So... Liberals are responsible for every accomplishment in history, right?

Question

1) Lincoln ended slavery against conservative Southern states.
2) FDR saved us from the Depression with “socialistic” policies
3) LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act
4) MLK certainly sparred bravely with violent conservative assholes.

Answer 1

nightdrot | 2.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Influencer

Actually, the problem with the question is that it is sloppy in its' definition of conservatism and liberalism and it defines "EVERY" accomplishment in history by four - to be sure not unimportant - events. That is a rather odd formulation to say no more.

To start, what Americans call conservative is, historically speaking, not conservatism but is, rather, classical liberalism. "That government is best which governs least" and all the rest. In the context of slavery, it placed its' emphasis on the rights of the states and thus did not attempt to end slavery.

Classical or Tory conservatism, traces its intellectual pedigree through Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas - and probably most importantly - the 18th century British statesman and political philosopher, Edmund Burke, and also the British Prime Minsiters Benjamin Disraeli and Lord Salisbury.

In an American context, it shows up in the thinking of Alexander Hamilton and then - almost by historical accident, the American Whig Party, and the former Whig turned Republican, Abraham Lincoln. Please note, that is Abraham Lincoln who, in the classical conservative tradition, recurred not to any revolutionary conception but rather defined the nation in terms of its founding principles.

Classical conservatives believe, unlike American conservatives and liberals, that the purpose of government is to answer Aristotle's first questions of politics, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?"

To which classical conservatives respond that the purpose of government is to nurture civic virtue. To reinforce those habits and customs, legitimized by historical usage over time, that make a harmonious and stable social order possible.

Odd it is the liberal - a philosophy dedicated to "liberating" man from the outdate pre-rational ideas of the past - who bases his actions on principles established in the past. Conservatism is not mere nostalgia, but rather a recurrence to those principles rooted in history and conducing to the pursuit of virtue. Indeed, MLK, in that sense, was also in the classical conservative tradition as he, too, recurred to the ideals of the founding as well as, having been a minister, the Bible.

As to FDR and Lyndon Johnson, note that classical conservatives support an ameliorative welfare state. (The welfare state was invented by two conservatives - Disraeli and Bismarck.) The purpose such a welfare state being to reconcile the public to the dynamics of a free market economy by alleviating the negative impact of old age, illness and temporary unemployment.

In this they differ from American liberals who see the welfare state as a lever to engineer social transformation. That is, to restructure society according to some abstract a priori vision. Classical conservatives argue that such a vision is ultimately going to be oversimple and will lead to adverse and unintended consequences.

Indeed, here there is another division. FDR's vision of the welfare state was relatively narrow. The New Deal premised on the economic ideas of Keynes who argued that government had the tools and knowledge to rectify the errors in the economy and produce an ideal economic outcome.

LBJ took this a step further with his Great Society agenda which went for all out social engineering. Using government not just to ameliorate poverty, but cure it. Not just to ban certain forms of discrimination, but to perfect man and end discrimination.

CONT.

nightdrot

1 mo
Both men were in the "radical" liberal tradition. "Radical" here not meaning, as it does in contemporary usage, extremist. Rather meaning as the ancient Greeks used it, i. e "to the root of." The idea that man is perfectible, that such imperfections of man as are manifest are born of inequalities of wealth and power that distort man's basically social nature. That with the right reforms, such imperfections can be eliminated.

Suffice to say, the fundamental argument can - and has - led to much mischief. As Russel Kirk put it, "The pursuit of Utopia is the primal madness of the species." As to the narrower economic vision, it basically collapsed with the stagflation of the 1970s which Keynisan theory said could not happen. Thus was born the neo-classical liberalism of the Reagan era.

Suffice to say, the premise of the question is wildly flawed. It is premised on an oversimplification of history, a misunderstanding of the terms it uses, and - at least in the case of Lincoln, and even MLK to some degree - a misunderstanding of the ideas they espoused. Other than that, it is absolutely correct.
ChefPapiChulo

1 mo
Lincoln was a liberal. So was MLK.
ChefPapiChulo

1 mo
en.m.wikipedia.org/.../Liberalism_in_the_United_States
Show All Show Less
nightdrot

1 mo
@ChefPapiChulo Actually, no. Trace the intellectual pedigree of their ideas. (Sorry, but a wikipedia article does not quite do it for me. I also have a degree in political philosophy.)

To repeat, if you will read carefully, liberalism in the United States - as that term is used today - is in the "radical" tradition. (Also, to repeat again, not meaning "extremist," but rather as the ancient Greeks used it, i. e. "to the root of.") Overall, liberalism in the classical sense, having been born of the Enlightenment and the theories of John Locke and Adam Smith. It gaining its' most famous American expression in Thomas Jefferson's maxim, "That government is best which governs least."

Please note, per my references above, that Hamilton, from whom Lincoln derived his own thinking, was Jefferson's great rival.

As to MLK, there is a touch of Christian utopianism in his thinking and he does not quite fully fit in the classical conservative mode. Conservatism being distrustful of Utopian visions. Yet nevertheless, King drew his ideas from Protestant Christianity. The latter, to be sure, the precursor of Lockean liberalism, though the latter rejected Christianity as a pre-rational construct and thus ultimately antithetical to human reason.

This then tending to put King, if somewhat by default, in the mode of Protestant traditionalism and thus giving to King's thinking a conservative dimension.
ChefPapiChulo

1 mo
Well, you might not like the wiki article but it cites sources. Lincoln is widely accepted as a liberal with conservative tendencies. Freeing slaves and giving them rights is very much a liberal philosophy.
nightdrot

1 mo
@ChefPapiChulo The problem with the Wiki article is that, citing sources though it does, it makes no effort to place the ideas it discusses in their historical context and intellectual pedigree. Rather it applies the contemporaneous definitions and attempts to give them a retrospective cast.

By that reasoning, Burke, the father of classical conservativism was a liberal because he supported the American revolution. Obviously, that does no credit to context nor demonstrates any real understanding of Burke.
OddBeMe

1 mo
@ChefPapiChulo Careful, nightie likes exhausting with long winded arguments from authority.
@nightdrot Your problem is Chef and I trust Wiki's citations more than your memory of history.
nightdrot

1 mo
Well, that is your affair. As I say, I can only offer my credentials and the fact that I have worked in politics over 40 years.

However, just to add, much of the reason that American conservatism and liberalism get results the opposite of what they intend is that they are not aware of the pedigree of their own ideas. This explaining why grasping these concepts in their historical context is of some importance.

Suffice to add that just asserting that you are right and I am wrong does not make it so.
OddBeMe

1 mo
But liberalism is progressive and conservatism is quid pro quo, correct? In the 20th century sense.
nightdrot

1 mo
Not really. Again, why did Burke, the father of classical conservatism, support the American Revolution. In contemporary times, did Reagan really support the status quo of the New Deal?

There is a speck of truth in what you say, but it is actually far more complex - as you would expect human ideas and human history to be - than the simple dichotomy you postulated. Indeed, funny thing, the very Solid South that supported FDR and his liberalism, opposed MLK. So even there you are glimpsing divides in liberalism that break the stereotype.

Sorry I have to be off. I you wish to pursue this further, feel free to leave a message here and I will catch up later this evening. All the best.
OddBeMe

1 mo
interesting thoughts. but conservatism does hate "progress". And thanks for overlooking quid instead of status.
nightdrot

1 mo
No they do not. See also Burke on change - “We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature, and the means perhaps of its conservation. All we can do, and that human wisdom can do, is to provide that the change shall proceed by insensible degrees. This has all the benefits which may be in change, without any of the inconveniences of mutation.”

Parse those sentences carefully.

See also - "In that case, Prudence (in all things a Virtue, in Politicks the first of Virtues) will lead us rather to acquiesce in some qualified plan that does not come up to the full perfection of the abstract Idea, than to push for the more perfect, which cannot be attain'd without tearing to pieces the whole contexture of the commonwealth, and creating an heart-ache in a thousand worthy bosoms. In that case combining the means and end, the less perfect is the more desirable"

The problem being that those who trumpet progress do so as an abstraction and therefore are prone to the errors that flow therefrom.

Answer 2

nightdrot

Both men were in the "radical" liberal tradition. "Radical" here not meaning, as it does in contemporary usage, extremist. Rather meaning as the ancient Greeks used it, i. e "to the root of." The idea that man is perfectible, that such imperfections of man as are manifest are born of inequalities of wealth and power that distort man's basically social nature. That with the right reforms, such imperfections can be eliminated.

Suffice to say, the fundamental argument can - and has - led to much mischief. As Russel Kirk put it, "The pursuit of Utopia is the primal madness of the species." As to the narrower economic vision, it basically collapsed with the stagflation of the 1970s which Keynisan theory said could not happen. Thus was born the neo-classical liberalism of the Reagan era.

Suffice to say, the premise of the question is wildly flawed. It is premised on an oversimplification of history, a misunderstanding of the terms it uses, and - at least in the case of Lincoln, and even MLK to some degree - a misunderstanding of the ideas they espoused. Other than that, it is absolutely correct.

