I was against the first war for that very reason. Why risk our lives for billionaires that don't give a shit about GI Joe taking in the head for their country?
But ... things have changed.
I would argue that nothing they haven't. Nothing has changed. Keep an eye on who gets the contracts to "rebuild" Iraq after we've torn it up.
Haliburton (Cheney's old company) just pulled out of the bidding.
Yes but the liberal ideas for government net expansion. A nanny welfare state is the ideal for "true" liberals because that is the only real way to guarantee equality for everyone.
I understand you're trying to be somewhat fair, but I must raise one objection. I doubt liberals would use the sexist term "nanny welfare state" (emphasis added) to describe their views. I think we all should be aware of that kind of rhetoric and avoid it whenever possible- especially when describing what "true" liberals want. From The Nation, a definition of both parties on those terms:
Quote:
It's easy for Republicans to seem manly, for the same reason pundits call the GOP the Daddy Party. Their tough-love style represents patriarchal values of strength and order. If the Democrats are (often disparagingly) called the Mommy Party, it's because their attitude expresses feminist values of empathy and equity. Democratic men are not less masculine than Republicans, but they tend to be less macho in their manner, reflecting an etiquette that allows both sexes to project power. This is also why Democratic women tend to be less courtly and decorated than the daughters of the GOP. When voters see these qualities in a candidate, they are reminded of the underlying sexual politics. If Democratic men seem weak and Democratic women all too strong, it has much less to do with character than with the angst that the party of feminism generates.
I understand you're trying to be somewhat fair, but I must raise one objection. I doubt liberals would use the sexist term "nanny welfare state" (emphasis added) to describe their views.
I have always had a problem with the term "welfare state," as well.
Well of course liberals wouldn't use the term "nanny welfare state" because for the most part it's used in the pejorative. I don't really mean it that way, it's just the quickest way to get at what I mean.
The "nanny" isn't mean to be sexist, it only reflects the idea of the government taking care of the people. I like to think of myself as fairly progressive on the sexism/racism front, I certainly don't mean it in a sexist way. There's nothing bad, to me, about being a "nanny".
As far as "welfare state" that is the perfect term (although it is also used in the pejorative in most cases). It is a state of government that revolves around providing for the welfare of its citizens. It's a "welfare state".
The pinnacle liberal government is a nanny welfare state that restricts speech so that minorities aren't offended or discriminated against. Equal to all.
Sure. And I'm not saying that you've misrepresented the gist of it all. I'm just saying that instead of "welfare state" I would prefer the term "a state that doesn't hate the poor or disabled" or "a state that recognizes that its chosen economic system necessitates unemployment."
You get what I mean, I suspect.
The term started out meaning (as you rightly point out) a state that is concerned for the welfare of its citizens and puts in place institutions to see to their well-being, and has become, for the right wing, a pejorative.
I think your characterizations of the left have been more or less on spot, which is to say that I think you've been more intelletcually honest than many folks are. And I, for one, appreciate it.
Sure. And I'm not saying that you've misrepresented the gist of it all. I'm just saying that instead of "welfare state" I would prefer the term "a state that doesn't hate the poor or disabled" or "a state that recognizes that its chosen economic system necessitates unemployment."
Well I don't think a libertarian government "hates" the poor or disabled or the minority, I think it merely ignores the populace is responsibile for social care.
It kind of works on the theory that if you're required to do something (provide tax money to the welfare state) you will do the bare minimum but if you are not required (and you know that care for the poor, insane, disabled was 100% on the society) you might be more inclined to help.
Not invalid, though certainly scary in the sense that it's not guaranteed.
I don't like either extreme, I think our current government is pretty damned good.
I don't like either extreme, I think our current government is pretty damned good.
Yup. And I argue that it doesn't do enough, especially in terms of education. But our ability to hash this out in a public forum is what's so cool about it all.
Interesting. I've always thought of "Neocon" as referring to conservatives who are activists instead of conservatives who are more, uh, conservative, i.e., moderate and cautious. I suppose that type of conservative is more the opposite of "radical" rather than "liberal." And now that I think about it, some of the more "moderate and cautious" conservatives, like Brent Scowcroft, were against the war. An invasion of Iraq is pretty radical, that's for sure, and in that sense not very conservative.
On the other hand I don't have a clear picture of what "paleoconservative" means. Just anyone who's not a neo-conservative? And is there such a thing as neo-liberal and paleo-liberal? I get the feeling that there's not much of a difference between neo-liberal and neo-conservative.
