We Are All Liberals Now.

[Mark1031]

Bob Herbert has a nice article on all the great things liberals have brought the US here

Hold Your Heads Up
By BOB HERBERT
Ignorance must really be bliss. How else, over so many years, could the G.O.P. get away with ridiculing all things liberal?

Troglodytes on the right are no respecters of reality. They say the most absurd things and hardly anyone calls them on it. Evolution? Don’t you believe it. Global warming? A figment of the liberal imagination.

Liberals have been so cowed by the pummeling they’ve taken from the right that they’ve tried to shed their own identity, calling themselves everything but liberal and hoping to pass conservative muster by presenting themselves as hyper-religious and lifelong lovers of rifles, handguns, whatever.

So there was Hillary Clinton, of all people, sponsoring legislation to ban flag-burning; and Barack Obama, who once opposed the death penalty, morphing into someone who not only supports it, but supports it in cases that don’t even involve a homicide.

Anyway, the Republicans were back at it last week at their convention. Mitt Romney wasn’t content to insist that he personally knows that “liberals don’t have a clue.” He complained loudly that the federal government right now is too liberal.

“We need change, all right,” he said. “Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington.”

Why liberals don’t stand up to this garbage, I don’t know. Without the extraordinary contribution of liberals — from the mightiest presidents to the most unheralded protesters and organizers — the United States would be a much, much worse place than it is today.

There would be absolutely no chance that a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin could make a credible run for the highest offices in the land. Conservatives would never have allowed it.

Civil rights? Women’s rights? Liberals went to the mat for them time and again against ugly, vicious and sometimes murderous opposition. They should be forever proud.

The liberals who didn’t have a clue gave us Social Security and unemployment insurance, both of which were contained in the original Social Security Act. Most conservatives despised the very idea of this assistance to struggling Americans. Republicans hated Social Security, but most were afraid to give full throat to their opposition in public at the height of the Depression.

“In the procedural motions that preceded final passage,” wrote historian Jean Edward Smith in his biography, “FDR,” “House Republicans voted almost unanimously against Social Security. But when the final up-or-down vote came on April 19 [1935], fewer than half were prepared to go on record against.”

Liberals who didn’t have a clue gave us Medicare and Medicaid. Quick, how many of you (or your loved ones) are benefiting mightily from these programs, even as we speak. The idea that Republicans are proud of Ronald Reagan, who saw Medicare as “the advance wave of socialism,” while Democrats are ashamed of Lyndon Johnson, whose legislative genius made this wonderful, life-saving concept real, is insane.

When Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law in the presence of Harry Truman in 1965, he said: “No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine.”

Reagan, on the other hand, according to Johnson biographer Robert Dallek, “predicted that Medicare would compel Americans to spend their ‘sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was like in America when men were free.’ ”

Scary.

Without the many great and noble deeds of liberals over the past six or seven decades, America would hardly be recognizable to today’s young people. Liberals (including liberal Republicans, who have since been mostly drummed out of the party) ended legalized racial segregation and gender discrimination.

Humiliation imposed by custom and enforced by government had been the order of the day for blacks and women before men and women of good will and liberal persuasion stepped up their long (and not yet ended) campaign to change things. Liberals gave this country Head Start and legal services and the food stamp program. They fought for cleaner air (there was a time when you could barely see Los Angeles) and cleaner water (there were rivers in America that actually caught fire).

Liberals. Your food is safer because of them, and so are your children’s clothing and toys. Your workplace is safer. Your ability (or that of your children or grandchildren) to go to college is manifestly easier.

It would take volumes to adequately cover the enhancements to the quality of American lives and the greatness of American society that have been wrought by people whose politics were unabashedly liberal. It is a track record that deserves to be celebrated, not ridiculed or scorned.

Self-hatred is a terrible thing. Just ask that arch-conservative Clarence Thomas.

Liberals need to get over it.

So conservatives what would you get rid of? Why is your party not running on that instead of lipstick and kid-sex?

 

[Bigfoot3814]

Liberals, LOLZ

 

[Trajan12]

I don't see how one could deny that Liberalism is the basis of our State and a virtue in Western Culture in general. (Although some of those reforms mentioned are credited to Progressivism and not Liberalism).

 

[LordRahl]

You're confusing Democrats with Liberals.

I am Libertarian - I have very liberal views when it comes to social issues, but I am a conservative when economy is concerned (my political compass numbers reflect that).

What would I get rid of? Start with socialized medicine, Social Security, welfare for the lazy. Pretty much any idea that forces me at a gun-point to support parasites.

 

[Annex]

I dont really think that many liberals shy away from calling themselves that because of a "pummeling" taken from the right. Being called a "conservative" can be just as much of a liability, depending on where you are.

 

[Phlegmak]

Librulz lol

http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberals

 

[Rhymes]

Unemployment is a pretty horsehockey program (??WTF)

 

[Annex]

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Liberals

 

[Theige]

You're confusing Democrats with Liberals.

I am Libertarian - I have very liberal views when it comes to social issues, but I am a conservative when economy is concerned (my political compass numbers reflect that).

What would I get rid of? Start with socialized medicine, Social Security, welfare for the lazy. Pretty much any idea that forces me at a gun-point to support parasites.

Socialized medicine? So medicare?

