Not long ago, September 2009 to be exact, Random House published The Death of Conservatism by New York Times Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus, which, according to Publisher’s Weekly, “argues that Republicans must moderate their focus on ideological purity if they are to return from the political wilderness.” The same review also tells us the book “argues that the contemporary Right define[s] itself less by what it yearns to conserve than by what it longs to destroy — and that pragmatic Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have usurped the Republicans’ once winning focus on social stability.”
Well, fourteen short months later, we could all say to Tanenhaus — depending on our level of rudeness and vulgarity — hardeeharhar, ROTFLMAO, or eat my shorts.
But this isn’t to make fun of the editor – or even to get back at him (well, maybe a little) for there having been no review of my latest book in the NYTBR when all the previous ten, written when I was a liberal, had one.
No, this is to point out how treacherous, even foolhardy, political predictions are. Nevertheless, I am going to make one. For the foreseeable future, liberalism is dead. To go further, as the great Preston Sturges once said of chivalry, liberalism “is not only dead, it’s decomposed.”
Whence comes this decomposition? Primarily from the fact that society is aging so fast it can no longer afford liberalism’s various Ponzi schemes engendered by Keynesian economics. We can barely pay these entitlements now, which are the principal ornaments of liberalism, let alone in the future. Then it will be a disaster. We’re all growing broke. Some of us are just going broke faster. And going broke fastest of all may be the United States of America.
Just remember that a dead rattlesnake can still deliver a lethal bite for some time after death.
More like the death of everything. Whenever Democrats and Republicans agree on anything the public should be very afraid. When Reagan and the Democrats “saved” Social Security by raising the rates and increasing the earnings ceiling I knew this day would come. I didn’t, but most folks believed the bullshit that the 15% of what they earned payed into SS would be there for them when they retired. Even Tea Party people will not understand when they find out it is gone and they will never get what they were promised. It was a great scheme while it lasted. Politicians got to spend the money and mask the real deficit, the public got a false sense of security. However now the outgo is higher than the income and not only do we have to fund current expenses by taxes and borrowing, but the SS cashflow has dried up and in fact is also requiring money from the dried up tit. Means testing is coming and if there is one lesson the American public should learn from this it is to never trust the government.
well said, although I anticipate that the same ‘fix’ of the eighties will be used again.
You are now recognising what older populations in european countries have known. Through their skins. Having been subjected again and again to outright war in their own lands, in their own societies however small. They have known that persons/ groups seeking power use any and all means to assure accession to and cotinuation in power OVER PEOPLE. No other power is of any value.
And they ALWAYS use other people to obtain their power. Other people who do their bidding. Their allies, acolytes, priests,ringmasters, teachers, jailers, lawyers, governments. History of society, no matter where, no matter when. And so older europeans know, and where possible teach their children, those lessons in your last statement: NEVER trust the government.
It was precisely that knowledge which induced the Founding Fathers of the USA to set down the restrictions on power, IN LAW, in a Country of Law in the Separation of Powers.
The founding documents are written in the common language and can be understood by any citizen interested enough to read them. 29 pages, NOT thousands.
Unfortunately such is the attitude of humans in society that they elect, more evident as the years have passed and the UNACCOUNTABLE influence media have become most powerful with that wizards’ wand television, persons who have no respect for the foundations of the nation which provides them their privileges and rights. But like the vultures, the hyenas they are see only those who are WILLING to sell their freedom for a pittance : the promise, never fulfulled. And never intended of fulfillment by the flim-flam men they call elected politicians.
The promise to be taken care of from cradle to grave. Regression from responsible, respectable, respectful adults to mewling,demanding infants. And of course, why not, those “elected” politicians, any party any colouration, give the electors the respect they deserve : contempt.
Oddly those who are the flim-flam men/women IN A COUNTRY OF LAW, who not only do not respect that law, but use it as a defense of their own unlawful behaviour in the singular and the gross,are in the main LAWYERs. Who take an oath to Uphold and Defend the Constitution of the USA.
So much for lawyers respect for a freely taken oath when it encroaches on their desires for power OVER people. ALWAYS of course “for the good of the people”. Lawyers who elected to Congress/Senate have manifestly failed their duty under the Separation of Powers to limit any officer /office whether Executive, Judiciary, OR Legislature in their uses of powers of their offices which are LIMITED BY THE LAW OF THE LAND.
WAR. At the present time not armed, but populations who take against populations who are required by LAW to provide the taking populations that keep the lawyer elected politician flim-flam men in their offices. To dole out the moneys expropriated UNDER LAW.
In other times when language was more robust this would be called what it undoubtedly is, GANGSTER GOVERNMENT. In expensive clothes with smooth manners.
To your last comment : NEVER trust the government as it has developed within the past half century in the USA. Culmoinating in this present administration. ALWAYS “for the good of the people”,
It was precisely that knowledge which led the Founding Fathers of the USA to the restrictions in LAW in a Country of Law recorded in the foundation legal document of the USA. In ordinry language, so that EVERY CITIZEN may read and understand.
Thankyou for your post,Jojo.It is thought provoking and well written.What you said about our founding fathers is food for thought.I have always looked upon them as being very bright and educated,but never really thought a lot about how well they understood the nature of the type of scoundrels who would willingly bring a civilization to it’s knees,all out of lust for power.They witnessed the same type in their own time,and knew them well I guess.T.
Down here in NZ, one of our academics produced some amazing graphs of the last 30 years of polling on income inequality.
In about half a dozen metrics on inequality he showed that people had lost interest in arguments about “fairness” in income distribution.. to the point where interest in such stuff has halved.
In the political section he showed that our Labour Party had changed direction from class warfare to inequality of race, gender and sexuality over 30 years; and in the wake of a solid thumping at the polls in 2008.. has reverted to some aspects of class warfare.. a sure loser, but where else can they go when all the battles have been either won or died for lack of interest?
The left will be back, but only because it has discovered another “ism” to promote or decry.. but hey.. it beats working!
JC
What more are starting to understand with regard to the left is that it is not about solving problems and improving lives but acquiring power and wealth.
“For the foreseeable future, liberalism is dead.”
The Democratic Party as a national entity is probably dead. It will be viable only in the bluest of areas. Once in awhile the Democrats might win in a purple state area—only if their candidate pretends to be a Republican. They will remain in control of states like California, New York, and Illinois. In other words, the Democrats will politically run states that must find a way to legally declare bankruptcy. The red states will get wealthier. They should also find it easier to capture 270 electoral votes.
Sam Tanenhaus failed to look at the empirical data. The majority of American people voted for Barack Obama because they were conned into believing he was a center-right candidate. This was not a mystery when Tannenhaus’ book was released. He was simply not paying attention.
The people were conned because the MSM was so convinced of Obama’s awesomeness they didn’t bother looking into his background. Even now, two years after he took office, we’re learning new bits and pieces about his shadowy background. The latest was deep down in a long story in today’s NYTimes. It turns out that his mother — what a piece of work she was — hired a transvestite as Obama’s nanny when they lived in Indonesia. Couple that with the Marxist poet and pedophile the grandparents later chose as a black role model and you begin to get an understanding of Obama’s inability to connect emotionally with other people. Then there is the “personal trainer” named Love who travels everywhere with the president. A big guy, good looking. As far as I know, this relationship has never been subjected to any kind of analysis whatever. You can imagine the attention the media would give this if Republicans were involved.