The term neo-conservative was coined to refer to those conservatives who had once been Democrats but who had joined with Republicans primarily because of national security issues. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, William Bennett, Norman Podhortez, John Richard Neuhaus and Irving Kristol are all neo-cons.
Paleo-cons use the term neocon to refer to Jewish conservatives. There's often a racialist tinge to their views. Samuel Francis and Pat Buchanan are paleo-cons.
I have heard the term neo-liberalism too but it doesn't have anything to do with a specific movement within the liberal camp. It's used in a somewhat Marxist critique of globalisation.
I guess when you say "similar countries" you refer to Western European countries. I would certainly agree with you here, as they are classic liberals in that they value equality over freedom.
...
Of course, this is all too obtuse to be useful or interesting. I'll stop now.
Equality over freedom? You're confusing "classic," "textbook" definitions of liberalism with Newt Gingrich's and Rush Limbaugh's definitions of liberalism. Any classic or textbook definition of liberalism, i.e., one not focused on the very recent American political scene, will describe liberalism as some combination of laissez-faire economics, anti-authoritarianism, and progressive values.
But I do agree that what you've written is obtuse, not useful, and uninteresting.
Even asking that question show's your either being obtuse or you are a moron. I'm guessing the former.
I'm guessing that refusing to back up a claim that you've made (that something had changed) means that you don't have any evidence to support it, and that you assume calling me names will somehow prove your point.
I'm guessing that refusing to back up a claim that you've made (that something had changed) means that you don't have any evidence to support it, and that you assume calling me names will somehow prove your point.
Equality over freedom? You're confusing "classic," "textbook" definitions of liberalism with Newt Gingrich's and Rush Limbaugh's definitions of liberalism. Any classic or textbook definition of liberalism, i.e., one not focused on the very recent American political scene, will describe liberalism as some combination of laissez-faire economics, anti-authoritarianism, and progressive values.
You are very defensive and apparently unable to extricate yourself from your partisan stronghold enough to discuss the sides theoretically.
What's with this Gingrich/Limbaugh crap? Do you think I listen to them or that their views actually color mine?
Liberalism places value on equality. If you want to say Western Europe is more liberal then you'll see exactly what I'm talking about, their freedoms are more restricted, by and large. Some of those nations actually have laws on the books that make it illegal to say something bad about the standing government. Why? To keep a nice, happy society going without too much dissent.
It's not that the liberal ideal is to throw freedom away, it's to choose equality over freedom when the two conflict.
I'm confused. Either you guys codify what you mean by all these -ism's or I'm just going to use the dictionary (which apparently isn't being used here).
Also, I think John McLaughlin is against, at least doesn't believe in the stated reasons for, this war. But he probably fits into the paleo-conservative description.
I'm confused. Either you guys codify what you mean be all these -ism's or I'm just going to use the dictionary (which apparently isn't being used here).
Also, I think John McLaughlin is against, at least doesn't believe in the stated reasons for, this war. But he probably fits into the paleo-conservative description.
Part of what's confusing here is that, historically, "liberalism" means modern-day conservative. It had to do with individual freedoms. JS Mill was a liberal, for instance, and his utilitarianism is one of the key texts of libertarianism in the US.
At some point, and I'm unclear about this myself (and I know a great deal about 19th century history), "liberal" comes to mean centralization and increased state control.
It's all in flux.
In short:
1) Republicans: small government advocates (think Thoreau), typically isolationist geopolitically
2) Democrats: large(er) government advocates, typically interventionist geopolitically
The emergence of the neo-conservatives has made this less clear, since they're in favor of US military dominance in the ME but care little for domestic policy. They are lumped within the republican party, but there are divisions between them.
In short, don't use the dictionary. Let it be complicated and fluid and nebulous. The less you're bogged down in -isms, the less prone you'll be to falling for propaganda from any side.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
I was against the first war for that very reason. Why risk our lives for billionaires that don't give a shit about GI Joe taking in the head for their country?
But ... things have changed.
I would argue that nothing they haven't. Nothing has changed. Keep an eye on who gets the contracts to "rebuild" Iraq after we've torn it up.
Haliburton (Cheney's old company) just pulled out of the bidding.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Scott
I knew some idiot would say something like that. Nothing's changed? You'd have to be a complete fool to think that.
Thanks. Nice argument there. Good sense of dialogue. Your inquisitiveness and intellectual honesty astound me.
