Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Liberalism is Irresponsi​ble (111 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Let me see here, move over I'm reading... (7+ / 0-)

    Paragraph 1. Liberals and Conservatives are divided by the old "Makers vs Takers" canard.

    Paragraph 2. The result of the the disagreement is that they struggle for power.

    Paragraph 3. Liberals have a problem because they want to find a way to get things done with as little conflict as possible.

    Paragraph 4. Since Liberals are pragmatic their last two presidents have failed because they haven't been able to pound conservatives into the dust of history.

    Paragraph 5. Liberals would be better off if they weren't so sensitive about labeling, all of the "ists", and all the other kinds of profiling. Is that about it?

    "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

    by high uintas on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 09:04:48 PM PDT

    •  You seem to have some understanding. (0+ / 0-)

      But you are struggling to understand paragraph 3. What is it that liberals are trying to get done? And what are the conditions for success in getting this done?

      It is not just that Clinton and Obama have failed to achieve an unprecedented victory over the right, they have essentially aided the right in pursuing a less integrated and more impoverished nation.

      For paragraph 5, it is not just that liberals have a healthy sensitivity to labels that might be carelessly and blithely used by Anglo Saxon aristocrats, but controlling the use of sociological labels for political advantage in the framework of identity politics seems to be the extent of postmodern liberals' vision.

      There will always be plenty of things to compute in the detailed affairs of millions of people doing complicated things. -Vannevar Bush 1945

      by Nathan Jaco on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 09:26:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe try your analysis using a few liberals, (12+ / 0-)

        and see if it still works. During the last 30 years, even the term "liberal" has been perverted. Additionally, what is called "conservative" now really should be "reactionary." Doesn't that skew your whole theory?

        •  I cannot deny that the shifting meaning of these (0+ / 0-)

          terms is problematic when using them for pure analysis. But the facts of reality have shifted at least as much as the meaning of these terms. Contemporary conservatives are reactionaries, and this is true across the pond. But what counts as liberalism today, in say the establishment media or press, fits fairly tidily with my use of the term postmodern liberalism. So I think there is value to my critique, even without an self-referential adumbration of the evolution of the terms I use. Nor am I going to go to the trouble to historicize every term in every article I write in order to make sure that the contextual framework is as precise as possible. It is difficult enough for me to use language with precision when conveying content.

          There will always be plenty of things to compute in the detailed affairs of millions of people doing complicated things. -Vannevar Bush 1945

          by Nathan Jaco on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 06:17:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Have you (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lonely Texan, nmjardine, avsp, terrybuck, SuWho

        been paying attention to what is happening right now in both houses? At all? Philosophy goes out the window when you see what's really at stake.

        •  Politics is a game of cooperative and competitive (0+ / 0-)

          strategy and the stakes are very serious. The stakes are the domination of a powerhouse government budget which can change marginally and still have dramatic effects on the lives of real flesh-and-blood people. I don't take the gravity of the situation lightly. But I also see how liberal politics bears on the distribution of resources for those people and feel it merits comment. The philosphic nature of this cultural criticism doesn't make it a trivial dalliance.

          There will always be plenty of things to compute in the detailed affairs of millions of people doing complicated things. -Vannevar Bush 1945

          by Nathan Jaco on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 06:23:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The conservative, rational and responsible (7+ / 0-)

      course of action is to maximize earning potential and negotiation power of all corporations and organizations in which one is invested, including the government of the United States of America. You may not realize it, but the US government does pay benefits (or dividends if you will) to the citizens of the United States in the form of military protection, Social Security, Medicare, police protection, affordable postal services, highways, bridges, airports, airplanes, railways, Amtrak, currency, national parks, electrical systems, sewage systems, antitrust protections, college educations, and the list goes on. All true conservatives wish to conserve the functioning of essential governmental agencies. Rational and responsible citizens support the negotiation power of the USA. Anything less limits your bargaining power and leaves money on the table that could benefit you.

      If we abandon our allies and their issues, who will defend us and ours?

      by Bryce in Seattle on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 10:09:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That was intended as a comment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        high uintas

        on the original post not reply to your comment.
        My bad.

        If we abandon our allies and their issues, who will defend us and ours?

        by Bryce in Seattle on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 10:11:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How is this insight demonstrated in the behavior (0+ / 0-)

        of the group action of organizations which self-identify as conservative today?

        There will always be plenty of things to compute in the detailed affairs of millions of people doing complicated things. -Vannevar Bush 1945

        by Nathan Jaco on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 06:24:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  To my great disappointment, (0+ / 0-)

          I can rarely find “organizations which self-identify as conservative today” who would support any of the above with the exception of military and boarder protection.

          Conservatives have spent most of their time over the last six years attempting to reduce tax collection on a small minority of the population while hoping against evidence that it will create general prosperity, and dismantling government agencies regardless of the consequences.

          Make no mistake, “conservatives” are socialists when it comes to investment in for profit corporations, and advocate “free market” solutions in the case labor markets.

          I suspect that you are attempting to understand liberal and conservative rhetoric. Remember that most party rhetoric consist of spin, emotionally salient lies chosen to motivate their base. The vast majority of people are not rational, rather they base their action on emotion. If you want to know what a party truly believes, then consider their actions.

          Within our current political framework “a goal-directed moral opponent of the concentration of material resources” is impossible because of the blatant propaganda know as “the red scare” and “red bating” that was powerful in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

          If we abandon our allies and their issues, who will defend us and ours?

          by Bryce in Seattle on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:23:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site