Roger, I am so frustrated at the moment, I could spit nails.
First, I have been saying for some time now that liberals are gone, the leftists ate them. I defined in a comment to Roger Kimball on these very pages what I thought was the difference between a liberal and a leftist.
Second, words that we allow to be adopted matter. I am sick and tired of calling “crisis socialists”, anarchists, communists and Maoists by COMPLIMENTARY names. They are not “progressive”, “elite”, or “liberal”…and the media in their pocket is not “mainstream”. There is a difference between being stupid and being willfully ignorant. We are not the stupid, mouthbreathing, Troglodyte, Neanderthal, tobacco chewing, NASCAR loving, racist, warmongering, xenophobic, greedy, religious snake handlers these charlatans make us out to be.
But we remain wilfully ignorant of their tactics and worse, their strategies that are now fully out in the open.
I will debate anyone…and I mean anyone…including some of the good-hearted but myopic people who have by-lines here, AFTER they read cover to cover from Stanley Kurtz’s book, Radical-In-Chief….about the importance of recognizing the signs and signals of the death of liberals and how the leftists have swallowed them whole…with our help.
We have let them live in our spare bedrooms in this country and the rent is too damn high.
We do not recognize while we use words and phrases cavalierly, they use words and phrases as weapons.
We use their words and phrases, we adopt them…and wind up cementing propaganda into our very culture. We are being played for fools.
Understand this, I am a lifelong centrist. I have argued and debated on these very pages for things that fall on the left side of the spectrum on a number of social issues. But, after reading Kurtz’s book, I am sounding the alarm. It connects the dots on a number of things that are taking place today. I know the people in this book. I was there. I remember the players and remember the events, live and up close.
Anyone forming an opinion about what is taking place today, in every level of government, at our polling places, the banking and mortgage meltdown, the health care legislation, cap and trade, the card check attempt by the unions, the SEIU, ACORN and its thousands of satellites…your opinion is devalued down to nearly nothing if you do not read this book.
It would be the equivalent of someone speaking about our Judeo-Christian heritage without reading the Bible. Or trying to understand Islam without understanding the use of the Koran.
You simply cannot connect the appropriate dots.
There is a fascism that goes beyond what Jonah Goldberg has written about in his wonderful book…although it is not “Liberal” fascism, it’s leftist fascism.
And there are element of union thuggery, police state type tactics and strategies at work…that you cannot see and will not understand unless and until you connect these dots.
I know these people. I was right there when this all germinated. And I didn’t connect the dots until I read Kurtz’s book last week. When he detailed how hundreds of people surrounded the house of bank executives, or cornered Senator Chuck Percy and had him blocked into a woman’s bathroom.
When ACORN/SEIU stormed a meeting at Citibank.
It explains why the Ted Rall’s, Spencer Ackerman’s and Dylan Ratigan’s are furious and are fantasizing about violence.
Why the Justice Department refuses to prosecute on behalf of a race-neutral society and allows police state thuggery at our polling places.
Wilful ignorance and myopia will lead us to continue to use the very words and phrases, adopt the sloppy infusion of propaganda into our very culture. There are no more liberals. The liberals are dead. The leftists ate them. And they are still hungry…they are coming for the independents next.
Fail to connect the dots…and continue to opine at your own peril. I am a centrist. I am a live and let live softee on social issues. But I am sounding the alarm. Read the damn book. As if your life depended upon it.
Then, and only then…can you debate me on what is truly taking place today. (and I mean, my friends here…not the trolls who cannot be reasoned with). This is much deeper than you realize. We dodged a major bullet. But the chambers are still fully loaded.
cfbleachers: Brevity is the soul of wit.
Ok, Pedro. For those who like pithy rather than details.
1)Liberalism is dead, it has been replaced by rampant, unchecked leftism.
2)Leftism, is wholly and completely misunderstood by 98% of non-leftists.
3) Allowing oneself to be ignorant of the tactics and strategies has serious consequences.
4)People are not paying attention.
cfbleachers: Responding to an article does not require a tome every time in response.
Pedro, I get compliments on my comments, I get folks who don’t like them.
If you like short ones…scroll until you find one you like. What makes little sense to me, is taking time to comment on something you don’t like to read.
Others do. Again, that’s what the scroll button is for.
Pedro, that wasn’t a “tome” much less a “tome every time”. Who appointed you censor? Click on your scroll bar if you can’t handle a very short essay.
How’s this for brevity?: Pedro is an unsolicited editor dork.
Pedro,
Thought’s not wit. Go to Twit.
“There is a difference between being stupid and being willfully ignorant.”
Truer words were never written. Actually, there is a difference between being stupid and being willfully stupid. The willfully ignorant are exactly that, willfully stupid.
Repent! The world is coming to an end! (But how are you going to get that screed out there, even if you use both a sign AND a sandwich board?)
I guess I’ll read the book. I’ve come to the same conclusion without reading the book. Although, I have believed that the real crisis will hit in ’11, and I’ve believed that for over 10 years now, with no knowledge of Obama, just the trends that created him. By the CPUSA’s own admission, they’ve been a major force in the progressive movement since 1919. I think the expectation was a period of normalization with the Obama agenda.
Now expect a new crisis.
Nice piece Roger btw.
Bear
You are one of the smartest commenters here, I also came to the same broad conclusions prior to reading the book.
Trust me, I’m not prone to alarmist tendencies, have moderate and tempered views on most issues, but the information contained in this book are eye-opening for those who are good at connecting the dots. There is much more than meets the eye. Much more.
Thanks, well put..
“…although it is not “Liberal” fascism, it’s leftist fascism…”
Ah, you mean it’s National Socialism (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)!
The most unique non-religious event in human history occurred in 1776, right here in North America. Because of a combination of factors, people who weren’t aristocrats were able to overthrow their rulers.
It started a chain of events that freed billions of people from serfdom and lifted the wealth of many of those billions to levels that only aristocrats could have dreamed of before that revolution.
Since that moment, old and wishfully new aristocrats have been dreaming and scheming to put the old order back in place. With Karl Marx, they discovered the greatest con of all time, wrapped in perfume and incense. That triggered the counterrevolution that this week is known as progressivism.
But you can call it royalism, socialism, liberalism, marxism, communism, the green movement…or horse patootie. It’s all the same thing. They want to rule absolutely…over us. And they are willing do ANYTHING to achieve that goal, up to and including killing millions of us to achieve that power.
proreason – I agree with you that the US was the first society that effectively freed people from a two-class societal structure, of Rulers and Ruled – and put governance strictly in the control of all citizens. This set-of-citizens is the Middle Class, a class made up of people whose benefits and well-being in life are the result of their own work, not their hereditary status.
What the socialists are attempting to do, is destroy this middle class and return them to serfdom and the US/world, to a two-class structure. With themselves as Rulers.
We have, now, in the US, a massive battle with the Left, the Socialists, attempting to insert a statist structure, depriving the middle class of any and all legislative and economic power. This is George Soros – and Pelosi, Reid, Franks etc..along with their network of bureaucrats (unions, govt workers, academics, public employees). Their upfront salesman was Obama, but he seems to be failing in this task. They’ll sideline him – send him off on more empty Teleprompter Speeches to foreign countries and golf.
