Is this the end of liberalism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given I don't recall Sanders talking about nationalization industrial sectors, I'm even a little suspect of calling him a social democrat.
 
It depends on your definition of liberalism. These days that seems to gravitate to socialist. Traditional liberalism, from Hume, Locke and Mills, is more a Republican thing.

J


The Republicans are trying their best to destroy traditional liberalism. There is no leanings towards socialism among modern liberals.
 
Then he's delusional. Hardly something rare for a candidate.

Only people more delusional than him are the people voting for him, thinking he's different.
 
I won't call him delusional, that would be underestimating him, but I do think that he's overlooking or simply glossing over some key differences between the U.S. and Denmark
 
Taxing 300 million Americans with Denmark-levels taxation will result in the second Revolution, in any case.
 
The Republicans are trying their best to destroy traditional liberalism. There is no leanings towards socialism among modern liberals.

The Republicans are opposed to socialism in many of its forms.

Modern progressive thought is focusing more power to the State. More laws, more reach, more regulation. Mills would not consider bigger government utilitarian. His focus would on keeping the actions of the state at the lowest practical level. Federalism is almost directly opposed. Republicans willingness to focus on individual responsibility is much more Millsian.

J
 
That does seem to make up a significant part of Republican rhetoric. Why is that? What do Republicans view is wrong with "socialism"?

Because it interferes with corporate cronyism, which is what they are all about.

I doubt anyone is delusional enough to think that pure free market actually works.
 
The Republicans are opposed to socialism in many of its forms.


But support it in many others. Their economic policy has a very socialist underpinning.



Modern progressive thought is focusing more power to the State. More laws, more reach, more regulation.


That's what conservatives are doing, essentially the entire existence of conservatism. They've never done anything else.


Mills would not consider bigger government utilitarian. His focus would on keeping the actions of the state at the lowest practical level.


You see, it's not about the state with progressives, it's about the individual. Progressives use the state as a tool to protect and free the individual. One thing the classical liberals were not is blind to the realities surrounding them. The core difference between the classical liberal and the modern progressive was the realization that the goals of the classical liberal could not be met without the actions and power of the state to make it happen. The minimal state society does not produce the outcomes the classical liberals advocated.


Federalism is almost directly opposed.


Federalism is the primary defense of liberty and the individual which exists in the US.


Republicans willingness to focus on individual responsibility is much more Millsian.

J



The funny part of that is that the utter and complete rejection and opposition to personal responsibility is the foundation on which everything the Republicans is based on.
 
I doubt anyone is delusional enough to think that pure free market actually works.
Pure free Market/ Pure Capitalism / Economic Darwinism all lead to Monopoly/Monopolization, making competition impossible. The only way a capitalist market can work is with government intervention to prevent monopolization.
The funny part of that is that the utter and complete rejection and opposition to personal responsibility is the foundation on which everything the Republicans is based on.
Interesting statement... Tell me more:think: How so?
 
Interesting statement... Tell me more:think: How so?



It's everywhere in conservative doctrine. Take race relations: "We have done everything we can to prevent you from prospering for 400 years! And we're still doing it! What is wrong with you that you can't bootstrap yourself to success?" Labor relations: "We've broken the unions, taken away labor's right to the courts, given your employers nearly unfettered power over you, and shipped millions of your jobs overseas! How could you possibly still need Social Security, Medicare, and food stamps?" How about the national debt: "We've cut taxes on the rich, raised spending for the rich, crashed the economy, and did it all over again! Why don't the Democrats balance the budget?" The Mideast: "We destroyed the enemy of our enemies, put more of our enemies into power in the nations we laid ruin to, backed our enemies in every way available to us! How dare Obama let the situation get out of control!"

I could go on all day, on any issue you care to name. Everything that they do is about not taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
 
Sorry to bump this thread, but there was a pretty good article on The Cracked about this.

[QUOTE="The Cracked article]The problem is that if you actually read those stories instead of just phrasing them in the most alarmist way possible, you'll find that none of them happened the way you think. The Vagina Monologues wasn't just abruptly cancelled; it was replaced with a different show that they felt might be more inclusive of trans people.[/QUOTE]

Oh, man, if only we read those stories. If only we read those stories.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom