessary, I'm confident that the majority of nations will support it.
I'm sure the majority of these countries do wish we didn't have nuclear bombs. Yeah, I'm a cowboy at heart; I don't need to look at global polls to make decisions that protect Americans.
Your idea of making decisions that protect Americans can been seen by others as unbridled aggression. With that reasoning, everybody is a potential enemy and the military industrial complex is given just that much more credibility. China and Russia certainly under your formula would have the right to pursue their interests on the same global scope or scale. Would they not have the right, according to you, we certainly have it. What about China and Taiwan for example, does the Chinese have the right to exercise dominance in this matter? I don't like double standards, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I want the decision for a strike if it is determined necessary to be based on international consensus, not just the caprice of the United States. Why do conservatives always see American foreign interests as tantamount in the world with us always wearing the white hat regardless of the reality?,
Of course other countries have an interest. I believe we will have an overwhelming number of countries who support military action, but I don't believe that we must have it. We shouldn't base America's security on polls and bringing ourselves down to the status of Taiwan. Like it or not, we are America. Yep, that's arrogant, and I'm okay with that.
Even President Obama, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton agree that we can go it alone if necessary. Even these people agree that Iran should not be allowed to have a nuclear bomb. Your stance is VERY liberal when it's to the left of these people.
Don't you get it. America bad. Business bad. Military bad.
Yes, I am to left of the administration if it plans a unilateral attack on Iran on the silly premise of the Bush Doctrine, preemptive attack based upon the rightwinger perceived threats supported by warlords' political and economic determination as to who are enemies are. Ever since the Korean War, we should have learned our lesson about such conflicts. We are America, So China is China and Russia is Russia, so as long as they are free to pursue their best interests in the same way, that should be ok with you. So if they can and do, the rightwinger should have nothing to say about it because we do what we want around the globe and we have to expect everyone who can do so to do this as well. So, we are America, so what?
You're to the left of virtually every free nation. If it comes down to a tactical strike, I am very confident that the majority of nations will affirm my position. IF this happens, will you be okay with the strike, because we have support across the globe?
America has every right to protect its citizens without polling any other nation for approval. Good luck finding any presidential candidate who is so far to the left that they don't agree with that.
Should President Obama have asked other countries for permission to go in and get Osama Bin Laden? I know you will say that is different, but it really isn't when you look at the heart of the discussion.
Yes, other countries have the same right to protect themselves. I fully expect Israel to prove that point when it comes to Iran.
Youre right, it is different, we are at war with Al Quida, because of the outrage of 9-11. If Israel wants to do the dirty work that is fine with me, it is a more immediate threat to them than me. I am not at war with Iran. As for the consensus of all free nations advocating unilateral action by the U.S. that needs to be supported by objective information.
Obama is hoping and praying that if and when Iran do pass the threshold for manufacturing a weapons grade atomic bomb (without necessarily having the capability to deliver it), Israel would be true to its commitment to keep the Jewish state alive and kicking, by pre-emptively bombing the smithereens out of those Iranian silos.
Iran already has everything it takes to make a radiogenic device, North Korea has nuclear weapons technology and is on good terms with Iran. Bashir Al Assad is an Iranian puppet and a Russian ally. The genie has been out of the bottle for 70 years, why would we think Iran isn't already prepared. You think Obama's $3 plus per gallon gasoline is expensive wait until Iran demonstrates their nuclear accomplishments.
AV, that is fine as long as our grubby hands are not associated with the assault. Israel must do what she must do in the interest of her security, but contrary to many, I do not necessarily see Israel's security interests as my own.
Strange use of the word "legitimised".
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/ … ons-easier
Liberalism will only end when there are no more people who extol the virtues of scientific advancement, logical reasoning, and social equality.
As long as there are those who want the human race to advance further scientifically and socially, liberalism will stick around.
And that is a good thing. Conservatives and Liberals need each other to ensure balance.
I would only disagree because the most significant fragmentation is not between Democrats and Republicans, but is a deepening divide within the Republican Party between those who wish to continue exploiting the power of central government and those who wish to reduce the influence of central government. It is between "liberal" Republicans and conservative Republicans that the most important conflict is taking place.
Conservative Republican political philosophy lies much closer to that of the Founders notions of a Federal Republic. We are seeing a significant shift toward a ruling class among Washington politicians, both Democrats and Republicans are uncomfortable with the devolution of power back to the states and away from the D.C. power structure to which they have all become accustom.