But, they aren’t going to give up on their agenda. Pelosi and others won’t back down. Soros has no intention of giving up. What will this Set of radicals do? I wonder if they will, realizing that they can’t insert statism by legislative means – will they set up some crisis, so that they can insert it by executive means? That’s what I’m worried about – the fiscal, economic or even terrorist crisis – that will enable them to sideline the legislature and the people. Perhaps it’s a paranoid thought.
I’m way more paranoid than you. I’m shocked they didn’t pull something big just before the election and suspect that some of the events just before were ‘crises’ that didn’t work out.
I also believe that the Sept/Oct 2008 meltdown was staged to get Obama elected. There are far too many once-in-a-lifetime events that happened in those two months for it not to have been a setup job. Of course, I’m in a tiny minority on that topic, but even so, it is amazing to me that nobody is asking questions about it. Maybe I’m just too old to be worried about what sheeple think about me.
And I will be very surprised if they confine themselves to the “normal ebb and flow of politics” for the next two years. If the economy improves of its own volition, maybe they will tamp down their naturally violent tendencies, but if the tea partiers stay enraged and engaged, the criminals won’t be satisfied to go into another election without a dominant hand.
proreason – yes, I’d agree that the 2008 fall meltdown was quite possibly staged. They HAD to get Obama elected because he was, they assumed, their upfront messianic salesman ..and they’d get their policies through behind his charismatic and totally manipulative and misinforming speeches.
It has worked – in part.They got health care through, and their health care has nothing to do with health care – which will fall apart within its structure. It is actually an enormous take-over of the government and a reduction in the power of private enterprise and the freedom of individuals.. by a set of unelected Rulers. But then came the Tea Party.
I don’t think this Gang ever thought of the Tea Party. They never, as well, thought about the Internet and blogs and the power of instant information movement, of immediate rebuttals of their myths and misinformation. They didn’t count on the power of FOX. Nor that Palin would quit a restrictive role as governor and move into the freedom of being the voice of The People. They’ve tried to silence dissent – and it’s been quite something to watch them smear and belittle the American people; watch them insert racial, ethnic and class divisions and set people up as adversaries to each other.
So- now they are faced with these realities. I wonder what they will do to essentially reduce and remove the Power of the American people, so that they can sideline the legislature and get their statist structure in place. The only thing I can think of…is a crisis.
I’m reasonably sure you’re not paranoid. I was convinced of that when it was happening. The run up in oil prices and the un-winding at hedge fund firms well in advance of the ‘peak’ of the crisis convinced me. Look at the firms that did the best and you know who was on the leading edge of the collapse
As for the staging prior to the 08 election, it is my very strong belief that Schmucky Schumer got the entire meltdown rolling with his release of a letter suggesting that IndyMac Bank was under-captilized and illiquid. This release occurred in June or July 2008. Panic broke out and depositors started a run on the bank. This in my mind was the trigger for the meltdown, although I have not researched the entire episode of events to be dead certain. I can tell you that the release of the letter was absolutely nefarious and politically staged for maximum damage. My suspicion is that it succeeded even beyond Schumer’s wildest expectations.
You left out how masterfully those community-organizing leftists have disguised their crusade as ‘democratic’ (it aint), the vast and well-organized network of training academies constantly growing more tactically-trained leftists, and the enormous funding they receive from NGOs, foundations and taxpayers – particularly after 2008.
Precisely, IS….and there is even more to the story than that.
We need to put down the Fred Astaire foot placements, so that everyone who cares, can follow precisely how this works.
I love VDH, Jonah Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Barone, Thomas Sowell, Jennifer Rubin …and our own Roger Simon.
I read everything they write. (as well as many others).
But, in my opinion, we all need to sit down and let Stanley Kurtz have the lectern for a moment. We need to stop, take a breath…and listen. Stanley did the grunt work, then pieced together the results and now we all need to understand how to connect the dots…together.
Strongly agree that Stanley Kurtz deserves huge credit for his research coup illuminating Obama’s hidden and mendacious support network, and that he should maximize his turn at the lectern.
But like Arthur Koestler, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and Robert Conquest, Kurtz is one single voice. All three of those writers proved key to convincing the general public that totalitarian leftism was not the benevolent movement of ‘the people’ that the bamboozled intellectuals of the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s took it for.
But until general discussion in public media directed far more attention to them than just the readership of their books would have, they alone were insufficient to significantly begin the opinion wave that carried away the heirs of the murderous Lenin, Stalin & Co.
Hence, independent media like PJM are well advised to shine as much light as possible on Kurtz’s findings, to jump-start and reinforce the opinion wave which should likewise be generated by ‘Radical-in-Chief’. Because it’s unlikely that MSM, still part of Obama’s support group, will take up the reporting of that news until it perceives itself outflanked and caught flatfooted – in fact, I’d expect it to begin by pouring calumny, instead of shining light, on Kurtz’s findings.
Brilliant, IS…positively brilliant. I agree with every word, wish I had written them myself. Thank you
I know you dislike substituting progressive for leftist and vice versa and understand why, but I still believe it is important to enforce the distinction between being liberal on issues and progressive in agenda. It is the false perception of liberal as the opposite of conservative (rather than the opposite side of the moderate coin) that feeds the impression that liberals have been subsumed by the left. Leftists ARE progressives – those who believe that all things must flow from top down social engineering.
I consider myself a moderate on many issues, and even nudge liberal on a few. But I am also a conservative. I know a lot of people who are liberal on most issues, but reject the idea of government control of their lives. Good, ethical, honest, people. I could not say the same about any progressive that I know personally or professionally.
A reaffirmation of the rights AND responsibilities of the individual and the limits of the federal government via a constitutional convention is long past due. By about 90 years or so. And if the fallout is that irreconcilable differences between the blue progressive states and the red conservative states means a breakup, I’m good with that. I also would be fine with any level of armed resistance to progressivism if it can’t be consigned to the ash heap by other means before we see a repeat of the 1930′s.
BTW: I am from Mass and know exactly what that might mean to my state.
JPT
I understand your analysis. I don’t disagree with much, if any, of it at all. In fact, in some ways it explains my own stance on issues quite well.
I differ in the manner in which I see leftists and “progressives”.
There is nothing “progressive” about Keynesian economics, an abject failure of epic proportions. There is nothing “progressive” about Mao-ism, “crisis socialism”, or crypto-anarchy.
I refuse to use the term “progressive” because it is not aimed inwardly it is aimed at everyone who doesn’t adhere with cult-ish zealotry …as being “regressive”.
I refuse to call the Pocket Media “mainstream” because that infuses their propaganda with a credibility it no longer deserves and shields it from the contempt that it richly deserves.
I refuse to refer to leftists as “elite” because if I was going to build a pedestal to any Americans, I would prefer to build them for someone who actually earned it. Moreover, I would build one for those who were heroes in building and defending this land of ours, rather than to those who are tearing it down, denigrating and apologizing for its existence.
If you and I can agree on terms, I will gladly use them. We probably should come up with words and phrases that better define the political landscape.
(And, I understand about you being from Taxachussets, I spent five decades in Fill the Tillinois and a few years now out here in Southern Cantaffordya)
‘There is nothing “progressive” about Keynesian economics, an abject failure of epic proportions. There is nothing “progressive” about Mao-ism, “crisis socialism”, or crypto-anarchy.’
