Real liberals take back your word

[Tony]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87561,00.html ..full article

Several months ago, I wrote a column in this space drawing out what I thought were libertarian themes in the terrific HBO series The Sopranos (search). In it, however, I suggested that the writers of the show instilled plotlines that both ridiculed the excesses of government, but that also reinforced the "classical liberal" traits of rugged individualism and personal responsibility. That phrase -- "classical liberal" -- ignited a firestorm of angry email. "Rugged individualism" and "personal responsibility" are...liberal?

This has been my thesis for a while, the people that truly believe in liberal ideas need to take their word back from the leftists that have stole it.

 

[Dancing David]

Huh, is that some TV show?

Peace

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm sorry I missed that.

I always figured the original liberals wanted to be liberated from the government, whereas the new liberals want to be liberal with my money, and make sure everyone is entitled to some of it.

 

[Tricky]

I'm sorry I missed that.

I always figured the original liberals wanted to be liberated from the government, whereas the new liberals want to be liberal with my money, and make sure everyone is entitled to some of it.

Both liberals and conservatives want your money, they just want it for different things. What is far an away the most costly item on the budget? Why it is defense spending (big surprise). Welfare is way down the list.

 

[Lazarus]

Posted by Tony

This has been my thesis for a while, the people that truly believe in liberal ideas need to take their word back from the leftists that have stole it.

Wow, that's cool...Now, did 'rightists' steal the word conservative, or do they claim rightful ownership of both?

Does this mean that Rush is going to have to move to NPR, and actually share time with a leftist? A debate, maybe?

Man! Tony, times change. Language changes. Are you in therapy for this evil leftist obsession? Why so paranoid? Leftists, liberals, progressives, socialists, communists, facists or whatever else people self-identified as right or conservative, or the strangest twist of all--libertarian want to call those they disagree with seem to forget one crucial element. In the US, these rabid lefties control nothing...Not the Executive, the courts, the Legislature or the gubernatorial offices. Maybe, they have a few state houses, and a few state courts, and even a couple of school boards, but why worry. They can't even organize their desks!

If you're in Western Europe, I apologize, and keep up the good fight.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Both liberals and conservatives want your money, they just want it for different things. What is far an away the most costly item on the budget? Why it is defense spending (big surprise). Welfare is way down the list.

Good you pointed that out.. I was trying to be cute, while hinting at the truth.

You can't deny that defense( recently offense ) spending does fortify the economy more than welfare does. Hopefully we won't let China build our aircraft carriers any time soon.

 

[Crossbow]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87561,00.html ..full article

This has been my thesis for a while, the people that truly believe in liberal ideas need to take their word back from the leftists that have stole it.

Well excuse me Tony, I consider myself to be a liberal, however I do not even watch that TV show The Sopranos let alone write for it so I do not expect me to fullfill your request.

My suggestion is to direct your complaint to the producers of the show itself and not JREF.

 

[Dancing David]

Good you pointed that out.. I was trying to be cute, while hinting at the truth.

You can't deny that defense( recently offense ) spending does fortify the economy more than welfare does. Hopefully we won't let China build our aircraft carriers any time soon.

Actualy there are some sociologists who believe that defense spending is the most wasteful form of government spending because it creates the least jobs per dollar.

It does lead to having an army , which is a good thing.

Peace

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Actualy there are some sociologists who believe that defense spending is the most wasteful form of government spending because it creates the least jobs per dollar.

It does lead to having an army , which is a good thing.

Peace

I would still suspect it creates more jobs and spinoffs than wellfare does. Not to mention it generates more tax revenues than wellfare does.

I would be interested in hearing about other forms of government spending that generates more jobs per dollar..


It is probably safe to say that the Defense Department hires fewer sociologists than Health and Human Services does, so I can understand a possibility of bias there..

 

[c0rbin]

Both liberals and conservatives want your money

I am getting more and more frustrated by this, mostly because no one will share their opinion.

In today's politicol jargon a "libral" has become synonymous with "Democrat" and "conservative", "Republican."

Is this true?