"Liberalism," as it is currently defined in America, is antithetical to the founding philosophy of the country. The conflict between those who would concentrate power in a political elite in a distant capital and those who would disperse power throughout the country isn't new but it has become more pronounced since the 1930s and the first great power grab by FDR.
Americans have become so dependent on the elitists in Washington for their daily bread that I doubt there will ever be an end to liberalism. Food, education, housing and now medical care are all dispensed from the "generous" hands of the liberal zoo keeper and many are reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them. As that percentage of the population dependent up the rulers to care for them increases, intentionally, it will become harder for anyone to escape the Federal zoo.
As long as some animals are willing to pull the cart to avoid being called "cruel, unfeeling and greedy" and others rewarded for slothfully riding in the cart growing fat on the confiscated property of those pulling how can it ever end? Lefitists are not going away, they have won and we all have joined their movement in one way or another. We chafe under calls of "greedy, old, white man" but buy into it or we adopt their language and aims as somehow superior to real freedom, real liberty, real productivity, real accomplishment.
We are finished as a free people and have been since the first Social Security check was cut.
And that's as far as I got.
I can't possibly take anyone who denounces FDR as a villain seriously. He may not have been perfect, but he's for damn sure the greatest president we've ever had. And that includes legends like Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.
Here let me help you out "We were finished as a free people when the first Social Security check was cut."
Lack of provision for day to day life is the biggest infringement of freedom bar death.
retief - why do you even bother discussing the facts with the likes of these liberals? Zelkiiro thinks only liberals extol "the virtues of scientific advancement, logical reasoning, and social equality" (guess Fred Kavli was so smart he made the mistake of being Republican) while Holden thinks provision for the day is a right that can only be met by government giving it to you for free by taking it from others who are working to pay for it. Spend your time where it can be productive, maybe like chatting with lucid people.
It isn't for them, one must train.
To paraphrase F A Hayek - liberals need conservatives, conservatives could do perfectly fine without liberals.
Classical liberalism bares no resemblance to modern American liberalism and has a home in American conservatism. I will not speak to British conservatism or the Tories, since that is not my political culture, however there are some interesting British (small c) conservatives.
retief, don't argue - he is agreeing with you - as he points out a classical liberal admits "liberals need conservatives, conservatives could do perfectly fine without liberals!" See what comes out when you try to have a coherent discussion with today's liberal.
Without liberals, conservatives will have us back in the stone age, buggy whips, whale bone corsets and all of that.....
Conservatives bad, leftists good. I got that a long time ago.
You're not getting it, "without liberals" includes you and therefore you wouldn't have to worry about what hideous, retrograde, Neanderthal civilization would soar to the heavens on the foundations of liberty and an ordered society rooted in law - both civil and moral - that would emerge after all the lefty impediments to human accomplishment had vacated the world to establish their UTOPIA(check the original definition) on some other doomed world.
Conservatives bad, lefties good, indeed.
No, I didn't say that needs can only be met by government, only that they should be met by somebody. I don't much care who does - maybe the ideal would be the people who cause the most poverty and distress - that would suit me fine.
Always blaming other people for everything, yeah so government or "somebody" has to even the odds. Why do you liberals always expect "somebody" else to take responsibility for others rather than they take responsibility for themselves.You think that is ideal? No! Ideal would be they be given the opportunity to meet their own needs. Jobs where people can make enough money to save for retirement. Jobs where peoples' incomes go up yearly not down, and full time employment is the norm, not part time. Liberals don't care about giving people the means to take care of themselves, they look for every excuse in the book to make them dependent on government (or anyone else but themselves if they had it their way).
Hey, it was the first time John was not talking so liberal. He has just put the responsibility into the hands of those causing the problems:
The greedy, whomever they be!
Who can disagree with that?
Only the greedy.
I don't know about liberals but you are in total agreement with this socialist.
However, until that ideal that we both strive for prevails the millions unwanted by big business have as much right to life as you or I.
Until big business realises that people are just as important as profit they should pay, either directly or through government.
Sorry, but that statement is inchoate to the point of irrationality.
For every racist that happened to be a Democrat, there are at least 10,000 who are Republican (and are most likely proud of their bigotry). Just go south of the Mason-Dixon and you'll see a lifetime of vitriolic racism in just the time it takes to eat breakfast.
Honestly, is it any surprise at all that the states most notorious for racism (and opposing women's right to vote, while we're here) are the red states of the deep south?
