Town Square

Post a New Topic

Thought For The Day...

Original post made by Ben, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on Jul 22, 2010

This article below stated clearly what I've been wrestling with for quite some time...that to be a liberal (by extention...a Democrat) is antithetical to believing in the freedoms on which this country was founded.

So it is hypocritical and impossible to be both a Democrat and believing in the (static...not 'living and breathing') Constitution.

On Liberalism >>> Web Link

I would greatly appreciate feedback on this article by those whose political beliefs are left of center.

Comments (10)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by radical
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 11:57 am

janna dublinmike, et al, please note the following passage

Most liberals still praise Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson while seeking to increase government and arrange a less free society. But liberalism has always been a silent repudiation of the Founders and founding principles -- and a hypocrisy. From the earliest days, liberals twisted themselves into pretzels trying to rationalize and justify their statism as one with the revolution and founding. When liberals can't persuade Americans that their beliefs square with those of the Founders, they fall to sophistry.

Main Entry: soph·ist·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈsä-fə-strē\
Function: noun

1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

...5 more paragraphs describing perfectly the leftie arguments typically found here...summed up by ...

"Make no mistake; the Founders would utterly repudiate statist liberalism."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ben
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 1:20 pm

Thank you Radical. Good follow-up. The author's comment that liberalism is based on moral relativism resonated with me. I've seen and read several liberal posters on this board that preach moral relativism.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 22, 2010 at 2:49 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

The blog post is just dumb. It is another shining example of one side defining the other side: propaganda. Let me ask if you ever were incensed by the way the Soviet Union defined the US?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ben
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 3:29 pm

Stacey,
I'd like more specifics from you regarding why you believe this article is "dumb." For convenience sake, I have copied and pasted it below.
_____

American Thinker
July 22, 2010
Delegitimizing Liberalism

By J. Robert Smith
Five decades after liberalism began to fail, it's still with us and finding potent ways to diminish liberty. Liberalism has -- or seems to have -- more lives than a cat. It's sustained principally by two things, both powerful: myth and interest. If liberalism as a political and societal force is ever to be marginalized, it first must be separated from the myth that it grows in the same garden of liberty and republican virtues as conservatism and libertarianism. Voters and the public need to learn and appreciate that liberalism is largely a statist creed alien to the nation's heritage.

Within the Tea Party movement, this message has resonated. But the challenge is to spread this message into broader communities, where the independent-minded and the independent voter have little or no familiarity with the argument that liberalism has never been moored to founding principles.

It's through myth that liberalism draws much of its legitimacy. Much of the myth is that liberalism partakes in a common heritage with the aforementioned conservatism and libertarianism (classical liberalism). We are, as liberals would like Americans to believe, all sons and daughters of the revolution; we share broadly in the principles that founded the nation.

But this is untrue. Liberalism's roots are in the middle to late 19th century, not in the late 1700s. It owes far more to Hegel, Marx, and Darwin than it does to Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton. Hamilton and the Federalists may have desired more energetic government, but they would react with jaw-dropping revulsion at today's statist liberalism. Modern liberalism, which is increasingly a captive of the hard left, is more and more a Marxist construct.

Liberalism is a rejection of the belief that there are universal and enduring truths. It's rooted in relativism and historicism, or the beliefs that truth is situational and changes throughout history and that human nature is malleable. And beginning in the middle to late 20th century, liberalism's march leftward divorced itself from the belief that Providence is the wellspring of liberty and the rights of man.

The great misapprehension by conservatives and freedom-loving Americans has been that liberalism's manifest failures, and conservatism's conspicuous successes, would marginalize liberalism (such was the prevailing conviction with the Carter debacle and Reagan's ascendancy). Empiricism was believed to the antidote to infectious liberalism. But such has not been the case.

Liberalism's claim to compassion, fairness, and equality (of result) resonates with a good portion of the electorate and the public. But, tellingly, liberals have always claimed that they aim to create a more compassionate, fairer, and equal society without diminishing the birthright of liberty. Liberals stoutly deny that consolidating power in a central government to achieve their ends tramples the Founders' intent -- or, moreover, that it reduces freedom.

Most liberals still praise Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson while seeking to increase government and arrange a less free society. But liberalism has always been a silent repudiation of the Founders and founding principles -- and a hypocrisy. From the earliest days, liberals twisted themselves into pretzels trying to rationalize and justify their statism as one with the revolution and founding. When liberals can't persuade Americans that their beliefs square with those of the Founders, they fall to sophistry.

Anyone who has sat through an undergraduate class in political science, political philosophy, or history has been subjected to the argument that there are such things as "negative" and "positive" freedom. However elegant or clever the arguments, there's nothing positive, nor is freedom regarded, when government uses the law and the implicit threat of force to achieve redistributionist ends. Forcibly taking from one person to enhance the "freedom" of another prostitutes the principle of freedom.

Is there really any doubt among honest men and women how Jefferson and Madison would view today's government overreach and mangling of the Constitution? Would these men see liberalism as benevolent or dangerous? Freedom-giving or freedom-taking?

As Thomas Jefferson wrote simply: "I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

The other fallback argument liberals make when confronted with their hypocrisy is truer from their standpoint. They argue that the Founders were right in their time, but the times changed. America at its founding was a raw nation of modest coastal commerce, little manufacturing, farmers, and frontier. Limited, decentralized government worked because it was a better fit for the nation as it was.

But with the industrial revolution, with the great influx of immigrants, America changed. Complexity came to the nation with industrialization and population diversity, and so government had to change fundamentally to meet the needs of the new America. Government needed to assume more of a role in the regulation of commerce; it had to attend to the welfare, betterment, and assimilation of immigrants. Government had to erase inequities amongst all Americans.

The argument that a complex America needed greater government, more centralization, and control in Washington reveals a convolution of reason and liberal conceit. If anything, complexity begs more freedom, not less. Simplicity is more susceptible to control. By that understanding, infant America should have been more amenable to strong central government. The notion that a complex America is better-run by a relative handful of Washington politicians and bureaucrats would be farcical if it weren't proving to be such a liability and danger to liberty.

Make no mistake; the Founders would utterly repudiate statist liberalism. After all, the men who made a revolution and then made a nation did so explicitly rejecting the statism of the day: monarchy. One need only read Jefferson and Madison, especially, to appreciate their fear of tyranny developing in the emerging national government. The Founders would be leading the opposition -- one thinks fiercely -- to Mr. Obama and the left.

In the American experience, while liberals have no legitimate claim to the Founders, they do have their ancestors. Modern liberalism is the descendant of early-20th-century progressivism, which was embodied by Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and yes, Teddy Roosevelt (progressivism enjoyed favor in both parties then -- at least portions of both). Roughly, Wilson is the liberals' Jefferson, while FDR is their Washington. But to read anything of Wilson's thoughts and ideas about government and its relationship to the people is to read a man who is nearly the antithesis of Jefferson.

Today, we are a nation divided; a nation, if you will, of two peoples with distinctly different heritages -- politically, at least. Liberty-loving Americans have Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Adam Smith, while statist liberals have Marx, Hegel, and Darwin -- and, lest we forget, Saul Alinsky. Freedom-loving Americans embrace the Founders, while statist liberals have Wilson and FDR. A solid majority of Americans are lovers of liberty, however. It's they who must be rallied to the great cause of reclaiming lost freedoms and returning government to its proper limited role in a free society.

Contemporary liberals mustn't be permitted to get away with making claims on the Founders or founding principles. The narrative against liberalism must include arguments as to why liberals are deeply divorced from the founding principles that make America truly free. Knowledge is power, and the more Americans are equipped to make right choices at the ballot box and in their daily lives, the greater the chances of marginalizing that century-long deviancy called liberalism.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Louise
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 3:55 pm

Ah, another copy/paste. A favorite among this forum.

Stacey - your efforts are commendable, but the notion of understanding why one faction should not try to define the other is likely lost in this thread.

However - the facsimile you offer is perfect.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 9:03 pm

"while statist liberals have Marx, Hegel, and Darwin "

Darwin?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 22, 2010 at 9:43 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Ben,

Buildings have an internal structure surrounded by a facade. The internal structure needs to be designed a certain way in order for the building to meet design requirements, such as being able to withstand an earthquake, a car crash, or meeting certain aesthetic principles. If there is no thought given to the internal structure, the building may just be temporary or even dangerous, likely to collapse upon the inhabitants.

Likewise, fine arguments also have an internal structure. Arguments, like buildings, need solid foundations upon which to stand. The whole blog post you pasted has a foundation with a major flaw. The blog post is a building built upon the subject of Liberalism. It says, "Liberalism is a rejection of the belief that there are universal and enduring truths." That's not Liberalism. The overriding feature of Liberalism is the value that it places upon a single universal and enduring truth called Liberty. What the author has done is created his foundation out of a "Straw Man". Web Link The author makes up his own definition of Liberalism and then builds a building upon it which falls down when the Big Bad Wolf huffs and then puffs. A child could go look up the definition of Liberalism in their student's dictionary and come to the same conclusion.

You wouldn't want to invest your time and money building your house upon a flawed foundation. You certainly wouldn't want to buy a house with such a flaw either. Hire a good home inspector.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 22, 2010 at 9:52 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Ben,

Perhaps you have an interest in the philosophy behind the founding of this country. I suggest you go look up John Locke and read what he wrote. I do recognize that what the author considers Liberalism is one of the ideas that developed out of Liberalism, but you can't apply such a narrow definition to the whole thing. There's neo and paleo conservatives too but who goes around claiming that the neos are the end-all-be-all of conservatism?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ben
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2010 at 9:58 pm

Stacey,
Thank you for providing more substance to your initial offhanded post. I will, however, place a great deal more credence in the author than your attempt at logic.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 23, 2010 at 9:14 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Ben,

Whatever. That's your prerogative. For those readers who have an interest in the concepts behind the arguments, Stanford has a good overview article about the philosophy at Web Link And here's the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Republicanism Web Link


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

The valley loses a distinguished and humble leader
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,452 views

My secret identity is revealed!
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 1,198 views