Maybe I get hung up on semantics because my understanding of the word "liberal" is that it is one who is willing to embrace change and "conservative" is one who wished to maintain the status quo.

This annoys me because one can be both liberal or conservative about different issues and still claim affiliation to a politicol party.

So, when someone asks me, as has happened before, if I am a libral, I return with "On which issue?" It takes a couple volleys before they finally ask me what they were really trying to get at--am I a Democrat or a Republican.

Am I alone in this line of thought?

 

[Lazarus]

Am I alone in this line of thought?

No, you're not. I think that some people just like being a member of the team--To hell with specific issues. Pigeon holing sometimes seems the sport of the day.

I'm not saying that labels don't simplify matters sometimes, but often it becomes nearly blood sport to put another into a box of our own choosing. Reason is lost. It becomes dogmatic politics.

 

[c0rbin]

It becomes dogmatic politics.

I think you are right.

Applying a label to someone simplifies them and allows the labeller to color them with broad strokes.

Example: "Oh, you are libral on issue X, therefore you must be a Democrat and since I am a republican, you are a wimp, anti-american, and probably a communist."

I must be careful though, because usually we get exposed to the extremes, like Micheal Savage and Micheal Moore, as they cause the most waves, which, in itself marginalize the groups in my mind into pidgeon holes.

 

[Bearguin]

Except didn't Liberal and Conservative exist in the UK prior to Republican/Democrat?

In Canada, we have both Liberals and Conservatives (as well as others) and understnad that Liberal and liberal are not the same.

What confuses us is when The B.C. Liberals are more right wing than most parties.

 

[c0rbin]

Possibly as "Tory" and "whig" (though I am free-styling here) in the sense that one wanted to maintain the the status quo and the other was willing to embrace change.

Part of what I am saying that these terms do no accurately describe the motives of Democrats and Republicans as, from my expirience, Republicans want to change the amount of Goverment Spending, definately not a stance to uphold a status quo.

See what I mean?

 

[rustypouch]

Am I alone in this line of thought?

I don't think you are. I used to live in the States, and because of my present location I am exposed to a lot of U.S. media. I have noticed that most Americans think only in opposites, and there can be no middle ground, as in Bush's 'you're with us or against us' and the entire political system.

There are only two possible answers to any question, and if you don't like one you must agree with the other, even if you dislike both choices. This happens in American elections where there are only two viable options, not several as there are in Canada and most countries I know of. (At least the ones that have elections.) There is no chance of choosing a little of column A and a little of column B, it has to be one way or another.

 

[iain]

Except didn't Liberal and Conservative exist in the UK prior to Republican/Democrat?

In Canada, we have both Liberals and Conservatives (as well as others) and understnad that Liberal and liberal are not the same.

What confuses us is when The B.C. Liberals are more right wing than most parties.

In Europe the words liberal, conservative and socialist seem (to judge by this forum) have significantly different meanings to the US. The terms "right wing" and "left wing" are also different.

For example, in European terms I am a centrist and a liberal. By the common definitions I hear from the US folks here I'm probably pretty left wing by US standards.

 

[BillyTK]

Possibly as "Tory" and "whig" (though I am free-styling here) in the sense that one wanted to maintain the the status quo and the other was willing to embrace change.

In the UK, up until about the 18th century there was one party (although not a party in the modern sense of the word, more of a loose collection of people with common views)--what became known as the tory party. This party were composed of the gentry, who held onto their seats by a variety of dubious methods, such as rotten, or pocket boroughs--constituencies with few members who were either members of the mp's family or had to vote for that mp or, for instance, face eviction, as typically their mp was also their landlord.

By the eighteenth century this party had split into two--the tories (from the Irish for cattle thief or outlaw) and the whigs (from the Scottish for whey [the stuff that's left after cheese-making]). The whigs rejected the tory idea of the divine right of kings to rule, and pushed for economic development and religious tolerance.

The tories eventually became the Conservative party and the whigs renamed themselves Liberals in the 19th century at around the time the socialist (Labour) party started.

Like Ian says, liberal/conservative/left wing/right wing mean something different in Europe; to me conservative means the party of privilege which seeks to hang on to that privilege.