Democrats/Liberals and Individualism?

[Elektrix]

Hi all,

I was recently in a bit of a political debate with someone, but it ended up with something that I really didn't know how to respond to.

This started off with me asking about his signature, which I've seen in many places:

"The common good comes before the private good."
-- Nazi slogan

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."
--Nikita Khrushchev

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all."
--Vladimir Lenin

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."
-- Hillary Clinton

See the pattern?

I then asked him about this, as the only source for this Hillary Clinton quote I can find is among other people who have also grouped these quotes together to make some point about her. It struck me as odd, and I also said I thought it was sort of faulty to say the people must be the same because of their quotes. He replied to this with:

I've dropped the "pattern" line from my signature. I will leave the quotes, they are taken from a reliable source. Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic party in general to a lesser extent, are against all forms of individuality IMO. Hillary Clinton is also a quasi-socialist. As opposed to the others in my signature who are full blown socialists.

"It takes a village to raise a child". No, it takes two parents to raise a child. I do not know about you, when I have children of my own, my wife and I, possibly our parents, will be the only people raising our children. Not the potential child molester down the street. The government has no place in the upbringing of our children. Mandatory preschool anyone? Gore ran on preschool, as did Bill McBride, as I am sure other Democrats have. What is best for society is not always best for the individual. I celebrate my individuality, I would hope that others do as well. That is the point that I am trying to get across. The government does not always know what is best for us. As long as I am harming no one, and breaking no laws, stay out of my life.

I asked him to explain this viewpoint on individualism, and he replied with:

As an individual you are responsible for your own actions, correct? Not according to the Left. If you are some gang-bangin’ thug who one day car jacks a pregnant woman and shots her point blank on the side of the road, it’s not your fault. You are a product of the environment that you grew up in. You are a poor African-American (don’t even get me started on hyphenated Americanism) striking back for years of oppression and slavery. You cannot possibly be held accountable for the actions that you took. To recognize said thug as an individual he would then be forced to take responsibility for a murder and grand theft auto. The Liberal point of view is that he is not an individual, he is just part of society.

I am a registered Republican. A pro-choice, anti-religion Republican. I in no way agree with everything that comes from the Right. I find myself agreeing with them more than I do any other party. I voted for several Democrats in the last state election. Buddy Dwyer . I consider myself a Moderate Conservative with Libertarian tendencies.

And then offered this Neal Boortz article saying it represented his views on individualism:

The War on Individualism

Now, I have heard some of these things before, but I honestly didn't know how to respond to this. I consider myself a liberal, and a Democrat, but I've never thought of myself or liberalism or the Democratic party being "anti-individual" or whatever.

I was just wondering what you all thought of this, and perhaps how you might respond to these points?

It seems like an interesting topic, at the very least, but I'm not sure I completely understand it.

-Elektrix

 

[Tony]

I was just wondering what you all thought of this, and perhaps how you might respond to these points?

You're friend has a good head on his shoulders, and he is basically right. Individual rights are not a priority for the left (generally speaking) as evidenced by their various stands on issues i.e., gun control, and taxes.

 

[Lurker]

I don't see any problem with Hillary's quote. To not think like that would mean charities would be extinct. Volunteerism, or a Million Points of Light, would be dead.

Lurker

 

[Tony]

I don't see any problem with Hillary's quote. To not think like that would mean charities would be extinct. Volunteerism, or a Million Points of Light, would be dead.

False, you can be an individualist and still care about society at large. What Hillary is saying is that we need to care about society at the expense of the individual, with that I disagree.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

If you are some gang-bangin’ thug who one day car jacks a pregnant woman and shots her point blank on the side of the road, it’s not your fault.

This is a common strawman used against the left all the time. There's a myth that the left would have all criminals running free all the time to rape everyone's mothers.

The problem is that the left's arguments are obviously too complicated for the hang 'em high crowd. Environment, poverty, racism, etc, etc, are used to explain things like crack heads car jacking pregnant women and shooting them point blank on the side of the head. No one in the left (no one who isn't completely insane, anyway) has ever suggested that these people shouldn't go to jail. What they do suggest is concentrating on rehabilitation, rather than punitive imprisonment, and perhaps improving environmental/economical/societal, etc, etc, etc conditions so this sort of thing doesn't happen any more than it absolutely has to.

Your friend's view that all it takes is two parents to raise a child is a little wiggy, too. Is he suggesting that children never get baby-sat, or left with grandparents, or get support from other family friends and neighbours? If so, what planet does he come from?

 

[Tmy]

Ask not what your country can do for you.........


I dont think its about individulaism. Its about greed. The gimme gimmee, mine, mine, attitude that many people have . (Both on the left and right). Its fine to look out for number 1 but you should balance things out. You can do things that are for the good of society, even if theres little financial gain.

For example picking up a piece of trash on the street. There will people who think "I dodnt put it there so Im not going to pick it up" or "Thats the citys responsibility to pick it up" or "I'm not getting my hands dirty this isnt my neighborhood" then theres the guy who'll pick it up and toss it in the trash, just because. The situation has nothing to do wh individualism, just wh attitude.

 

[Upchurch]

"The common good comes before the private good."
-- Nazi slogan

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."
--Nikita Khrushchev

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all."
--Vladimir Lenin

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."
-- Hillary Clinton

You forgot one.

"And so, my fellow americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."
-- John F. Kennedy

edited to add: Tmy beat me to it, but I'll leave the full quote.

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Democrats/Liberals and Individualism?

"And so, my fellow americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."
-- John F. Kennedy

Care to explain how this quote relates to the fascist quotes mentioned above?