Answer 3

ChefPapiChulo

Lincoln was a liberal. So was MLK.

Answer 4

ChefPapiChulo

en.m.wikipedia.org/.../Liberalism_in_the_United_States

Answer 5

nightdrot

@ChefPapiChulo Actually, no. Trace the intellectual pedigree of their ideas. (Sorry, but a wikipedia article does not quite do it for me. I also have a degree in political philosophy.)

To repeat, if you will read carefully, liberalism in the United States - as that term is used today - is in the "radical" tradition. (Also, to repeat again, not meaning "extremist," but rather as the ancient Greeks used it, i. e. "to the root of.") Overall, liberalism in the classical sense, having been born of the Enlightenment and the theories of John Locke and Adam Smith. It gaining its' most famous American expression in Thomas Jefferson's maxim, "That government is best which governs least."

Please note, per my references above, that Hamilton, from whom Lincoln derived his own thinking, was Jefferson's great rival.

As to MLK, there is a touch of Christian utopianism in his thinking and he does not quite fully fit in the classical conservative mode. Conservatism being distrustful of Utopian visions. Yet nevertheless, King drew his ideas from Protestant Christianity. The latter, to be sure, the precursor of Lockean liberalism, though the latter rejected Christianity as a pre-rational construct and thus ultimately antithetical to human reason.

This then tending to put King, if somewhat by default, in the mode of Protestant traditionalism and thus giving to King's thinking a conservative dimension.

Answer 6

ChefPapiChulo

Well, you might not like the wiki article but it cites sources. Lincoln is widely accepted as a liberal with conservative tendencies. Freeing slaves and giving them rights is very much a liberal philosophy.

Answer 7

nightdrot

@ChefPapiChulo The problem with the Wiki article is that, citing sources though it does, it makes no effort to place the ideas it discusses in their historical context and intellectual pedigree. Rather it applies the contemporaneous definitions and attempts to give them a retrospective cast.

By that reasoning, Burke, the father of classical conservativism was a liberal because he supported the American revolution. Obviously, that does no credit to context nor demonstrates any real understanding of Burke.

Answer 8

OddBeMe

@ChefPapiChulo Careful, nightie likes exhausting with long winded arguments from authority.
@nightdrot Your problem is Chef and I trust Wiki's citations more than your memory of history.

Answer 9

nightdrot

Well, that is your affair. As I say, I can only offer my credentials and the fact that I have worked in politics over 40 years.

However, just to add, much of the reason that American conservatism and liberalism get results the opposite of what they intend is that they are not aware of the pedigree of their own ideas. This explaining why grasping these concepts in their historical context is of some importance.

Suffice to add that just asserting that you are right and I am wrong does not make it so.

Answer 10

OddBeMe

But liberalism is progressive and conservatism is quid pro quo, correct? In the 20th century sense.

Answer 11

nightdrot

Not really. Again, why did Burke, the father of classical conservatism, support the American Revolution. In contemporary times, did Reagan really support the status quo of the New Deal?

There is a speck of truth in what you say, but it is actually far more complex - as you would expect human ideas and human history to be - than the simple dichotomy you postulated. Indeed, funny thing, the very Solid South that supported FDR and his liberalism, opposed MLK. So even there you are glimpsing divides in liberalism that break the stereotype.

Sorry I have to be off. I you wish to pursue this further, feel free to leave a message here and I will catch up later this evening. All the best.

Answer 12

OddBeMe

interesting thoughts. but conservatism does hate "progress". And thanks for overlooking quid instead of status.

Answer 13

nightdrot

No they do not. See also Burke on change - “We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature, and the means perhaps of its conservation. All we can do, and that human wisdom can do, is to provide that the change shall proceed by insensible degrees. This has all the benefits which may be in change, without any of the inconveniences of mutation.”

Parse those sentences carefully.

See also - "In that case, Prudence (in all things a Virtue, in Politicks the first of Virtues) will lead us rather to acquiesce in some qualified plan that does not come up to the full perfection of the abstract Idea, than to push for the more perfect, which cannot be attain'd without tearing to pieces the whole contexture of the commonwealth, and creating an heart-ache in a thousand worthy bosoms. In that case combining the means and end, the less perfect is the more desirable"

The problem being that those who trumpet progress do so as an abstraction and therefore are prone to the errors that flow therefrom.

Answer 14

TerminallyChill | 162 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 5

Lincoln was not a liberal, he was a staunch white supremist. His image is vastly sanitized and he only freed slaves as a tool of war not because of any "liberal" value system.

FDR did what he did to save capitalism.