I named 4 liberals who were/are racists. Are you up to naming 40,000 conservatives who are/were racists? The population of America is roughly 314 million people. Just ask most liberals, and you'll find that every Republican is a racist. IF roughly half of those 314 million people are Republicans, that means, according to your statement, that there are only 15,700 racist liberals. Sorry, I just couldn't resist. . .
Please provide evidence of red-state racism and how it is quantifiably greater than that in blue states. Without quantifiable proof, all you are venting is opinion. What's it called when you stereotype an entire group of people based on an opinion and no fact? I'm just kidding, but seriously, where are your facts, data? Can you prove that the South is more racist, or is this a feeling, perhaps a generalization based on the fact that those states don't vote Democrat?
If you want to talk about the Mason-Dixon line, let's talk about the racism that was prevalent in the North prior to, during, and after abolition. The abolition of slavery had little to do with racial equality. There are and were racists everywhere and in both parties.
Here's an interesting statistic for you:
"Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act."
http://www.mediaite.com/print/la-times- … paper-out/
Is there anything more racist or sexist than treating blacks and women like children to be coddled and protected.
Many of us believe that that's how the Democrats keep you subservient to their party.
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." --Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957
Funny how you can name a president wildly admired by lefties - Woodrow Wilson and one of the longest serving Senators - Robert Byrd, by name and add several other admired, accomplished and powerful Democrat racists but that just isn't enough. Perhaps the millions of Democrat voters who supported these racists with time, treasure and votes should be added to the list. How about all the genius lefty racists who wrote and shouted filthy, racist hate about Clarence Thomas, Condaleeza Rice, Alan West and every other black intellectual and politician who slips his chains and escapes the leftists plantation.
There is no love for the black man who fights for economic and individual liberty.
But you fail to mention the transformation of this man LBJ, getting on board with a changing Democratic party, being responsible for getting passed some of the most contentious legislation ever, the Civil Rights Bills. That is the Democratic party that we all know and recognize today.
Maybe you just might ask the majority of blacks and women if they feel 'coddled', they are more in a position of authority to discuss this than you.
Being a good Democrat lefty.Hillary is loved because of her plumbing and Obama because of his skin. Lefties must have stereotypes in order to make sense of the world. They must have villains, Emmanuel Goldstiens to attack so they can feel morally superior without actually doing or being anything but a mindless follower. Lefties love their leaders, worship them and that is why they are so miserable, hateful, angry, shallow, peevish, petulant, snarky, arrogant and self righteous. That is why I need a shower every time one of these hate machines responds in a forum, it is to wash off their filthy hate.
Then surely the last state to abolish slavery, grant African-Americans civil rights, end segregation, kill the Jim Crow laws, and allow interracial marriages would all be blue states, then.
Wait, what? They were all red states? Oh. Huh.
At the risk of even dignifying Zelkiiro's ignorance with a response, let’s review the facts of your Democratic Party:
1789-1865: Nickname of the Democratic Party, THE SLAVE PARTY
1861-1865: Majority of the Democratic Party engages in open rebellion and therefore treason against the United States.
The Republican Party supports preserving the union and fights the insurrection and wins the American Civil War.
1864 Election: Republican Abraham Lincoln wins re-election and proposes and gains the passage of the 13th amendment, granting freedom to all black Americans held in bondage. His opponent was disgraced former union George Brinton McClellan who runs repudiating the PEACE DEMOCRATS. His party was ready to give the south their independence while at the same time, giving southern blacks perpetual enslavement.
1866-Today: Democrats organized a social club of former Confederates officers known as the Ku Klux Klan. “As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans.”
1915: Birth of a Nation is released as a tribute to the KKK. D.W. Griffith’s aggressive promotion of the Klan was praised by Democrat Woodrow Wilson as a great triumph. “Under President Woodrow Wilson, it was the first motion picture to be shown at the White House.”
1964-65: Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson cannot pass the civil rights bill even though Democrats control both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The president turns to Senator Everett Dirksen and his Republican caucus for the needed votes to carry the bill over the finish line.
Summer of 1964: Democratic President Lyndon Johnson misleads the American public vis-à-vis the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and launches America into a bloody war that kills 56,000 Americans. By 1975, the North Vietnamese renege on the Peace Treaty negotiated by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in 1973. The Democratic majorities of both Houses refused to enforce the treaty and the south is invaded again and crushed.
In 1975 the Khmer Rouge took control of Cambodia – it was formed in 1968 as an offshoot of the Vietnam People’s Army from North Vietnam. It was the ruling party in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, led by Pol Pot…(t)he organization is remembered especially for orchestrating the Cambodian Genocide…(b)y 1979, the Khmer Rouge had fled the country…(t)he U.S. State Department-funded Yale Cambodian Genocide Project estimates approximately 1.7 million…” Cambodians died from the rule of the Khmer Rouge that is, from the instability of Southeast Asia caused by the refusal of Democrats in Congress to enforce the Peace treaty between the United States and North Vietnam.
I could go on regarding how Democratic social policies have obliterated the black family in America to the point that today 72% of black children are born illegitimately. The results of that fact are seen everywhere – in education, the prison systems et cetera. Today, the Democrats now own a $17 trillion debt.
They own a 17 trillion dollar debt that was caused by unfunded wars, tax cuts for the rich, and a recession that resulted from the dogma that corporations can police themselves?
Although, I am risking dignifying the absurdity of your claim by responding.
Typical liberal comment - can't refute any of the facts and picks on the one thing for which he has a democrat playbook response, and which actually has the least to do with anything discussed here so far. Very liberal of you and exactly what can be expected of liberals. They never disappoint. But they still own a 17 trillion dollar debt - he got that right! ..or probably just misspoke. They did nothiong to reduce it but added to it and still fight reducing it. Hope your kids thank you for that when the grow up.
Because clearly Conservatives know how to reduce spending--oh wait, no they don't, they just start wars and give all of our money to the military-industrial complex.
So what does "Z" do - expands on the irrelevant topic - anything to draw attention from his ignorant comments. A totally new topic instead of being intellectually honest and admitting the truth about liberals, democrats and bigotry he chooses to hijack the thread and take it into a debate about the debt.
Just like he ran from one of his earlier comments I pointed out to be a lie. And I quote "Liberalism will only end when there are no more people who extol the virtues of scientific advancement, logical reasoning, and social equality. As long as there are those who want the human race to advance further scientifically and socially, liberalism will stick around."
"the virtues of scientific advancement, logical reasoning, and social equality" ? Virtues are positive traits or quality deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being. Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting collective and individual greatness.
So scientific advancement, logical reasoning, and social equality are not in and of themselves virtues. They can all be used for the good or for vise so if Zelkiiro means they are virtues he is mistaken.
If by "the virtues of" he is refering to the possible good or moral results "of" these endeavors, to say only liberals extol these virtues he is delusional and it doesn't take a genius to see his insecurity about liberalism. That is to say he is so strained to defend liberalism he has to make things up and is passive aggressively suggesting that only liberals are smart and are the elite.
This of course is the basic playbook of liberalism since although the terms may mean different things to different people, Americans readily peg themselves, politically, into one of five categories along the conservative-to-liberal spectrum. At present, large minorities describe their views as either moderate or conservative -- with conservatives the larger group -- whereas only about one in five consider themselves liberal. http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conse … group.aspx
So according to Zelkiiro only one in five, only 20% of the population values scientific advancement, logical reasoning, and social equality since only liberals do that.
If Zelkiiro values the "virtue" of logical reason he'd have to agree with me, now wouldn't he? But he won't - just watch if he answers it will be lies and distortions couched to sound good, like the phrase "the virtues of scientific advancement, logical reasoning, and social equality" he used. That's the truth about the best liberals have to offer.
Hey retief - you want some training? Jump in, you can take his reply...I mean if he can find one in his playbook.
Z, you are right on here, any explanation for the disparity you clearly present from the crimson red peanut gallery?
What did I say that was incorrect? You should be specific about where I went wrong. Did Bush not run up trillions with unfunded wars? Was the financial crisis not caused by a deregulation dogma (pushed by both Democrats and Republicans)?
Obama is guilty of continuing the wars and bailouts, but he isn't the main reason we are in the mess we are now.
There were absolutely no Democrats in that state, absolutely none.
Just to be totally clear here, did you know that Jefferson Davis was a Democrat? He served as the United States Secretary of War under Democratic President Franklin Pierce.
Do you really want to talk about Jim Crow laws? Here's what Wikipedia has to say about how Jim Crow laws originated:
"Jim Crow laws were a product of the solidly Democratic South."