Also I do believe there is no such thing as welfare for the lazy. And those on welfare must make attempts to find jobs in order to qualify.

Is it really possible to continually get welfare benefits forever and never make an attempt to get a job? I've never known anyone on welfare.

 

[Mark1031]

Is it really possible to continually get welfare benefits forever and never make an attempt to get a job? I've never known anyone on welfare.

Maybe in New Zealand not in the US.

 

[C~G]

What would I get rid of? Start with socialized medicine, Social Security, welfare for the lazy. Pretty much any idea that forces me at a gun-point to support parasites.

You are right.

Liberalism is against social-darwinism.

It seems you are supporting your own countrymen at gun-point.

Question is...who are the real parasites that destroy the society?
Those who need support and help or those that have more than enough for their own good but who need gun pointed at them to support and help their fellowmen?

I suggest you think answers to those questions real hard and think for yourself and let Rand and her ideas sleep in her grave

EDIT: And answers to the question is...None of the above. Of course what remains how they are implented because there's always some slack but eliminating them is much more disastrous for everyone involved.

 

[Murky]

Some of these programs need better auditing and reform but it's unlikely they will just go away entirely anytime soon.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Socialized medicine? So medicare?

Also I do believe there is no such thing as welfare for the lazy. And those on welfare must make attempts to find jobs in order to qualify.

Is it really possible to continually get welfare benefits forever and never make an attempt to get a job? I've never known anyone on welfare.

They could be on it forever until the Welfare Reform of the '90's came along.

What constitutes an 'attempt'? There are ways to make it appear that you are trying to find a job when you aren't. You can collect payments for the maximum period, then work a couple/few years, then go back to collecting welfare again.

Regardless of what the 'unemployment' rate is, there was the same amount of people on welfare until the reforms came along.

 

[Gogf]

So conservatives what would you get rid of?

Thinly-veiled partisan trolling.

I don't see how one could deny that Liberalism is the basis of our State and a virtue in Western Culture in general. (Although some of those reforms mentioned are credited to Progressivism and not Liberalism).

There is a difference between what the Democratic Party stands for and Liberalism. If by liberalism you mean the philosophy upon which our nation is based, then both parties support liberalism.

 

[Leonel]

We need to lift the unconstitutional ban on slavery!

 

[Mark1031]

Thinly-veiled partisan trolling.

Because asking conservatives to stand behind their rhetoric on government programs is trolling? In all these endless threads about politics conservatives offer no discussion of real public policy or programs (the libertarians do). Even when the focus is not on lipstick and kid-sex it is merely anti-government pro-free market tripe. Well as a liberal (modern US vernacular) I support mataining all these programs as run by the government and strengthened through competent management slight modifications ( ex medicare which needs an overhaul) and tax increases where necessary.

How about you?

 

[El_Machinae]

I'll just point out that one can be libertarian only if they take steps to mitigate and compensate the externalities they foist on others. Libertarianism is not only getting your fair share, but paying your fair share as well.

I am also libertarian, but my position is that the world cannot be libertarian until we get the cost of justice down to nearly zero. If I cannot afford to force people to pay for their externalities, I am not free. If someone cannot force me to pay what I owe them, they are not free. We need a wealthier world before we can become truely libertarian. Until then, I cannot claim to be libertarian until I endeavour to pay the fair price for what I do.

Regardless of what the 'unemployment' rate is, there was the same amount of people on welfare until the reforms came along.

You always post gold. Thanks for the graph and the analysis.

 

[Gogf]

Because asking conservatives to stand behind their rhetoric on government programs is trolling? In all these endless threads about politics conservatives offer no discussion of real public policy or programs (the libertarians do). Even when the focus is not on lipstick and kid-sex it is merely anti-government pro-free market tripe. Well as a liberal (modern US vernacular) I support mataining all these programs as run by the government and strengthened through competent management slight modifications ( ex medicare which needs an overhaul) and tax increases where necessary.

How about you?

Well I'm not going to make a blanket statement saying that I believe every single government program is valuable, since there are very likely ones that are not. But yes, for the most part I don't believe in scaling programs like medicare and social security.

If you wanted to have a healthy discourse instead of just antagonizing half the forum, you wouldn't assign a view held by a tiny minority to EVERYONE right of center.

 

[Bill3000]

If you wanted to have a healthy discourse instead of just antagonizing half the forum, you wouldn't assign a view held by a tiny minority to EVERYONE right of center.

He was talking about the philosophical position, not pragmatic moderation. To the extent that the modern party is by the ideology of Barry Goldwater et al, e.g. the non-social conservative part of the party - liberal conservativism, this is not a strawman. Barry Goldwater was against the Civil Rights Act because it infringed on the rights of companies to discriminate, for example.

(And no, you're not a conservative in the first place, so I don't see why you care so much just because you like the neocon label)

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Personally, I wouldn't get rid of social security because although I don't like it in principle I recognize that is necessary. But I would change it substantially so it isn't just a source of government income of which the fact that it has to be paid back is ignored.

I wouldn't get rid of Civil Rights(duh) but I would get rid of race based affirmative action and the like.

The other categories I admit I don't know enough about to say what I would change or eliminate.


Of course some conservatives DO want to entirely rid the country of all the things listed in the poll but this is a small minority and it would be a stawman to suggest that these are the beliefs held by conservatives in general or the Republican party.