Originally posted by groverat
Yes but the liberal ideas for government net expansion. A nanny welfare state is the ideal for "true" liberals because that is the only real way to guarantee equality for everyone.
I understand you're trying to be somewhat fair, but I must raise one objection. I doubt liberals would use the sexist term "nanny welfare state" (emphasis added) to describe their views. I think we all should be aware of that kind of rhetoric and avoid it whenever possible- especially when describing what "true" liberals want. From The Nation, a definition of both parties on those terms:
It's easy for Republicans to seem manly, for the same reason pundits call the GOP the Daddy Party. Their tough-love style represents patriarchal values of strength and order. If the Democrats are (often disparagingly) called the Mommy Party, it's because their attitude expresses feminist values of empathy and equity. Democratic men are not less masculine than Republicans, but they tend to be less macho in their manner, reflecting an etiquette that allows both sexes to project power. This is also why Democratic women tend to be less courtly and decorated than the daughters of the GOP. When voters see these qualities in a candidate, they are reminded of the underlying sexual politics. If Democratic men seem weak and Democratic women all too strong, it has much less to do with character than with the angst that the party of feminism generates.
The Neo Macho Man (pp. 3 of 4)
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
I understand you're trying to be somewhat fair, but I must raise one objection. I doubt liberals would use the sexist term "nanny welfare state" (emphasis added) to describe their views.
I have always had a problem with the term "welfare state," as well.
Cheers
Scott
The "nanny" isn't mean to be sexist, it only reflects the idea of the government taking care of the people. I like to think of myself as fairly progressive on the sexism/racism front, I certainly don't mean it in a sexist way. There's nothing bad, to me, about being a "nanny".
As far as "welfare state" that is the perfect term (although it is also used in the pejorative in most cases). It is a state of government that revolves around providing for the welfare of its citizens. It's a "welfare state".
The pinnacle liberal government is a nanny welfare state that restricts speech so that minorities aren't offended or discriminated against. Equal to all.
Using the classic, textbook sense of liberalism.
Originally posted by groverat
Using the classic, textbook sense of liberalism.
Sure. And I'm not saying that you've misrepresented the gist of it all. I'm just saying that instead of "welfare state" I would prefer the term "a state that doesn't hate the poor or disabled" or "a state that recognizes that its chosen economic system necessitates unemployment."
You get what I mean, I suspect.
The term started out meaning (as you rightly point out) a state that is concerned for the welfare of its citizens and puts in place institutions to see to their well-being, and has become, for the right wing, a pejorative.
I think your characterizations of the left have been more or less on spot, which is to say that I think you've been more intelletcually honest than many folks are. And I, for one, appreciate it.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Sure. And I'm not saying that you've misrepresented the gist of it all. I'm just saying that instead of "welfare state" I would prefer the term "a state that doesn't hate the poor or disabled" or "a state that recognizes that its chosen economic system necessitates unemployment."
Well I don't think a libertarian government "hates" the poor or disabled or the minority, I think it merely ignores the populace is responsibile for social care.
It kind of works on the theory that if you're required to do something (provide tax money to the welfare state) you will do the bare minimum but if you are not required (and you know that care for the poor, insane, disabled was 100% on the society) you might be more inclined to help.
Not invalid, though certainly scary in the sense that it's not guaranteed.
I don't like either extreme, I think our current government is pretty damned good.
Originally posted by groverat
I don't like either extreme, I think our current government is pretty damned good.
Yup. And I argue that it doesn't do enough, especially in terms of education. But our ability to hash this out in a public forum is what's so cool about it all.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by BRussell
Interesting. I've always thought of "Neocon" as referring to conservatives who are activists instead of conservatives who are more, uh, conservative, i.e., moderate and cautious. I suppose that type of conservative is more the opposite of "radical" rather than "liberal." And now that I think about it, some of the more "moderate and cautious" conservatives, like Brent Scowcroft, were against the war. An invasion of Iraq is pretty radical, that's for sure, and in that sense not very conservative.
On the other hand I don't have a clear picture of what "paleoconservative" means. Just anyone who's not a neo-conservative? And is there such a thing as neo-liberal and paleo-liberal? I get the feeling that there's not much of a difference between neo-liberal and neo-conservative.
The term neo-conservative was coined to refer to those conservatives who had once been Democrats but who had joined with Republicans primarily because of national security issues. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, William Bennett, Norman Podhortez, John Richard Neuhaus and Irving Kristol are all neo-cons.