You do realize the Democrats of the 1800s are the Republicans of today, right? And vice versa? And that you're just making yourself look foolish?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_swit … ted_States
Nice try - wikipedia... Really? If you want to look foolish just throw up a random link from wikipedia. Aren't you so smart, you can read wikipedia...now try reading an honest analysis if that isn't too taxing for an elitist like you. http://www.turningpointusa.net/republic … rms-right/
Evidently someone forgot to inform you that Wikipedia has improved over time and is fairly reliable nowadays. They also forgot to inform you that using right-wing sources to justify right-wing rhetoric is just sloppy.
So, if you're so willing to act high and mighty, care to explain why states that were Democrat in the 1800s are Republican today? Because you have yet to do so.
Why should I take a source of right wing propaganda as fact, Tsadjatko?
We can both find sites that support our beliefs.
I guess I better ask for a refund; my history degree didn't prepare me to debate you.
Even back in Lincoln's time, the Republican party talked about fiscal responsibility, limited immigration, protection against a limited government, religion, and pro-business policies. That's a conservative ideology. Then, as now, Republicans enjoyed great support in rural areas while Democrats enjoyed support in highly populated areas. Sound familiar?
Here are quotes from Lincoln, the first Republican. Does Lincoln sound liberal to you?
"Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.” - Abraham Lincoln
"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln
"The people will save their government, if the government itself will allow them." - Abraham Lincoln
“You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.” - Abraham Lincoln
“Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” - Abraham Lincoln
I could keep going, but I think my point is clear.
But Lincoln shot the idea of 'states rights' out of the water by prosecuting the Civil War. Conservatives are always regressive and supported the status quo then as now, regardless of futility of that position. After the bloodshed associated with maintaining the union which groups speak of secession today? It is not a political party but an attitude, both which change over time. The abolishment of slavery, guarantee of civil liberties and due process and expanding the franchise were the actions of a progressive, not a conservative and that is what made Lincoln great. After all, he could have just followed the course of Buchanan and Pierce before him with more appeasement.
I have a history degree as well, so I do not speak of these things in a vacuum.
Democrats don't want war, right? FDR waged war. When you're in the midst of a serious war, political ideologies often drop by the side to make way for survival. Keeping the union together couldn't have been easy, and Lincoln, more than once, talked about how he had to put his ideology to the side for a greater good, the preservation of our country.
By the way, conservatives want progress too. We just don't define progress the same as liberals do. Democrats believe that the strict definition of conservative applies at all times, that conservatives never want to change anything. In reality, can you name a single Republican candidate for president who didn't advocate change? I can't.
Let's talk about more recent politics. Which political side supported the 1957 and 1964 civil rights bills to a greater extent? That would be the Republicans. Was there another switch?
EA, as a historian, you ought to know that the circumstances surrounding the threat of war in the 1930's were much different, a nation bent on global domination compared to a second rate power in the middle east? Who knows if would have ever got into the conflict known as the Second World War without Pearl Harbor, perhaps you know that Germany and Italy declared war on the US days afterward and not the other way around. Myself and many on the left simply do not see Iran as rising to the same level of global threat that Hitler's Germany or the Imperial Japanese empire did 80 years ago.
Lincoln simply was not going to preside over the dissolution of a union that he described as the world's best hope. Lincoln's ideology had nothing to do with a accommodation of states rights as a challenge to federal law. You will have to show me that. Why not simply have let the South secede?
I also see a rigid interpretation of Democrats and liberals by the otherside, so neither of us should look so surprised.
There have been in recent times, GOP presidents that advocated change but in a regressive direction.
I am with you EA, lets talk recent politics, but I propose that they be more recent than 1957 or 1964. So, why has the pro-civil rights GOP become the ogre of so many diverse groups that at one time they championed, today? Let's talk about post 1981 politics, if we are going to do it.
A "regressive" direction is opinion.
Yes, World War II and this possible conflict are worlds apart. On that, we can agree.
Lincoln trampled state rights. That is a point that is not worth arguing. I concede that reality. Still, Lincoln was, in fact, a conservative in so many other ways. We can certainly compare the Civil War to World War II. FDR advocated internment camps. Would he have done that in normal times? No. Lincoln advocated the trouncing of state rights. Would he have done that in normal times? It's highly doubtful. Serious wars require political ideologies to be put aside at times. Both of these wars were serious, and both presidents acted in ways that were uncharacteristic, out of a necessity to preserve and protect America.
