On the Future of Liberalism in America...

[pavlove]

Politics has been for a long time been a confusing game of people fighting for the side that doesn't actually support the team who's agenda benefits them personally. Poor people fighting for the rights of the rich and rich people fighting for the rights of the poor. . Behind it, though are two basic tenants: conservative and liberal as a way of life and governing...

Liberalism used to be about freedom and it somehow became about moral superiority. The end result is confusing but the path there is not so much. Essentially, the republican party became the party of stuffy old white men looking out for the interests of the top ten percent and became overly tied to it's racist elements. This was their downfall

The democrats took on all "working class" regular folk but became in the process tied to all marginalized folks who didn't fit into the narrow parameters of the ideal republican white, protestant, and old and thus became tied to the fight for social equality. This was also their downfall.

See, liberalism is in many respects about allowing people to do what they want. If you leave it there, it appeals to a great many people who aren't for government controlling what people do in there free time so long as it doesn't hurt them. It is progressive only in this sense and allows for a population that is becoming further and further away from the past to feel that the party understand them. It's problematic though when say black people feel that the party is lumping them in the fight with gay people or in the case of the most recent election that white women are being clumped in with blacks latinos and lgbt.

The democrats did too much and the celebrities dictating what's right and wrong only proves this point. Furthermore, the democratic party is not only about liberalism but about the rights of the little man. "every man is a king" is the mindset and it is not a socialist one but an egalitarian one based on giving every man his shot at having a kingdom not at creating a million little government controlled kingdoms.

The democrats failed their party on both fronts. President Obama, though he may have paved the way for President Trump, was able to hit on both of the above points better than Hillary or any current democrat seems capable of. The democratic party needs to reach out to regular folks and become once again the party of the people. They also need to back away from this sense of moral superiority and not get so involved in movements that don't have to do with them such as lgbt and black lives matter. Those movements can do their work on their own. At the same time, the democrats should not pander for republican votes and just assume democrats will vote for their man or woman. Again, the party needs someone who both can connect with the working class as well as say that its ok to be who you are without championing one group over another. White people can feel marginalized just like any other group and it is not just a matter of size that allows someone to feel unheard and uncared for.

That's my two cents anyway on what will bring the democratic party back to prominence in American politics

[WalterRadio]

You are confused.

When "liberalism used to be about freedom", the meaning of the word was not the same as it is today. Sometimes you will hear "liberal in the British sense", which translates into Modern American English as libertarian.

Sometime around the turn of the 19th century, the idea of socialism started sweeping around the world. In the US, parts of socialism were adopted by a groups calling themselves progressives or sometimes liberals and they infiltrated the Democratic party, who prior had been built around racism. But they were not liberal at all, in the traditional meaning of the word. It merely sounded more palatable than saying they were socialists. The very idea of liberalism/progressivism is that people in the government know how you should live your life better than you do, and therefore, you should give up control of your life to them. That is the antithesis of freedom.

The old style Democrats you speak of were not all liberals or progressives. Many were socialists and today we are still living with the destruction of socialism taking root in the US in the 1930s.

You are also very confused when it comes to racism. The Republican party was founded by Christians for the purpose of abolishing slavery. Everything it stands for has to do with expanding freedom of the individual, just as it did then. (the gay marriage thing is rooted in racism imposed by Democrats, and this is not the place for that discussion).

When Southern Democrats stopped being racists is when they realized they didn't agree with the socialist and social policies of their party leaders and became Republicans. The Republican philosophy today is as it has always been, individuals have fundamental human rights and to exercise those rights do not require infringing upon anyone else's rights. Government exists at the will of the people.

Liberals and progressives believe government is the source of rights and can therefore decide what rights those are and are not at the whim of whoever happens to be in charge.

"liberalism is in many respects about allowing people to do what they want"
No it doesn't. You are speaking of libertarianism. Liberal (Modern Am Eng) has the opposite meaning of liberal (18th Century Am English and modern British English).

Liberalism today is just as that movement has always been and just as socialists are about: "We know better than you how to control your life, so we will force you to live as we see fit."