Ah. Here’s the disconnect. On my end because you have been clear enough about it, but I wasn’t considering it that way.
You are taking the common meaning of the term ‘progressive’ (or shedding a little more light on the discussion let’s use the root word ‘progress’) and noting that is is contradictory to what methods progressives apply to realize their agenda.
I agree completely. There is nothing more self-deluding and contradictory, and risible if they weren’t so dangerous, than every new generation of progressive tools like the BC types claiming they have finally got it right. Each new generation sees themselves as more compassionate, smarter, more knowledgeable, more inclusive than the progressives of the past and if the hoi poloi would just accept that, THIS time, the social engineering will work if the latest barrel of wicked smarter elites are allowed to call the tune.
The only thing that ever changes is the cast of useful idiots that push the clowncar. It never does. Same clowncar, different color. As you note, the self-contradiction of the term progressivism when used in the social engineering sense is that it is nothing more than retreading old failed ideas in another attempt to meet the agenda. Ideas that have cost untold human misery whenever they have been implemented.
Liberals, though, follow and react to issues. Not agendas.
Bravo, JPT, …precisely.
A “liberal” will respond to an issue and debate you, a leftist will jam dogma into any situation and manipulate it so that he is putting 10 lbs. of radical extremism into a five pound bag.
Leftists try to disguise themselves and their activities. A liberal has no need to do so.
But there are virtually no “liberals” left. The leftist extremists have swallowed them whole.
‘But there are virtually no “liberals” left. The leftist extremists have swallowed them whole.’
There are plenty out there. What the left has done is silence them, not consume them. Plenty of independent voters are liberals in the best sense of the word. Or rather hold to liberal views on some issues, and moderate views on other.
What the left swallowed, and always has and will, is the liberal who morphs into a progressive. The voter who has a liberal take on every issue and ALSO becomes adamant that his take is the only right one is easy to convince that the ‘right’ agenda, the ‘right’ application of social engineering, by the ‘right’ people, is the solution.
I think we need to continue this as time goes on. I really am convinced that I am correct in holding both that the term liberal is being misused, and that decoupling the term from the hard, progressive left help to expose and isolate the left’s agenda. (Alinsky’s rules may have been written by a creep, but not a stupid one)
cfbleachers, I don’t know of a political philosphy called “centrist” but I do know a political philosophy that may apply to the views you’ve articulated. You appear to be a libertarian, f/k/a a classical liberal, which in turn was f/k/a a liberal. Welcome to the club. Glad to have you.
TL
There is probably no good term to describe my political philosophy. “Classic liberal” is probably close, I suppose. But, I am staunchly conservative on some issues. I despise rampant, unchecked leftism. I consider it a mortal danger to the country.
I am a live and let live type on other issues.
At times I described it as being “issue-ist”, where I refused to attach myself to a laundry list or litmus test for “purity of thought” subject to rejection and shunning from the “club”.
I believe the country is center-right on balance. That it is probably less right on social issues than pure conservatives and it definitely is more right than the Pocket Media, Hollywood, Academia and the Democratic Party now in full tilt leftward.
Whatever that makes me, I don’t yet know the label. I guess I’m an involuntary independent.
CFB.
I believe that you are just a GOOD AMERICAN!!
Thank’s.
Cf, you write good stuff, but again I must point out to you one thing. You “Centrists” (cf stands for centerfield, for those who do not know) are the problem. You are the enablers of the Leftists, because are willing to vote for them, being willing to consider their insanities.
You decry the death of Liberalism and how it has been swallowed by the Leftists. What you fail to apprehend is that NeoLiberalism was all a Leftist lie in the first place. They could never sell us Marxism as a whole, so they boil the frog. NeoLiberalism was always just Leftism in disguise.
Centrism is a Leftist lie, too. They demonize the Right, because we are their foe. People buy those lies. Thus, they do not oppose Leftism as they should, because those guys on the Right are “equally bad”. Centrism is the acceptance of just some of their vile agenda, rather than all of it.
Thus you rail against the Leftists, and rightly, but you reject the Conservatives, too. You fail to appreciate that we Conservatives are the complete opposite of the Leftists. Shouldn’t that tell you something?
Following your posts as I have for so long, I can tell you you are becoming more Conservative all the time, but you cling desperately to your previous notions of being Centrist. It is time for you to honestly reassess how you define yourself and give Conservatism a new appraisal.
“Is Liberalism Dead?”
Fat chance.
Statism will NEVER go away.
We’ll be fighting the statists until the sun gutters out, or the human race goes extinct, whichever comes first.
It’s all about “feelings”, and never about facts. What “feels good” or “feels right” invariably trumps reality.
And the strongest feeling involved on the left is what Nietzsche called the “will to power”- the belief that they are somehow entitled to rule over everyone else, and that they are entitled to do whatever they wish to everyone else, because their motives are so pure and good.
This is how leftism managed to kill more people in the 20th century than had been killed in all wars on Earth before 1900 combined.
And they will never lack for facilitators, either. Not so long as there are people who believe, or can be convinced, that not only can they get something for nothing, but that somebody else owes it to them.
They never realize until it’s too late that to another person, they are the “somebody else”. But as P.T. Barnum said, “There’s a sucker born every minute”.
clear ether
eon
I wish that you were right but leftism is mostly emotional in nature and never logical. Reality simply won’t make an impression on these self-righteous freaks.
Liberalism is emotional herpes. Disappears every so often but then bursts forth when least expected or desired.
An 80 plus year infection that has corrupted our educational and cultural institutions that will not be purged easily. But purged it must be. Root and branch.
Party of the problem is that Liberals run as moderates, hence the election of Clinton and Obama. When they deceive us about who they are, and given people’s historical amnesia, it works. Hopefully we won’t be fooled so easily next time.
I would suggest there is still a threat from modern Liberals that is very dangerous, and that is in our churches. The Religious Left is committed to make the State our God. Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren and the whole wing of “emergent” religious types are true believers. They are hard at work getting us to soften our opposition to abortion and gay marriage. I think gay marriage is the new Trojan Horse of this small Cabal of Liberal Totalitarians.
We also need to be worried about the potential for the Left’s “by any means necessary” lust for power.
http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2010/11/left-is-desperate-and-obama-network-is.html
It is well within their world view to commit violent acts and frame their political opponents. I think this is what we need to be on the look out for over the next two years running up to 2012. Nothing would help Obama get re-elected again like some good ole Tea Party violence. Liberalism suffered a major defeat and Liberals are licking their wounds. But even the true believers think they did not lose because of issues but only because of messaging problems, that ought to concern us.
When Sharron Angle remarked that the public would bring down an out-of-control Congress with “Second Amendment remedies” the media was all over it. Dog pile on the rabbit.
Ted Rall has penned comics that insult soldiers fallen in battle,
http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2004/05/the-hero-and-the-idiot-ted-rall-insults-the-memory-of-pat-tillman.html
He also made survivors of 9/11 victims the butt of a very bad joke.
http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=1161
In his interview on MSNBC Rall said, “In the Anti-American Manifesto, I argue that violence is the last case scenario. It’s the worst case, nobody wants it. It’s easier to go other routes. Obviously going through the political system is best. But we’ve seen for the last 2 years, since the economy melted down, that neither the Democrats nor Republicans nor any possible third party is poised to step in. We know that the financial markets are getting increasingly monopolized, and they’re in bed with the duopoly.”