The GOP hasn't become the racist/sexist party so many believe it to be. Democrats have done a far better job pushing their propaganda. What are some examples, post 1981?
If Lincoln were true to the principle of States Rights, why would he not allow the south secede and avoid the 5 years of bloodshed?
Lincoln acted as a tyrant suspending writ of habeas corpus in prosecuting the war. That was still illegal and outside of the rule of law. FDR transgression was more serious, who did he intern? Japanese Americans citizens, who did nothing wrong except live on the Pacific West coast. How come those of German or Italian descent were not locked up? This is what I tell you, racism and the lack of liberal, progressive thought made this outrage possible without even the courts challenging Roosevelt for a clear violation of the 14th amendment. Conservatives always say that is ok, as long as they (anglos) were not put upon. This is why what happened in 1941 cannot happen today because the left raised consciousness regarding disgusting discrimination and biases that was mainstream America at the time keeping the heat on America regarding this for the next half century hence.
Why did Lincoln see the need to preserve the Union as more important that what you call a linchpin of his doctrine as a conservative, States Rights. Funny, during that time, it was the Democrats that were advocating leniency toward the slave power and trumpeting states rights, while the GOP promoted federal authority. Looks like what is conservative and what is liberal is not static but changes with time and evolving perspectives. We can put political ideologies aside but not the Constitution.
The GOP are still having problems with minorities and women, and it has nothing to do with the messenger or how the message is delivered. When Post 1981 Mitt Romney presumes that one half of society are moochers and the rest are the only ones worthy of consideration, what am I to say about that? Women see the GOP as probing too much into how they manage their private parts. Voter suppression as it has been admitted by GOP operatives that much of this Voter ID hysteria is an effort to intimidate portions of the electorate that reliably vote Democratic. As a minority, I take offense at this assault on basic citizenship rights. If they are so concerned about the integrity of the process, why not get after absentee ballots, a method much more subject to fraud in its practice? But not a peep, I wonder why? Just a couple of examples....
Where do I start?
First off, YOU questioned why I was talking about politics from the 19th century. Now you are protracting the debate. This is exactly how I became involved in the debate. . .It came to me.
I already addressed the states' rights issue. I have nothing further to add to that. Please see my prior post about this if you are interested in seeing my view.
Conservatives do not always say that it is okay to impose upon the rights of others as long as they are not Anglo. This is simply wrong. Conservatives hate it when the government imposes upon any citizen. Conservatives very much dislike government intrusion and regulation. Race has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's all about government overreach.
Romney was right that a lot of people are moochers. He wasn't right to assume that all or even the majority of the people on assistance are moochers. He went way too far with his statement, but he was partially right.
I live in a state where an ID is and has been required. Millions of Democrats vote here. Your assumption is just that. The law was intended to make sure that citizens get one vote.
As for absentee ballots, there was absolutely a peep during the last election. Romney's campaign expressed deep concern about the possible cheating that could take place. I've provided sources about this topic in a previous forum here on HubPages. Google it, and you'll find that the GOP expressed great concern about the possibility of cheating on absentee ballots.
Conservatives don't try to control how women control their private parts. They do try to protect people. Conservatives believe that unborn children are just that, children. As such, they should be protected. I find it paradoxical that liberals can so often talk about the value of all life but fail to protect unborn children. How can anybody consider it justifiable to allow a practice that allows greater freedom to some and death to others? We hear liberals tell us that we should be willing to pay greater taxes so that more people can have insurance. Why can't conservatives say that some "freedoms" should be given up to save millions of lives? How is this really different? Further, I find it repugnant to even call the killing of human life a "freedom" or a "right."
Well, EA, most women do like to be considered as mere incubating machines. Who are you to insist that women carry the child to term? You may have a point in your position, but the women are voting and the GOP pays the penalty for this position regardless of your moral position regarding it. Many do not necessary believe that life begins at conception, obviously that was the basis or Roe vs Wade, why can't the GOP adhere to this court decision and drop it. Women are dropping them, because of it.
With all due respect, who are you to say that I think women are incubators? Why do we think somebody has the right to kill a life, because they find it more convenient? Even if somebody wants to call an unborn child an embryo, isn't is still a human embryo, an alive, human embryo? There are two sides to that coin.
Again, the GOP HAS dropped the issue. Can you name any politicians who talks about abolishing abortion? There aren't many. It would be political suicide to do so. Democrats, however, have made this into some big "war on women." It's not. Abortion "rights" are not in danger. Democrats just want people to think they are, so they will vote for them. It's a big lie, smoke and mirrors. It's scare tactics based on deception.