 

[Tmy]

I think the implication is that if facists said these ( and Hillary) things then obviously their ideas about societal thinking are wrong and evil. Thast not really tryue, even JFK's comment was bout the the same idea, and he wasnt a commie. Sometimes commies have a good ideas. You dont have to take things to commie extremes. You can be both an individual and at the same time act in a way that benefits the greater good. People do this all the time. Usually the greater good cosists the family. Dad works a sh*tty job for the good of the wife n kids. And we praise that. Its just some people freak out when we aim for a larger greater good. As if we will turn commie just cause your base some actions on whats best for others rather than yourslef.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Re: Democrats/Liberals and Individualism?

Care to explain how this quote relates to the fascist quotes mentioned above?

er... I thought it was fairly obvious, but okay.

"And so, my fellow americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."
-- John F. Kennedy

Kennedy's message to both Americans and all people here is essentially to not consider your own needs but rather on the needs of the U.S. and the world, repsectively.

Likewise,
"The common good comes before the private good."
-- Nazi slogan

While the Nazi slogan is a little more demanding, it hold the same basic premise. It is stating that the private good, or need, should not be placed before the common good, or need.

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."
--Nikita Khrushchev

Again, this is much more heavy handed, then Kennedy's (or even Clinton's) message, but it continues with the same theme.

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all."
--Vladimir Lenin

Okay, on this one, I'll grant you, isn't a perfect fit. It's less about promotion of the needs of the state and more about the stamping down of needs of the private individual. It's basically only half of the theme and a really oppressive version of it at that.

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."
-- Hillary Clinton

I would guess that this was borrowed directly from Kennedy, personally. I'm not sure how I could explain it that would make it any more plain.

Oh, and I thought of another one.

"The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one."
--Spock

 

[Tony]

Thast not really tryue, even JFK's comment was bout the the same idea...

Actually it wasn’t, JFK's comment was political puffery meant to inspire individuals to elevate the nation. The fascist comments were ominous comments highlighting a policy of crushing the individual. BIG DIFFERANCE.

 

[Upchurch]

Actually it wasn’t, JFK's comment was political puffery meant to inspire individuals to elevate the nation. The fascist comments were ominous comments highlighting a policy of crushing the individual. BIG DIFFERANCE.

I'd grant you that on the middle two you posted, but how do you justify that in the Nazi slogan and in Clinton's statement? Those both seem in the same vain as Kennedy's statement to me.

 

[Tmy]

"Theres no "I' in team!"- Every Coach in the country

Pro sports is an example of balancing the idividual wh the greater good. The individual athlete wants to do well for hinmslef so he can get more $$ and endorcements. At the same time hes part of team. There are times good of the team may not jive wh his individual success (for example contract bonus for good stats). It wont sit well with the team and fans if a player is percived to be motre interesed in his stats than in the teams success.

 

[Tony]

"Theres no "I' in team!"- Every Coach in the country

Pro sports is an example of balancing the idividual wh the greater good. The individual athlete wants to do well for hinmslef so he can get more $$ and endorcements. At the same time hes part of team. There are times good of the team may not jive wh his individual success (for example contract bonus for good stats). It wont sit well with the team and fans if a player is percived to be motre interesed in his stats than in the teams success.

Pro sports is a game people make lots of money playing. It isn't government policy that will dictate how people will live their lives. Please find a better analogy.

 

[Upchurch]

"Takin' one for the team" is another phrase that I used just the other day.

I have to agree with Tmy. The concept itself isn't inherently evil. In fact, the concept of democracy itself is based on the concept that the opinion of the whole should be more important than the opinion of the individual. Thus, we have majority rule rather than monarchy rule.

 

[Tony]

In fact, the concept of democracy itself is based on the concept that the opinion of the whole should be more important than the opinion of the individual.

Thats exactly why the US isnt a democracy. In such a government the majority can oppress the minorty.

 

[Michael Redman]

An individual is most able to enjoy freedom as a member of a strong, stable society. In nature, life is “nasty, brutish, and short”. If you want to enjoy your property, you need a society to recognize your right to exclusive use of it. All of the rights we hold as essential are only rights so far as others recognize and defend them. Without a society, no rights. Individualism in anarchy is far more limited and unpleasant than in a strong, dynamic, and rich society.

Anyone who wants to promote individualism had better advocate for a strong society. To claim that Hillary wants a strong society at the expense of the individual, and not for the benefit of the individual, is simply fanciful, hate inspired thinking. Nothing in fact supports this cynical view of her motives. Even if you feel that she favors a paternalistic socialist government making decisions for people that an individualist would rather the individuals be free to make for themselves, it is for the sake of the individual, not the government, that these decisions are arguable taken out of the hands of the individuals felt not capable of making the right decisions for themselves, in the kind of democratic socialism Hillary is accused of promoting. This is obviously a far cry from the fascist philosophy in which the individual exists to serve the state, and decisions are made by the state for its own benefit. (Kind of like where Ashcroft and Co. take away personal freedom in the name of state security. Or so it could be argued.)

The sports analogy is perfectly good. All do better individually when the whole does better. Acting in a completely self centered manner is not only bad for the group, it's bad for self interest. Wise selfish people act together for the common good.

 

[Tony]

have to agree with Tmy. The concept itself isn't inherently evil.

I agree its not inherently evil, but the "for the good of society" mentality has been used as justification for the oppression and murder of millions. As such anybody (especially those in power) that has such mentality shouldn't be trusted.

 

[Upchurch]

Thats exactly why the US isnt a democracy.

What do you mean?

 

[Upchurch]

have to agree with Tmy. The concept itself isn't inherently evil.

I agree its not inherently evil, but the "for the good of society" mentality has been used as justification for the oppression and murder of millions. As such anybody (especially those in power) that has such mentality shouldn't be trusted.

Spotlight fallacy

Just because there are some examples of people with that mentality who can't be trust doesn't mean that all people with that mentality can't be trusted.