He goes on to say…
“A war is coming. At stake: our lives, the planet, freedom, living. The government, the corporations, and the extreme right are prepared to coalesce into an Axis of Evil. Are you going to fight back? Will you do whatever it takes, including taking up arms?…”
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/11/09/msnbc-host-dylan-ratigan-hints-violent-revolution#ixzz14tUrCn6L
Angle makes one remark and it echoes across the nation. This nutcase advocates the violent overthrow of our government and there’s barely a peep.
Liberalism may or may not be dead, but the Main Stream Media is committing suicide.
The Left may go kamikaze on us so watch out.
True, but the sane vastly outnumber the insane in our nation. November 2nd 2010 was proof of that.
Only in certain regions…California and New York are big electorial blocks and home of the “other” government, aka mainstream media.
Its going to get alot worse before it gets better
The problem is the inarticulateness of the candidates. They take such things as axiomatic and do not understand that a lot of people do not, because they have never considered it, or have been indoctrinated otherwise. Here’s my response to that question”
“Of course I support violent revolution if it comes to that. That’s what the Declaration of Independence is all about! Haven’t you ever read it? How do you think we got started, anyway?
If you are willing to use force, the tyrants will proceed far more cautiously, and you will likely never need to use force. If you are unwilling to use force, then that will quickly become your only option, because the tyrants will proceed at full speed, utterly disdainful of your unwillingness to fight.
Locks keep honest people honest. Bullets keep the dishonest people honest.”
It is interesting that this subject is now coming up. It shows people are becoming more expressive of their willingness to kill the tyrants, does it come to that. The Left is, therefore, trying to attack that, trying to discredit it in people’s eyes, playing our decency against us.
We should not shrink from their propaganda attack. We should embrace it proudly. When we shrink from it, we aid in their creation of this new trope and embrace the shame they are trying to create. They shall no longer dictate to me what is acceptable or not, for they have no moral standing whatsoever.
I loudly and proudly proclaim that we should, “shoot a few of them as a lesson to the others”.
Mor succinctly: “It is a revolution, sir. You shall eventually have to offend somebody. “
Arrgh! In every modern election cycle, it seems, the victor proclaims his the inevitable, unstoppable party of the next generation (or two). And it’s never true. Ask Gingrich, Carville, Rove, Teixeira, and of course Tanenhaus.
I was hoping we conservatives could avoid the trap this time around. Here’s hoping the newly minted GOP House works its fanny off under the assumption that if it does not, voters will unceremoniously flip again in 2012.
I doubt the bill will come due for our kids. It’s coming due right now as we speak. States like California and New York are literally broke and keep going only on Federal handouts. Worse, their state pensions have to be paid and they simply do not have the money to pay it. Will the Feds get stuck with the bill? Of course they will, especially if Obama has anything to say about it. So, if the Feds don’t pay, the states go bust. If the Feds do pay, we all go bust.
Time for some tough love. The Federal Government has to start saying “NO” to the states. If the states go bust, so be it. They can declare bankruptcy and start from scratch. Re-negotiate the contracts with the unions and get a better deal on the pensions. Why do you think Obama didn’t let GM to go bankrupt? Because then GM would no longer have to pay the existing pensions and could have re-negotiated all of its debts. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid kept GM going as a gift to their union buddies so that they would still get all that wonderful Federal cash to stay open. Now they want to do the same for the states, too.
It’s up to the conservatives in Congress to stop this madness. Let all the states start paying their own bills. The states can also fight back by not opting into Obamacare, which will drive them into bankruptcy, too. Currently, a large number of states are suing to do just that, not opt out of Obamacare by declaring it unconstitutional. We’ll see how that turns out.
The bottom line is that both the states and the Federal Government have to STOP SPENDING MONEY! That’s the only way out of this mess. Liberals have just run out of spending other people’s money.
Be aware of “stealth bailouts”. For political reasons, the bailout is never blatant. Instead, it could be an extra couple billion in highway funds for coastal states. Or more money for cultural endeavors that are only useful for big cities. Or the GM bailout for the UAW. In every case, there will be a good excuse for an action that favors the leftist agenda.
The root cause of the problem is the amount of money going through the Federal Government and being redistributed among the States. For example, let the States keep their highway dollars and remove the Fed middleman.
Tea party principles:
1) Fiscal responsibility
2) Constitutionally limited government
3) Free enterprise
We should be watching the new Congress carefully for bailouts both public and private – up front or by sleight of hand. Congress needs to resist bailouts for any reason for any business or public entities. Let California fail. They can then reorganize as best they can and learn to live within their means. It’ll be a hard lesson but a bailout will only stave off the inevitable. Reelecting Jerry Brown is a clear signal that at least 50% of voters there simply do not ‘get it’. The guy who is at least partly responsible for driving their economy into the ditch is back at the wheel. I am flabbergasted at what the dim witted voters of California have done.
Should Republicans go along and bail out California it will be the signal that we are in for a rough ride.
Let’s not go proclaiming the death of anything just yet. How long has Communism been around, despite its record of failure and slaughter? How about dictatorship? Any shortage of those? Even Guild Socialism still has its backers.
Me? I’m an anarcho-monarchist. I don’t have a dog in any political fight; indeed, no one else on Earth agrees with me on anything. But I do have a bit of history for your consideration. It might help to keep you centered while the parties and the ideologies rage furiously together:
All these pundits declaring liberalism and the Democrats are dead, it wasn’t long ago that James Carville declared the Dems would rule for the next forty years.
Just remember, it was the independents who determined the direction of the election the last two cycles. They can swing back in the other direction in two years. In order to get the government’s fiscal house in order, the Republicans are going to have to step on a lot of toes. Necessary, but will it turn off enough voters to swing the pendulum back the other way.
Personally, I predict that if the Republicans do not make major efforts to cut government spending and defund or repeal Obamacare, more Tea Party candidates will sweep into office in 2012.
I’m glad to see that you differentiated between modern liberalism and classical liberalism. In my opinion classical liberalism was merely rebranded as modern conservatism after the progressive, socialist, communist, fascist left hijacked the term liberalism.
As for the death of either totalitarianism or conservatism, ideas never die. No matter how often socialism, Marxism and the rest are shown to be wrong and proven not to work there will always be some wild-eyed halfwits who will believe. Those people will just repeat the same old mantra that communism, etc were never given a chance to succeed or were never done right and so on.
Ah, yes, modern liberalism, that exceptional ism that profiles Americans as just another unexceptional life form on the face of the earth–I’m sure the barbarians felt the same way about the Romans. The only one’s to have been there and done it, no wonder Americans are not going back to the moon at the insistence of a liberal president.
Maybe it is socialism not liberalism that is dead. As you mentioned the definition of liberalism has morphed. It appears the collapse of ‘democratic’ socialism is following a few decades after the collapse of authoritarian socialism.
Is Liberalism Dead?
Is Satan dead? He was the first Liberal/Libertarian.
Conservatism has been redefined (to meet the political needs of a few) but it certainly is not dead.