You may want to temper this opinion with a little education. Americans of Italian and German decent also suffered during the war. The most egregious offenses, however, were reserved for black soldiers living in Democrat racist states where German prisoners of war could ride in the front of the bus - true story.
Retief, you are like a broken record here, everybody knows that at the state level the Democratic party was nothing more than vestiges of the old Confederacy. I already know what the Democratic party was like in 1945, but I am more interested in what the GOP is about in 2014!
So, are you saying that Old Abe, the republican, was a progressive and not a conservative?
Or was he a progressive conservative, (yes, like Yetti, such animals are claimed to exist - there have even been sightings here in these forums - I have usurped the author's credit for the term Purple. Sounds like Abe might have been a Purple),
hmm... can a conservative be progressive in the concept of improving our nation and citizen's lives yet still hold true to the values that are/should be the fiber of our national identity? Or can a conservative only be a conservative if they stick to the god and guns mentality?
Are you certain conservatives are always regressive? Or is it that anyone that does not fit your progressive mold is regressive? Or is it that you really meant "far-right" conservatives?
There have been posts here that illustrated some fairly "progressive" views/actions from "conservative" Republican leaders - how can that be if all conservatives are regressive?
Could it be they were Purples? Could it be that you need a few more boxes?
Or could I be just one more fish hooked by your intentionally rhetorical bait?
Gotta get your attention, GA, and get you to come out and play.
Did you know that Abraham Lincoln met with Frederick Douglass in regards to the issue of slavery and AA freemen in the United States, when in 1857 the Taney court issued a ruling that said Black people had no rights that Anglos had any obligation to respect? Conservative was what the weak administrations of those that came after James K. Polk represented until Lincoln came on the scene. Why rock the apple cart? Keep the arrangement of half slave- half free pushing off till the next administration the need to deal with the issue forcefully.
Ronald Reagan was anything but progressive, our community said that he wanted to turn back the clock, and from our perspective based on his policies that was quite accurate. But, Reagan was the debut of change in direction for the GOP, while Nixon was no saint, he was moderate compared to these guys we have out here now. I speak primarily of the radical right that seems to be in control of the party. That is today's GOP.
What is a progressive viewpoint of a conservative these days? A viewpoint that benefits the majority of the people and not just a few. Fiscal restraint in the economic sphere is always desirable, but look at whose ox they gore to attain this.
Yes, Abe Lincoln relative to the political, social, cultural mores of the time was a progressive. While his views would be considered racist today, they were quite progressive for the time in which he lived. I take my hat off to Mr. Lincoln for his bold assertions, recognition of the hypocrisy and bold determination to make it right.
Perhaps we need to chat as to what definition we can agree upon as to what constitutes a conservative and what constitutes a liberal/progressive.
hmmm... that might be problematic. Sort of like defining porn - hard to describe, but you know it when you see it.
When you toss out the extreme factions of both sides - for me, it boils down to liberals seeing the government as the answer to all problems, and the authority figure for all decisions.
I would suppose a conservative to be more in favor of individual responsibility instead of a government solution, and small steps instead of leaps.
Beyond that there are probably dozens more specific differences.
My point has been the error (as I see it), of lumping everyone together. Which you do too frequently. Now, if you want to ditch the liberal and conservative labels, and use party labels instead - Dem vs. Repub - since most of your characterizations are political anyway, then you would be safer using your broad strokes - because affiliation is a choice. If someone affiliates with a group of knotheads - then they have to take the bad with the good.
Other than that, the generalization of labels, while useful shorthand, is dangerous for specifics.
ps. Our nation having Lincoln at a time when someone like him was most needed almost makes me believe in "destiny."
Nanny government is one extreme and laissez faire capitalism without any recognition of the need to temper cowboy capitalism with restraint and regulation in the interests of the people that are not part of the profit for share holders equation. You may lean more in one direction and I in the other. There is just more blue in my purple than red and you just the opposite. This a slider scale more than a box for categories, but the preference for right or left can be determined through following enough of any one individuals posts over political issues over time.
As for your comment about Lincoln, left or right we can agree on this without question.
There is absolutely no blue in my red, what is cowboy capitalism? There is no more moral economic system than capitalism.
Oh yes, because 90% living in poverty and 10% living in luxury is the picture of economic morality.