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Err... if Liberals/Progressives are Socialists as you say, then "The very idea of liberalism/progressivism is that people in the government know how you should live your life better than you do" isn't accurate. The philosophical basis of Socialism is that Capitalist systems are inherently not free because the wealthy have become a new Monarchy. Democratic government is a mechanism by which to break that lack of liberty. You could argue that dependence on government just further limits freedom, but you'd be avoiding the original proposition: that you're already not free.

You'll also find that the Southern Democrats didn't stop being racist - they simply started voting Republican. The old-time racism is still alive and well, and has fueled the GOP for the past 50 years.

Socialism enslaves people through government and Capitalism enslaves people through the new aristocracy. However, in a democratic system at least people have a say in what government does.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

You'll also need to justify why, if the Republican Party is the champion of individual liberty, why they constantly try to limit individual liberties that don't agree with their bastardized version of Christianity. Worse, how "fundamental human rights" only seem to apply to American citizens, insofar as the GOP is concerned.

[WalterRadio]

@HungLikeAHorsefly
What individual liberty are you referring to? Not being anti-abortion, because if you believe a human life begins at conception, then you are morally obligated to protect it. Not being anti-gay marriage, because there is no such thing as gays marrying. Not making people use the restrooms of their chromosomes, because people are either male or female (aside from some extremely rare birth defects and chimeras) and that is invariable over one's life.

There is no conflict between fundamental human rights and enforcing a border.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Justify it however you like; it's nothing more than Conservatives using government to force their "morality" on everyone. Individual liberty is as foreign a concept as it is with Liberals.

[pavlove]

@HungLikeAHorsefly Agreed. To an extent, it can't be helped. Elected people will do what they feel is best for the people based upon how they see it and of course what they feel their people want them to push forward. My point is that being a liberal used to be about being free and tolerant not policing others to be tolerant. It was about love conquering hate not about systematically assaulting anyone who says anything hateful to another group. If liberals can get back to that i think the democratic party which is associated with it would benefit. I hear what Trump is doing wrong but what are democrats going to do right? there's already talk in the party about nominating a celebrity because trump's being one of the most well known people helped him with voters especially in the early stages where non intellectual high school degree only people didn't judge him for not having a strong background for the position. I'm spiraling now but my point is that sort of acceptance of all people

[pavlove]

@HungLikeAHorsefly is a really powerful, popular message especially as all these movements gain traction democrats need to back off association to all these sub movements if they want to connect to the majority of Americans in my opinion

[Anonymous]

We are moving toward fascism in this country.

[ak666]

I'm tempted to convert you over to the right-leaning libertarian side that I apparently fit in. :-D

It's all in favor of maximum freedom which inevitably comes from minimal government intervention. For pretty much every single political issue, it's like, "Will this expand the government? Yes/no?" And chances are that if it does, I'll go for the side that doesn't.

The biggest problem to me with the left side of the spectrum was never the fact that it cared about the poor or minorities. That's a wonderful thing to care about.

The biggest problem as I see it is that moral superiority and confidence you cited which often has them enacting policies which don't help the people they're intended to help and, far too often, seems to make things much, much worse for them.

Their solution is often to continually expand government and have it monopolize everything in spite of the results. If the results are getting worse, they want to expand it even more. It's like piling band-aids on top of band-aids, all while the symptoms are spreading and getting worse.

Another problem with the left as characterized by Sowell:

>> Intellectuals have a great tendency to see poverty as a great moral problem to which they have the solution. Now the human race began in poverty, so there's no mysterious explanation as to why some people are poor. The question is, why have some people become prosperous? And in particular, some have gotten prosperous to a greater degree than others. But everybody started poor, so poverty is not a mystery to be solved by intellectuals.

>> Intellectuals have no interest in what creates wealth and what inhibits the creation of wealth. They are very concerned about the distribution of it, but they act as if wealth just exists somehow. And it's only a question, like a manner from heaven, about how we split it up.

[ak666]

Lately I've been binging on Friedman and Sowell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8

[Anonymous]

Liberalism as we have known it over the last 2 decades or so is dead. It committed suicide. If liberalism is to make a comeback it will be in a much different form, and thank goodness for that.

[GARY-]

I didn't read any of that stuff. But my president Trump will fix America.

MAGA.

[pavlove]

a trump supporter who doesn't read, who'd have thought it...

[GARY-]

I'm smarter than you.