I would not pronounce any ideology dead ,especially when it is based more on faith, then real-world results.
YES!!! like Obama getting the nobel..for what he “might” do.
/ We are facilitators in many parts of life..small things like kids playing soccer and not keeping score because the parents want them to “feel” good.. Giving a person a job because of their skin color not qualifications..”feel” good bs has this nation on it’s knees.
It’s our own doing. We never take into consideration that at some point the piper has to be paid for making us “feel” good. Nothing takes the place of honest hard work and doing what is right despite how it makes us “feel”
It’s easy to get muddled within the terminology. Modern liberalism is an opaque term, because it has nothing to do with genuine classical liberalism, which is about freedom of the individual – the individual who is considered a rational being.
Modern liberalism is elitist utopianism. It rejects the individual, rejects reason and rationality and instead, posits a utopian world where, effectively, time stops, differentiation dissolves and, in this giant bowl of jello, no dissent can exist. This is Obama’s world, by the way. He preached it in his campaign, he’s busy preaching it in India and Indonesia right now. Of course, in real life, Obama is viciously divisive and pits identity groups against each other…
To provide this utopian homogeneous form, a rigid controlling structure must move into place. This is the rule and role of the Elite, a set of Superiors defined as ultimate in wisdom and authority. We see this in Obama and his side, where we ordinary people are told that we, as ignorant, don’t understand the wisdom of their elite actions.
This is modern ‘liberalism’, a class structure of Rulers and Ruled, where all activities are under the control of the Rulers. These will include the type of fast foods you may eat to how you may talk with one another. This will mean that all differences between people are denied and will thus require artificial additions to grades, to incomes, to work expected.
What happens to a system that reduces its individual particles to homogeneity? Even bacteria can’t do this. Such a system freezes; nothing more happens. No new thoughts, no inventions, no innovation, nothing. Such a morass is presumably easy for the elite class to rule.
This utopian ideal of homogeneity and the denial of differences, always, always, results in the death of that society. Whether this be as outlined in the famous tales of Chretien de Troyes, ‘Perceval’ (who refused to question what was going on around him and thus, the land was plunged into a barren desert)..or the calamities of the Soviet Union and China..this utopian ideal cannot be attained.
Will the notion of utopia ever die? No, because it is an emotional thought, and we, as people with not only the capacity for reason but the capacity for emotion, will always dream up future ideals. The problem with utopianism is that it rejects the other side of our human nature: our reasoning, our actual living within the real rather than the imaginary world. This is disastrous.
We must have both. The problem is their balance.
Liberalism will always exist as long as there are people who believe in the right to receive something for nothing. It will still prevail as long as there are people who believe there is no such thing as right and wrong. It will live on as long as there are people who are so full of themselves that they feel a divine right to tell other people how to live.
Liberals want us to be like a herd of timid industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.
I challenge that modern liberalism is dead. As you pointed out, it is the Progressive cancer that consumed classical liberalism and altered its very personality that is in remission. But it would be dangerous to say it was dead. It can flare up with renewed vigor and violence at anytime. We can enjoy the respite but must prepare for the sudden, malignant growth’s return.
Modern liberalism is in remission, there is no cure.
Liberalism is NOT dead. It will never die because people, humankind, will always be able to covet. The idea of fairness is much like the idea of jihad…many definitions and the ugly ones we just avoid. Sharpton has no problem saying he’s fighting to make ALL households equal in their possessions. Obama has no problem fighting to bring the American worker’s wages in line with Indonesias. It’s all one big global scheme and they’re hoping to be the leaders. The clear example of the elitism of all our media is them saying “audit the Fed” is a conspiracy. They print our money, buy the bonds of the rulers, detroying my bank account. A government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people would have deposited that $30,000 per capita of my money into MY ACCOUNT! Of course, the ruling regime thinks they can spend it better. AUDIT THE FED! NOW!!!
Absolutely. The Fed’s low interest rate policy helped fuel the housing bubble. There is also a question of how much effect some of their regulations had on the financial crises.
One error I must point out. Liberals *don’t* in fact have children – or at least not on the same level as the general population.
This is true not only generally but specifically for the subgroup of ‘lifetime’ liberals, who as a group reproduce below the replacement rate, and for ‘situational’ liberals ( my term for those who will eventually grow up, get a job, and catch on to reality.)
These are people who have no worries for the future – because they have no future.
I agree, based on my own observations. A very nice couple down the street from me have three children, and they are emphatically not liberals.
The same holds true for the deep-ecology crowd, who view every child born as a threat to Holy Mother Gaia. They are some of the strongest advocates of not only taxpayer-funded abortion on demand, but also Chinese-style “one child” policies. To say nothing of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. They were also probably the only steady viewers of the History Channel show “Life After People”, which gleefully described how quickly “Holy Nature” would erase all traces of our civilization once some magnanimous phenomena made us all go “poof”.
As such, I consider both modern “progressivism” and deep-ecology fanaticism at least partially self-correcting. Simply put, they won’t be around past their individual “Best Before” dates.
The danger, of course, is that once they figure this out, some of the more unhinged ones may decide to take the rest of us with them. (See “Rainbow Six” by Tom Clancy for one example of how they might try.)
clear ether
eon
I disagree. There is a sucker born every minute and the Republican Bogeyman lives forever. Liberalism as an ideology is just one of the tools that fools will use to fight “them.” Has the last poem ever been written?
I was so sorry to see that Obama went away.
For alas, alas, alackaday,
That putz will be back tomorrow or today.
Modern Liberalism (like many other political ideologies) is just another form of Neo-Paganism. It basically is satanic in its orgins and its practices.
NOTE: Devils rarely have horns and pitch forks. They don’t have bright red skin. They don’t often have ritual sacrifices (thats Hollywood). And they usually dress well as they appear on TV.
Tea Party Libertarianism seeks a synergy of various Neo-Pagan religions (and Christianity) to serve their political purposes. For instance Glenn Beck and Palin seek to join Buddhists, Mormons, Shintos, Hindus, Wiccans, Muslims, ect. all together as one big happy family of voters to battle the other Pagans (aka Liberals).
Liberalism (and Libertarianism) are not dead and they will be with us right up to the very end of days. In fact they are the signs of the end and the reason for the end.
Liberalism dies fastest when liberals are in complete control at the national level, because not only the national pols, but the ones at the state and local levels have no one else around to tag as the cause of their failures. That’s why you saw such a train wreck last week not only in the congressional races, but in the governor’s races and those in the state legislatures — with all control in the hands of liberals, they no longer had any conservative target to point the finger at and try to convince the swing voters to stay on their side.
That’s why the left will be trying to save itself over the next year by targeting its guns at the S.S. John Boehner — all of liberalism’s problems will immediately become the fault of the U.S. House of Representatives and its leadership, and of course most of the big media outlets are going to be perfectly willing to play along. Whether or not liberalism keeps sinking between now and the 2012 election will depend on how well Boehner and the others in the House GOP can make their case to the moderates, and how well the field of challengers to Obama in the Republican primaries can connect with those same swing voters.
We simply do not need to worry about all of liberalism’s budgetary excesses. When their program is complete the need for government will just wither away.
————————————————————-
WITHERING AWAY OF THE STATE
Term used intially by the German collaborator of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels (1820-1895).