Good to know your notion of morality doesn't include equality. Maybe that's why you're a Conservative.
You are apparently unaware of reality and that is okay, I believe the appropriate medications are covered in Obamacare.
But that does not mean that capitalism needs to go off half cocked without regulation? A cowboy is a one from our point of view that goes off half cocked without prudence or does not consider consequences of rash acts. From the left, the cowboy attitude belongs an earlier and quaint period, long gone. Grown ups know that this is the basis of wisdom. Capitalism with the premise that the markets and the corporations are best left alone and trusted with the keys to it all without oversight and regulation to protect those aspects of American life and its people that they will naturally run roughshod over because it is to their economic advantage to do, is insane.. Those that will give them the keys to wreck the car as they are apt do and support them are part of the problem. Libertarianism is just so much nonsense, I don't trust the amoral a great deal to police themselves.
Since we are on the subject of presidential historical synchronicity I would posit that our nation having Obama at a time when someone like him was NOT most needed CERTAINLY make me believe in purgatory.... or as some far...far...far right folks would say:"... hell on earth".
Why do you guys bring up irrelevant 19th century examples of the difference between the two political parties, that speak nothing of what they are and who they represent today?
"Rejection by a majority of the American people", does it mean that this majority is smart? No it only means that it fears changes when it doesn't understand. So far, its vote proved the international community of its naivety and stupidity. It voted twice for Bush, elected Obama because of its youth and color and his smile, who will be next Glenn Beck? It votes against its interests because lobbyers say so. When they say China is taking all the jobs, they forget to say that CORPORATIONS willingly cross the ocean to manufacture their goods. Nobody put a gun on their temple to do so.
What do you mean by an "eminent", someone that you bow to when you face him, or someone whom we should all respect. It reminds me of the elite's call for a bailout when the banks collapsed. They announced a crash of the economy trying to scare us. And their minstrel Bush conceded it. If you are looking for a master to venerate, it's fine but don't assume that everybody does. It's not because Krauthammer said so that it is true. Greenspan and Friedman were "eminent" and we know now that they were wrong. So don't try to influence us.
I have neither the intention nor the specification to influence anyone on HubPages. To say that I do smacks of intentionally and specifically muddling the issue.
I wrote the initial post to stimulate conversation between both sides of the debating divide. Granted that the debate may not be up to your "high" standards, but they were I'm sure posited with conviction.... something that some folks lack in as far as they tend to drool from both sides of their mouth.
Now about "change". You wrote that the majority of the people fear change because "they don't understand it". As specifically applied to the change that Obama is imposing i.e. Obamacare, it is the fact that they DO understand what it brings to the societal table, that they are now rejecting it.
The electoral process in the USA may not be to your liking, which you inferred as much, since it resulted as you said in the election of Bush and Obama... and could potentially elect Glen Beck (if he ever decied to run for president, which I seriously doubt). Happily, and I share their view, the American people have liked the way they chose their president for 3 hundred years now (give or take), and they don't seem predisposed to change it anytime soon. Naïve and stupid? .... Really? But I suppose you like the way Venezuela, and Cuba, and China, and Russia elect their leaders.
I am not in any way defending BIG CORPORATIONS, but in the business model, they act they way they do because of their affinity for profit. If a corporation does not act in their (officers and shareholders) best interest, then they go bankrupt. I suppose in your world, corporation going bankrupt is better than the corporation providing thousands upon thousands of employees their "daily bread".
And about Krauthammer... he is more than capable to debate with you whether the honorific 'eminent" should and could be applied to him.
by Credence22 years ago
I have always wondered what makes progressives (liberals if you like) different from conservatives. When both are witness to the same events, yet each group has a different take on what is or what should be done.This is...
by Alexander A. Villarasa4 years ago
The close to $450 million website, and the chaotic rollout of ObamaCare only re-enforces the now common perception that the president's major domestic governmental intervention is a massive failure. And that's...
by Thomas Byers4 years ago
How can any American support the Republican Party???They are out of touch with reality and really don't care about the middle class and poor. We can only hope that the Hispanic people will vote for the Democrats and...
by Credence24 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg
by Philip Cooper3 years ago
Who believes the Republicans will win the White House in two years time?
by ecoggins4 years ago
Is the Republican party helped or hurt by their role in the 2013 government shutdown?The Republican members of Congress forced a government shutdown due to their objections to The Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare). Do...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.