Skip to main content

View Diary: I'm In. (87 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And to clarify.. (0+ / 0-)

    There may be people who describe themselves as liberals who are against the MIC and its control, but in general, liberalism is notoriously pro-finance and socially centrist or at best center-left, like the Democrats who went along with the Vietnam War and the Iraq War.  The Democratic party has been brought near ruin by them.

    There is a difference between liberal and leftist.  If we are to have an end to abominations like the drone war, we need more of the latter.  I make no apology for characterizing liberalism as being pro-capital and pro-imperialism.  History shows it to be so.

    Any significant cut to the social safety net ends my support for the Democratic party.

    by MrJayTee on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 08:09:01 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  We might be on the same side on this issue, but (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, Quicklund

      I continue to take issue with your thinking you can put people into these nice little boxes and define words and labels to fit your arguments.

      I'm a liberal.  I have no problem with capitalism, except that it, like all economic theories, works in theory only and not in reality, and this country is far, far from even the theory of capitalism.  It's some strange system that puts risk on the shoulders of the public and profits to the already wealthy.  I do have a problem  with imperialism in all its guises and forms.  Yet I'm a liberal.  

      Few people fit in the boxes, so painting with a broad brush is nearly never productive.

      "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

      by gustynpip on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 08:42:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Again, whoa! (0+ / 0-)

        Having a difference of opinion on the meaning of "liberal" isn't the same as putting "people into these nice little boxes".  You've made way too much soup from one oyster.  What we have here is a difference of opinion over a definition.

        Now, it's fair to say not everyone agrees with my definition; and I recognize your right to define yourself any way you like, but I also recognize my own right to look at the history of that definition and judge for myself whether it applies.  Looking at the liberal parties of Western imperial nations and their behavior internationally, liberalism has cohabited quite peacefully with imperialism for well over 200 years, particularly in the United States.  

        That may not describe you, however you define yourself, but it does describe much of liberalism.

        •  You made my point. As you now say "much" of (0+ / 0-)

          liberalism.  Whereas in your original post you stated "this is what liberals believe."  You certainly have the right to use whatever language you believe applies and I have the right to call you on it.

          "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

          by gustynpip on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 12:39:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK. (0+ / 0-)

            I'll say "most" or "much of" in similar contexts.

            This doesn't negate the historically comfortable relationship between liberalism and imperialism, but it respects the feelings of people who self-identify as liberals, but differ from liberalism on key points like imperialism.

            Fair enough?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site