After the seizure of power by the working class, the dictatorship of the proletariat will be used to abolish capitalism and, hence, classes.
Since states only exist to regulate class conflict, the state will thereafter be redundant and will wither away.
Source:
David McLellan, Marxism after Marx (London, 1980)
—————————————————————–
God save our Republic from such nonsense.
Liberalism will never die. No matter what kind of poison is applied to them, there will always be people filled with rage at others who work and succeed and who dream of stealing what they have earned.
And there will always be ruling class wannabes who dream of returning to the age of Devine Rights when the kings (who they yearn to be) had absolute control over a population that could not even conceive of revolting against their masters.
Liberals were hijacked by the Socialist/Communist party (stealth jihad).
Many of my family members who are Liberals are terrified of what the pinkos have done to the Democratic party.
Liberals used to stand for liberty and justice for all. Liberals used to be strict constitutional adherents.
There are people who have fled from Socialist/Communist countries to find refuge in the USA who are freaking TERRIFIED of what our country is morphing into.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxKd5lpZwLY&feature=player_embedded
There used to be a lot of liberals who stood for what you say, rather than redistribution/theft. There are very few remaining.
It seems to me that a traditional liberal, even a VERY liberal one, only has two choice; the Republican party or a third party that hasn’t been hijacked.
Anybody who chooses what the Democrats have become over any other choice is part of the problem, no matter how well meaning they may be. It is akin to choosing Hitler over the his opposition because you like his policies other than killing Jews and causing World Wars.
100% agree with you, Proreason.
Roger Simon is a stellar example of someone who moved away from the Lefties once he realized that they were no longer the party he once believed in.
The further left/commie/socialist the left goes, the further they distance themselves from the rest of ALL Americans.
For a two-party system to survive, both parties have to be honest. I NEVER want a one-party governance. As much as I can’t stand what has happened to the LEFT-WING dimmies, I still believe we need checks and balances so that we don’t become a totalitarian dominated society.
*sigh*
Dear Roger,
We are all Liberals now.
We are all Conservatives now.
We are all Independents now.
We are (most importantly) all Americans.
What we are not nor will we ever be:
Communists
Socialists
George Soros can go F*CK himself because he is NOT going to turn this great country into a third-world caca-hole, no matter how hard he tries to devalue the sweat, blood, work and tears from our dollars.
All positions are equally valid in liberal minds..a symptom of lack of confidence in truth. Developing secular humanism to replace true Christian charity. Top down control rather than bottom up freedom.
Big government vs big God. The great ‘debate’ of our generation too.
LOL@ “Mandatory volunteerism”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn5P8iY0Mho
the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. we declare liberalisms demise at our peril
Bravo. You have the measure of the situation.
Complacency is the biggest danger (already evident in Massachusetts and California)to the continued existence of the USA as a Constitutional Republic with its LAWS protecting the RIGHTS and in the control of its citizens.
The enemies of that Republic, MAKE NO MISTAKE they ARE AT WAR with the USA,who sit now in the institutions of society know and depend on that complacency. They have already shown within this past half century they can be patient and wait for their triumph.
We must not forget they STILL sit in the power seats in government,propaganda media, and the “educational”/entertainment establishments. Their positions in power enable them to decide, to choose, their successors.
AND they have at their disposal the free use of the US Treasury, with NO ACCOUNTABILITY to the populace except via the elected representatives. Who have in the main shown themselves far more interested in their personal power positions than in their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the USA and by that the natural RIGHTS of Life, Liberty and PURSUIT OF Happiness of the American common man. The American Common man whose Rights they are by oath required ethically to respect and protect.
ALL of which rights depend essentially on the economy, AND the free use of the moneys earned by the labour of the individual citizen. Now and for the past half century under attack and confiscation by these “liberals” of whatever political platform, party, or colouration. Using economic destruction via
currency manipulation, via inflation, and massive personal and state indebtedness. UNDERMINING THE FOUNDATION OF THEIR LIVES. Feint to gull the populations to believe they were “better off”.
AND IT WORKED, culminating in the “banking crisis” that decided the 2008 USA Presidential election of an unknown, except as identified by the untrustworthty propaganda media, “liberal” /”democrat”.
And so to the present. This man still sits at the head of the table, and others are already lining up to show obeisance to him.
Confiscation of rights and moneys for their ambitions for power. Worldwide power. To the long planned and engineered NEW AGE /NEW WORLD ORDER. Words which, becoming current in the 1960s after the success of Sputnik and the beginning of the “space race” ought to alert sentient persons to their ultimate goals.
Make no mistake. The very life of the USA as an INDEPENDENT,as a Constitutional Republic with legal protections of its smallest citizens’ rights is at stake, in the programs and actions of this administration. In all the offices: Legislature, Judiciary and Executive.
Every step they take must be watched with eagle eyes, as in an intensive care unit.
ETERNAL VIGILANCE.
If liberalism is dead then we should heed Churchill’s advice concerning the death of a mother-in-law…. “Embalm, cremate, bury at sea! Take no chances!”
Liberalism kaput? Man, I hope not.
Where else am I to go when ‘BC’ posts such nonsensical findings from ‘onewisconsinnow’ or some other remote, FAR left op-ed only publication and attempt selling it as ‘mainstream’ thinking?
Honestly, BC’s stuff is better than some stand-up material.
I liken BC to what Dennis Miller said of Rick Sanchez. Spectacularly stupid.
Liberalism, please don’t go away. Identity politic, do as I say not as I do swagger, talking points ALWAYS led by emotion rather than fact, selective memory and cherry-picking information is TOO good to be true.
Life’s serious as it is. Liberalism is a great siphon on said life.
Liberalism is about as dead as Jean Grey; just when you think she’s dead, she comes back as either Marvel Girl, Phoenix, or just plain old Jean Grey. Like all comic book characters, the idea never dies. Liberalism is a concept many embrace. Currently, liberalism has been repudiated & rejected. It will continue to be rejected with President Obama in office.
As long as young people are being brainwashed in the university, as long as Federal Jobs exist with great perks, as long as the Net has so many sick leftist sites, and as long as minorities actually think that the Dem Party cares for them, like Dracula, the liberal will rise from the dead time and again to suck our collective blood. As I live in the soviet republic of Ca., liberals will stay around and act and speak arrogantly as if they alone have a hold on American values, culture, heritage and history (which btw, they really inwardly hate).
As long as liberals percieve that somewhere, someone has extra money that they can tax and spend, liberalism will not die. It doesn’t matter that the perception is illusory, a delusion. It doesn’t matter that we’re driving the car into quicksand. Until the last dollar is spent, the government will keep rolling along trying to spend the money it doesn’t have. What I fear the most is when Texas or wherever gets fed up with its tax dollars going to feed California’s over-bloated welfare state. Until that happens, the Feds will continue to bail California out (Obama needs its votes to get reelected) and California, like a soon-to-be-divorced and very bitter wife doing damage to hubby’s credit card on Rodeo Drive, will continue to spend every dollar it has 2 or 3 times, desperately trying to buy its way out of poverty. Our dear friends in the public employee unions are all seemingly in agreement that the solution is to raise everyone else’s taxes, and pass along the money to them…so they can retire and move to another state, where their pension is actually worth something (and where they spend the tax dollars they get from California supporting some other state’s economy, incidentally).