Paleo-cons use the term neocon to refer to Jewish conservatives. There's often a racialist tinge to their views. Samuel Francis and Pat Buchanan are paleo-cons.
I have heard the term neo-liberalism too but it doesn't have anything to do with a specific movement within the liberal camp. It's used in a somewhat Marxist critique of globalisation.
Originally posted by groverat
I guess when you say "similar countries" you refer to Western European countries. I would certainly agree with you here, as they are classic liberals in that they value equality over freedom.
...
Of course, this is all too obtuse to be useful or interesting. I'll stop now.
Equality over freedom? You're confusing "classic," "textbook" definitions of liberalism with Newt Gingrich's and Rush Limbaugh's definitions of liberalism. Any classic or textbook definition of liberalism, i.e., one not focused on the very recent American political scene, will describe liberalism as some combination of laissez-faire economics, anti-authoritarianism, and progressive values.
But I do agree that what you've written is obtuse, not useful, and uninteresting.
Originally posted by midwinter
Thanks. Nice argument there. Good sense of dialogue. Your inquisitiveness and intellectual honesty astound me.
And your complete stupidity astound me. Maybe for your sake it's ignorance. "Nothing has changed" what a stupid thing to say
Originally posted by Scott
And your complete stupidity astound me. Maybe for your sake it's ignorance. "Nothing has changed" what a stupid thing to say
Wow. Again. Nice. Care to explain what's changed?
Originally posted by midwinter
Wow. Again. Nice. Care to explain what's changed?
Even asking that question show's your either being obtuse or you are a moron. I'm guessing the former.
Originally posted by Scott
Even asking that question show's your either being obtuse or you are a moron. I'm guessing the former.
I'm guessing that refusing to back up a claim that you've made (that something had changed) means that you don't have any evidence to support it, and that you assume calling me names will somehow prove your point.
It won't.
Originally posted by midwinter
I'm guessing that refusing to back up a claim that you've made (that something had changed) means that you don't have any evidence to support it, and that you assume calling me names will somehow prove your point.
It won't.
Yawn.
Originally posted by Scott
Yawn.
Excellent point. So things have changed so much between Gulf War I and Gulf War II that you're sleepy? What's changed? I'm asking. You brought it up.
Originally posted by BRussell
Equality over freedom? You're confusing "classic," "textbook" definitions of liberalism with Newt Gingrich's and Rush Limbaugh's definitions of liberalism. Any classic or textbook definition of liberalism, i.e., one not focused on the very recent American political scene, will describe liberalism as some combination of laissez-faire economics, anti-authoritarianism, and progressive values.
You are very defensive and apparently unable to extricate yourself from your partisan stronghold enough to discuss the sides theoretically.
What's with this Gingrich/Limbaugh crap? Do you think I listen to them or that their views actually color mine?
Liberalism places value on equality. If you want to say Western Europe is more liberal then you'll see exactly what I'm talking about, their freedoms are more restricted, by and large. Some of those nations actually have laws on the books that make it illegal to say something bad about the standing government. Why? To keep a nice, happy society going without too much dissent.
It's not that the liberal ideal is to throw freedom away, it's to choose equality over freedom when the two conflict.
Also, I think John McLaughlin is against, at least doesn't believe in the stated reasons for, this war. But he probably fits into the paleo-conservative description.
Originally posted by THT
I'm confused. Either you guys codify what you mean be all these -ism's or I'm just going to use the dictionary (which apparently isn't being used here).
Also, I think John McLaughlin is against, at least doesn't believe in the stated reasons for, this war. But he probably fits into the paleo-conservative description.
Part of what's confusing here is that, historically, "liberalism" means modern-day conservative. It had to do with individual freedoms. JS Mill was a liberal, for instance, and his utilitarianism is one of the key texts of libertarianism in the US.
At some point, and I'm unclear about this myself (and I know a great deal about 19th century history), "liberal" comes to mean centralization and increased state control.
It's all in flux.
In short:
1) Republicans: small government advocates (think Thoreau), typically isolationist geopolitically
2) Democrats: large(er) government advocates, typically interventionist geopolitically
The emergence of the neo-conservatives has made this less clear, since they're in favor of US military dominance in the ME but care little for domestic policy. They are lumped within the republican party, but there are divisions between them.
In short, don't use the dictionary. Let it be complicated and fluid and nebulous. The less you're bogged down in -isms, the less prone you'll be to falling for propaganda from any side.
Cheers
Scott