Again, LBJ signed the civil rights in an act of opportunism

MLK is a just an integrationist coon who ruined the future of Black America for all eternity. He was the middleman of complacency to the black community

OddBeMe

1 mo
So many things wrong here...
TerminallyChill

1 mo
Ok so debunk it
OddBeMe

1 mo
I would but I have a allergic reaction to fucks who use the word “Coon”.

Answer 15

OddBeMe

So many things wrong here...

Answer 16

TerminallyChill

Ok so debunk it

Answer 17

OddBeMe

I would but I have a allergic reaction to fucks who use the word “Coon”.

Answer 18

Girther10 | 1.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

What an incredibly ignorant post so much is here I hardly know where to start but just from the beginning Lincoln was not a liberal so that blows your entire thesis all to hell

Answer 19

Meldrum | 148 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 6

Lincoln was a Republican back when being one was more liberal.

Answer 20

codyccc | 1.9K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Guru

Your four examples cover a period representing 0.08% of human history

OddBeMe

1 mo
Omg, I’m so embarrassed! How could I forget medieval liberals!
codyccc

1 mo
Still at only 0.2% of human history and 1000 years before liberalism even started
OddBeMe

1 mo
Ok, so I'll give conservatives the Dark Ages and liberals the 20th century. Thanks!
Show All Show Less
codyccc

1 mo
And everything from the invention and control of fire the wheel all measurements and laws democracy and the invention of most tool and weapons we still use today

Answer 21

OddBeMe

Omg, I’m so embarrassed! How could I forget medieval liberals!

Answer 22

codyccc

Still at only 0.2% of human history and 1000 years before liberalism even started

Answer 23

OddBeMe

Ok, so I'll give conservatives the Dark Ages and liberals the 20th century. Thanks!

Answer 24

codyccc

And everything from the invention and control of fire the wheel all measurements and laws democracy and the invention of most tool and weapons we still use today

Answer 25

joeldalton | 3.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

Lol, the new deal extended the misery of the depression.

OddBeMe

1 mo
Or... or... saved the nation.
joeldalton

1 mo
lol, no.

Answer 26

OddBeMe

Or... or... saved the nation.

Answer 27

joeldalton

lol, no.

Answer 28

Anonymous

Yeah including highest number of their own people murdered because that’s what leftism is about. Working against your own people. Everything leftists support is detrimental to their own group.

Answer 29

slatyb | 1.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Master

Pretty much. Today's dissidents and radicals are tomorrow's heroes.

TerminallyChill

1 mo
Liberals are dissident radicals? LMFAO

Answer 30

TerminallyChill

Liberals are dissident radicals? LMFAO

Answer 31

GAGSucksBalls1 | 246 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Xper 7

pre 1964 republicucks, did all that

after 1964, the republicucks, became just that

CUCKS

Answer 32

WowwGirl | 331 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

Yoda

🤔 ...

OddBeMe

1 mo
I'm counting on you to back me up here.
WowwGirl

1 mo
Okay then we can go shooting after.
Who the hell is LBJ.
If it's Johnson I have a story
WowwGirl

1 mo
Johnson and my great-grandfather were college roommates im a fan🙂
Show All Show Less
OddBeMe

1 mo
you serious? Where?
WowwGirl

1 mo
Texas😂😂😂
My great grandfather was later made a original member of nato by LJ once in office. I have a copy off the 100$ savings account johnson gave me for my first birth day. Southern tradition 100$ gift at a year. Bill Clinton I've known my whole life. I remember seeing him yearly when I was young before he was elected and was just governor of Arkansas

Tiny little world I guess
WowwGirl

1 mo
I my come from a political family maybe even a semi public one...

Maybe

Answer 33

OddBeMe

I'm counting on you to back me up here.

Answer 34

WowwGirl

Okay then we can go shooting after.
Who the hell is LBJ.
If it's Johnson I have a story

Answer 35

WowwGirl

Johnson and my great-grandfather were college roommates im a fan🙂

Answer 36

OddBeMe

you serious? Where?

Answer 37

WowwGirl

Texas😂😂😂
My great grandfather was later made a original member of nato by LJ once in office. I have a copy off the 100$ savings account johnson gave me for my first birth day. Southern tradition 100$ gift at a year. Bill Clinton I've known my whole life. I remember seeing him yearly when I was young before he was elected and was just governor of Arkansas

Tiny little world I guess

Answer 38

WowwGirl

I my come from a political family maybe even a semi public one...

Maybe

So... Liberals are responsible for every accomplishment in history, right?

Most Helpful Guys

What Girls & Guys Said

Related myTakes