Obama’s radical Liberalism is the perfect divine punishment
for a nation gone mad with Idolatry (Founders worship, Constitution worship), and Murder (over 50 millin babies slaughtered in America), and Homosexuality (Coulter, Beck and many others are now in the pro-gay camp), and for having false Gods (like Ron Paul, Oprah, Sarah Palin, Money, Sex, Freedom to do anything), and Immorality, and for preaching Salvation by Politics instead of by Grace.
And since I see no change in the gross immorality that makes Sodom and Gomorrah look like walks in the park. I believe that Divine Judgement will continue no matter who is in the White House or who controls the Congress.
Please read Luke 4:5 – 4:6
and see what the Bible says about Political Power and WHO hands it out.
Liberalism isn’t dead, and the welfare state isn’t dead. It’s just a question of what we’re willing to do to pay for it. Do we hand over 50% of our income to the state? Do we accept a lower standard of living, accompanied by rationing?
It’s not impossible to keep the welfare state. It’s just that Americans are unlikely to pay for it.
Liberalism will never die, and the welfare state will take a long time to be changed, it took us over 100 years to get into this mess, and it will take about that long to get out of it.
“In the world of hard facts, we’re stuck unless we cut government handouts — Social Security and Medicare — almost beyond recognition. It’s sad but true.”
No, Roger, it’s not ‘sad but true’ but actually ‘not sad but true’; at least for all of those who promoted/profited from these ponzi schemes. Maybe ‘harsh but true’.
It’s sad for those who fought against this all along, and today’s kids and future kids who will have to pay for all this, who had no say in the matter.
If recent history is indicator, I would say the Progressive Party will rear its ugly head in about 2024 at its peak of power. It seems to cycle about every sixteen years, takes two to remind a fickle and apathetic American public how rancid a political philosophy it is, and then the cycle repeats….
1976, 1992, 2008…
For about a year now, I’ve been convinced Obama is but a puppet on a string for the real power brokers, Soros being only one. The last month, I’ve added Ben Bernacke to that list. Our current fiscal policy makes absolutely no sense, and seems to benefit but a few. And the few sure aren’t a great majority of the American public.
I wish liberalism were dead, but I don’t think it is.
At this point, a fiscal realist who speaks the truth is going to have to put forward proposals that will seem extreme. They won’t actually be extreme, merely fiscally sustainable. The problem is that the Democrats will always be willing to undercut what is needed. If we say we need to raise the retirement age (see:riots, Paris) and cut benefits (cue the footage of seniors buying dog food) they will claim it isn’t needed, and we are just being mean. Because we hate people, especially old folks and poor people. The numbers are just complex enough that a large part of the electorate will want to know what the numbers SAY rather than what they ARE, and this opens reality up to interpretation. Count on the media to help them with this: objective facts will be reported as “Republicans say” while fantastical projections assuming 8% GDP growth will be taken seriously.
And because we always seem to have enough voters who confuse desire and reality, the Democrats will win some elections.
While they are in there, they will be faced with the choice of making the cuts they mocked, or jacking up the whole economy just to kick the can down the road a few years. I don’t really have to wonder what they will do, do you?
This is going to be a long haul, folks.
It’s rollback time. The thing that worries me about the tea parties, especially those in the “don’t touch my Medicare” wing—and indeed has always troubled me about the GOP—is how many of them adhere to the notion that our current open-ended tax and entitlement system can somehow be “fixed.” As you said yourself, Roger, these are Ponzi schemes. They fail, by definition. No tax cuts or spending cuts or anything is going to make them work. Our current system needs to be replaced, with something that *isn’t* a Ponzi scheme. We need a Fair Tax-like solution, but perhaps with the added twist of a dedicated revenue stream for a national trust designed to eventually make the government self-financing, and ushering in the next step in human progress, the Zero Tax Society.
Actually, Roger, when DoC came out ST said he could have written a simiar book about liberalism. The question is: Is he classically liberal enough to write it?
Roger
Good points although I think you overestimate the ultruism of modern liberalism. I see liberals the liberals as working or non-working poor who are the beneficiaries of entitlements and upper middle class public sector employees/public sector union members as the other group. These two groups will be battling for the same scarce resources. I have seen this coming for some time and have been curious how my liberal friends (members of the latter class) would respond. It is amazing how little empathy they have for the first group. Especially if some in the first group or fickle or stupid enough to support the tea party or republicans. Our version of modern liberalism has nothing to do with the down and out and has everything to do with a protection of a public sector upper class and the benefits that they have enured.
On a positive note re George Soros. He’s old and he won’t be around for too much longer.
Diane wrote:
The greatest trick that Satan ever played was when he convinced people of a …..
Diane,
At its heart, Libertarianism is all about freedom. Freedom from Government. Satanism is also about freedom; but represents a freedom from God rather than government.
Satan offered Eve FREEDOM from God and FREEDOM from the only Government in existence at that time! Freedom from any Moral authority. Doesn’t that sound familiar?
Satan was, and still is a Libertarian. Thats why Anton Levay was a Libertarian. He used the anti-christian teachings of Ayn Rand to author the Satanic Bible.
The greatest trick Satan ever played was to convince mankind he was “Liberal” when in fact the devil is a LiberTarian!
Dude, you need to get your med levels checked.
I don’t know what you’re taking…but, you’re taking way too much.
Liberalism exists as an attitude so its not going anywhere. Where it is most entrenched is where it succeeds in re-spawning itself. I “live” in NYC so I know. The real question is whether the benefit system favors a richer generation over the poorer ones. The main beneficiaries of social security and medicare are the generations that afforded 2 homes on a working class salary whereas the later generations look forward to less with more education and/or white collar jobs and are taxed with the underlying assumption that given a better chance at higher education they will be able to give back immediately. Not so. Liberals will point to the Depression but without jobs the government can only do so much and only did so much. A payout system only helps those who are already comfortable get more while future generations pay the bills.
it is the tool of the libleftistprogressive to hijack the vernacular….
while we whittle away at the semantics the libleftyprogressives succeed at getting us to chase our tails in mumbo jumbo
i am of the firm belief that the vast majority– are basically “conservative” at the core—> they are leery of the expanse of federal gov’t, reckless spending, and would rather keep a dollar and spend it on his own terms
i use conservative in “” because i’m not sure if this is the true label but the libleftyprogs create gordian knots every step of the way
i feel that the tea party movement represents this triggering of the “american warning device” that exists within our dna— and it has been tripped by the current crop of libleftyprogs
we cant explain it, we might not even understand it, but, damn, we know it when we feel it
my advice is to keep everything simple
dont veer off onto tangents that the libleftyprogs can use to confuse and dispirit
this is the beginning of a movement that will take decades to get into full swing
keep it up
I agree with Brian. The greatest trick that Satan ever played was when he convinced people of a libeal pursuasion that he doesn’t exist.
Al Sharpton is the new face of the Democrat Party. Slick street hustlers like him, Jesse Jackson and other so called “liberals” use their phony, alleged religious beliefs as a smoke screen to mask their insideous, diabolical and evil, self-serving intentions, but only to the gullible and to the naive. Their only religion is depravity taken to its extreme, for they are the evil minions of Satan, and their folowers have become Satan’s children. Scoff at that if you like, but do so at your own peril.