|
|
| Posted: 23 Sep 2007 08:15 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
And Danny, why don't you tell me just how modern liberalism has made America better, happier, and stronger, and please don't rant about the Iraq war for 5 pages.
Okay, lets start a list.
I found these on turn left.com and I certainly welcome debate on any of them.
---------------------------------------------------
More extensive descriptions of these concepts are given on the link I provided. Of course, this is only a start...
Interstate Highway System
GI Bill
Labor Laws
Marshall Plan
Environmental Laws
Food safety laws
Workplace safety laws
Social Security
Economic Growth
Space Program
Peace corps
Civil rights movement
The fight against Totalitarianism
The Internet
The Tennessee Valley project
Women's right to vote
Universal Public Education
National Weather Service
Scientific Research
Product Labeling/Truth in Advertising Laws
Public Health
Morrill Land Grant Act
Rural Electrification
Public Universities
Bank Deposit Insurance
Earned Income Tax Credit
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Family and Medical Leave Act
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Public Broadcasting
Americans With Disabilities Act
As you can see, even this quick list is extensive, and some of these I would credit to the bipartisan efforts of a more civilized time. But I think it is fair to say these were at least all initiatives of liberals, and currently supported by them.
Personally, I still think its wild that our society became so powerful under liberal leadership- that we stuck an American flag on the moon. Maybe that isn't a campaign ad because one o the most important things a liberal can do is promote a spirit of inclusiveness. Yes, it was Kennedy's baby- but we all paid the taxes to get them there and all reaped the rewards of the resulting tech boom. It is an American flag up there- not a picture of a donkey, even though I think liberals should be more proud of their history when it comes to things like that.
I take issue with the lumping of WWI and WWII into "Fighting Totalitarianism". That may be humble- but WWI was not exactly the best advised fight, it just so happened to turn out in our favor. People still argue over what actually caused it. However, we won- and it was our liberal brainiac President Wilson who got us involved, helped win the thing after a long and bloody stalemate- then proposed the forerunner to the UN.
(I'd also call the UN, for all its problems, a major liberal accomplishment. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights alone is an important document worthy of our efforts in upholding.)
WWII was managed by liberal civilian leadership, against the wishes of many conservatives who at that pint were isolationists. However, I like to think of it as something akin to bipartisan, since sooooo many Americans pitched in selflessly, regardless of party to make it a success.
Regarding the Cold war- that was initiated by the left, but took so many dark turns that I wouldn't always call it an accomplishment. Truman essentially started it, in a radio address where he intended to "scare the hell out of the American people". It got a fight going against the reds, but it also led to McCarthyism- hardly an accomplishment. Of course, after the Cold War was launched- every successive President played a part in successfully keeping the world from being destroyed and slowly breaking down totalitarian communism Russia. In hindsight, I sometimes wonder if that didn't cause more problems than it solved. It may not have been necessary. If you ask the Russians today, they'll tell you that they were simply sick of an economic system that didn't work.
I'll add the handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I don't care who we were fighting or why- figuring a way out of that debacle was intense stuff. The Kennedys figured out the only strategy that kept us from being nuked. I shudder to think what would have happened if Bush had been handed an immediate intellectual task like that.
Really, liberals ruined an outstanding record of victory in 20th century foreign policy with Vietnam by listening to the hawks in their party. Nearly every foreign policy triumph of 20th Century America was accomplished while a Democrat was in office. Of course, many of these required a great degree of cooperation- and I don't want to minimize the Republican role in that. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush 41 all contributed to winning the Cold War.
(Nixon, paradoxically, may have been the most clever and productive Cold Warrior of the whole bunch- but Republicans often disavow him today as not being enough the hardliner Reagan was. Tricky Dick might even be called a Democrat by today's Republican "no nuance" standards, pathological deception and corruption notwithstanding...)
From Clinton's Presidency- there was the longest peacetime economic boom in American history. He left the country with a surplus for the first time in a long time- even more remarkable since he inherited Reagan's remarkably deep vortex of debt. Clinton's presidency proved that the government can shrink and be effective.
Finally, I also want to say that Republicans have not been without their value. I've seen the left get out of control in my lifetime with regard to welfare, bloated government and corruption. Of course, Republicans have also been brilliant at all three in recent times. But I think their retoric, if not their actions have at times provided a valuable counter weight. I would NEVER advocate one party rule in this country. The best thing that could happen is a push and pull across the middle- and some bipartisan initiatives that benefit everybody.
|
| Posted: 23 Sep 2007 17:09 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Nice work, Danny …
|
| Posted: 23 Sep 2007 20:19 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Thanks Cap, back at'cha. You and pak have really elevated the level of discourse on this site. For a looooong time i was on my own on the Captain America.us site. I never could figure out why more moderates or liberals never dropped by over there. I guess they're all more attracted to political sites.
|
| Posted: 23 Sep 2007 21:00 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Ok pal, now tell me since most of those things came from old time liberals who probably had more in common with republicans from the 80's than they do dems of the here and now, what do you think FDR or JFK would say about some of the new things coming from modern day liberals?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 23 Sep 2007 21:41 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
Ok pal, now tell me since most of those things came from old time liberals who probably had more in common with republicans from the 80's than they do dems of the here and now, what do you think FDR or JFK would say about some of the new things coming from modern day liberals?
Are you kidding me? What Republicans in the 80's? Reagan wanted to dismantle as much of the government- including the above listed programs and policies- as possible.
Now I am all about smaller government. I have seen big government go horribly wrong (and I've seen some real inefficiency in the public sector too) but this was all in the name of tax cuts and a voodoo economics plan the Gipper never even bothered to read!
Regarding the modern Democrats- until last year, they were totally shut out of the government, so I'm not sure what they would have done.
Secondly, when they have gotten a chance to make policy this year, they've been hamstrung at every step. Did you read about Jim Webb's bill to give troops an even amount of time with their families and on the battlefield? Plenty of D's are trying, but it is going to take a while to build a successful coalition like they once had.
But hey- I don't want to make excuses for the Democrats. My feeling is that most are very well intentioned but lack good leadership for a variety of reasons. One BIG reason is that the most successful politician of his generation threw away a ton of credibility by getting blowjobs under his desk. it has taken ten years and a disastrous Bush Presidency for people to get past that.
But the fact remains that if you like the concepts I've listed thus far- Bill Clinton supported and attempted to expand them. He managed this while both parties were constructively squabbling over how to balance the budget- something actually worth fighting over. What more do you want?
I mean really- what do you mean by "modern liberals"? There was a successful liberal president in office just 7 years ago.
Are you sure Rush and Jim Dobson haven't just sold you a load of BS about the left? You've said many times that your best friend is a Democrat. He can't be that bad of a guy.
|
| Posted: 23 Sep 2007 22:25 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
what do you think FDR or JFK would say about some of the new things coming from modern day liberals?
I can't believe I almost didn't answer that. Fascinating question.
I think a conversation between FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton and Barak Obama would be one of the weirdest and most interesting conversation one could ever listen in on.
So far as we know, 3 out of 4 had mistresses for much of their lives. Obama would be the only one who could call out the others so far as anyone knows.
2 out of 4 admitted to breaking the law by using illegal substances and JFK's family fortune was made SELLING an illegal substance.
2 out of 4 were born aristocrats, but all 4 have worked all their lives for poor people.
3 of 4 have proven records as brilliant foreign policy strategists. Obama more or less predicted exactly what would happen in Iraq.
I actually think Clinton and FDR would find much in common- and Clinton would be somewhat jealous that he never got the opportunities to shine that FDR did. But both were larger than life personalities who never shut up- they might fight for air. I think FDR would be a little wary of Clinton's street cred of scaling the socio-economic ladder. They'd probably both have a lot to say about being married to women they love and respect, but never remained faithful to for a sec.
I think Kennedy and Obama would see much in common. Both are/were extremely competitive people who, while refined speakers and writers, were primarily driven with little time to just sit around and chit chat (very subjective I know, I'm basing this off my gathered readings of both).
Both grew up with intensely international backgrounds, so that might be a topic of conversation.
Clinton and JFK might swap stories about vicious battles with Republicans. Each had some sinister enemies. FDR and Obama could probably speak more easily about uniting people.
But I mean who knows- anything could happen in a room like that. I think FDR and Kennedy would be very proud that their presidencies made the lives of Clinton and Obama as we know them, possible in the first place. Oddly enough however, that leads me to my next point.
Outside of that very interesting scenario, one major tip JFK and FDR would probably have for democrats is "don't get too far in front of people when you're trying to lead".
Cap has mentioned that the world has always gotten progressively more liberal- for lack of a better phrasing of the world's changing morales. That doesn't mean that communism is in our future eventually, because the word is liberal- not communist or even left.
That means that on a long enough timeline, we probably WILL have a woman President, a black president, maybe even a gay president. it means that people will increasingly see the world less as a zero sum game and embrace cooperation to advance, as interconnectivity of our lives maximizes our utility.
However, both JFK and FDR often put justice on the backburner to keep getting elected. Why? Because they knew if they didn't- evil or stupidity would certainly prevail. If there's one thing that I think bothers many Americans about the Democrats these days is that activist streak they retain from the 60's. They don't walk, talk and act like the establishment- and that scares people, especially Americans who are notorious for wanting a practical quick answer so they can get back to work. Americans also have a lot of faith in their system, and always second guess people who question it, even though they'll change when those activists eventually turn out to be right.
Politics is very different from walking around with a placard and I don't think the modern D's get that- definitely not as much as the old ones did. Perhaps that is part of what an aristocratic background can do for you- that part has worked well for Bush. Modern D's did not follow people out of the cities and into the suburbs when urban areas emptied out in the early 80's. They didn't attract any new money people to the party and remained strapped for cash until Bush and the internet came along. They are correcting those mistakes now, and they will learn that they can't push things on people, even if they're right. I would guess that would be FDR and JFK's advice. But who knows? I'm not JFK or FDR. I can't pretend to know what such brilliant people would think... even though I just tried... 
|
| Posted: 24 Sep 2007 02:55 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
You and pak have really elevated the level of discourse on this site
an' here I thought noone cared....
Thanks.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 24 Sep 2007 15:13 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Danny, you really do make some good points and as usual your a lot more insightful than your sometimes given credit for. It is interesting to me ( and probably has nothing to do with the current discussion) is how the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean different things at different points in history. In the 1860's, the Republican party was the party of bigger government and more centralization. The Democratic Party was the party of smaller governmant and local control of issues (which is why my beloved Georgians didnt elect a Republican governor for over a hundred years)
The change has happened several times, with each party drifting back and forth depending on who's in office and what their agenda is. I think we're seeing a very unsettling shift right now. The Democrat party is beholden to a lot of extremists including an unhelathy amount of socialists. The Republican party right now is full of king-makers and empire builders who are willing to muzzle freedoms for a little bit of 'law and order'.
I know these are very general statements and very easy to pick apart,so don't waste your time. I think it's maybe a bit more productive to discuss priorities and whats an appropriate function of government and what's not than to bandy about labels and use the wackos on both sides as examples of why 'we're right, and you're wrong'.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 24 Sep 2007 19:49 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Here's the thing Danny, I could get behind old liberals in wanting blacks to have the same rights as whites. I can get behind the idea that healthcare is important, and the environment needs protecting. I can get behind all of that, but I think the problem with your modern activist is that they ran out of good battles, they created new ones or abandoned old ones.
See I know a man can't help the color he's born with,not that I've never understood why a man's color makes a difference, and that isn't a revelation obviously, Abraham Lincoln felt the same way all those years ago ,but don't tell me babies's are born gay.
Don't tell me universal health care would not come without hurting the middle class some how via taxes or long lines at the doctor.
And the environment clean up always turns into a political point instead of a reality, a way to give power to politicians vs an actual issue that needs to be corrected.
Modern day liberalism is nothing more than a power grab. The gay agenda is based on what powerful political groups and hollywood elitist want. I don't for a second believe those liberal groups pushing that stuff have America's best interest at heart.
Nobody is getting arrested for what they do in their own home, but folks are getting arrested up north for protesting gay marches. There was a case a while back where some old ladies went to jail for peacefully marching against a gay rally. Free speech is not free to leftist wack jobs. You speak out against them, and they want to shut you up at all costs. I can't remember where it was exactly, I'm thinking it was massachussetts or something like that. They said with the hate crime laws they have the old ladies could have went to jail for years if they wanted to pursue it. It's just a dang shame.
I'm old fashioned, and I'm going to stay old fashioned. I will not be intimidated, and the more the far left attacks conservatives turning them into the underdogs, the more people like me are going to start screaming from the rooftops. I hope you all realize what some of your liberal friends are willing to do to shut people up.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 24 Sep 2007 20:22 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Quote:
I could get behind old liberals in wanting blacks to have the same rights as whites. I can get behind the idea that healthcare is important, and the environment needs protecting.
Um, seems to me those battles are still being waged.
Quote:
but don't tell me babies's are born gay.
prove they're not. but that's beside the point …
Quote:
Nobody is getting arrested for what they do in their own home
What, like smoking pot? Yeah, no one gets arrested for that.
Quote:
. There was a case a while back where some old ladies went to jail for peacefully marching against a gay rally.
I would love to read about that. Provide link, please. I'm not for squashing free speech for anyone. And I think both sides have gotten bad about, but no one more so than the Bushies. But Hillary is starting to pull pages from their playbook, which is awful.
I love it: When the conservatives ran the show: the presidency, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, and the majority of governorships, they still played the underdog card. It's such a great and dishonest ploy.
Quote:
Modern day liberalism is nothing more than a power grab. The gay agenda is based on what powerful political groups and hollywood elitist want. I don't for a second believe those liberal groups pushing that stuff have America's best interest at heart.
That's just so nonsensical, I don't what to say.
|
|
