The defects of Liberal Thought

@Ruthless Logic,

This isn't a definition, it's an indictment. I could just as easily claim to have defined conservatism as you have defined liberalism, and in the process, neither one of us will have given a definition of either word that explains what the words mean, or might mean depending upon context.

And context is something worth noting. Classical liberalism is the backbone of American conservative economic thought.

2 Replies

@Ruthless Logic,

I'm afraid that this isn't philosophy, it isn't political science, it isn't politics, it isn't logical, and it isn't accurate.

It sounds like a soundbite from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.

You've taken the word "liberalism" and expressed a critique of it in the disguise of a definition. You haven't actually presented a recognized liberal philosophy and critiqued its merits. And then you go so far as to entitle your thread "the defects of liberal thought", as if the definition you present somehow proves a defect. That makes no sense at all -- how can a definition prove a defect?

What you're REALLY trying to do is take the idea you hold of liberalism and critique it for being unrealistically idealistic. Well, why don't you start with civil rights and critique that. Or maybe critique the Declaration of Independence. How about critiquing the 14th amendment to the US Constitution -- that's a good one. Those were all movements and documents that are some of the iconic statements of liberal thought.

If you want to study liberalism in its purest form, take a look at the Bill of Rights, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the writings of John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin.

If you find their thought "defective", then that would be worthy of philosophical debate.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

This isn't a definition, it's an indictment. I could just as easily claim to have defined conservatism as you have defined liberalism, and in the process, neither one of us will have given a definition of either word that explains what the words mean, or might mean depending upon context.

And context is something worth noting. Classical liberalism is the backbone of American conservative economic thought.

Fair enough! Let me provide some context to my sentence of definition.

The desire to indulge in idealism,= The belief that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

while subjected to the constraints of the Human Condition,= A typical turd contains millions of harmful bacteria, which exposed to Human Beings can cause sickness or death.

and unable to reconcile the realization= I understand that exposure to fecal matter can cause great harm, but if concentrate hard enough, I can suspend the existence of the bacteria, and consequently handle the turd with complete impunity.

But seriously, liberalism is the attention deficit student of the political classroom.

P.S. the turd analogy is not mine, author unknown.

1 Reply

@Ruthless Logic,

Except that you avoid providing any context whatsoever. Instead you belittle "liberalism" without having explained what you are talking about. We get it - you have serious disagreements with "liberalism". Now imagine our situation: we have no idea what you mean by "liberalism".

If you want a conversation on some political perspective, cool. So far you've made such conversation impossible.

0 Replies

@Ruthless Logic,

Ruthless Logic wrote:

Fair enough! Let me provide some context to my sentence of definition.

How does this context apply to some accepted concept of liberal philosophy? You haven't even shown that you know what liberalism is.

[quote]The desire to indulge in idealism,= The belief that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.[/quote]We all know what idealism is. Do you REALLY believe that idealism is unique to one political belief? Extreme liberalism (marxism / socialism) is full of idealism. Extreme conservatism (fascism, religious conservatism, monarchy) is ALSO full of idealism. The Republican party has conservative idealists (particularly evangelical Christian ones, libertarian 'personal freedom' ones, and big business ones). The Democratic party has liberal idealists (particularly the human rights and environmental rights ones and sociocultural idealism).

So lots of people indulge in idealism, +/- any desire to do so.

[quote]while subjected to the constraints of the Human Condition,= A typical turd contains millions of harmful bacteria, which exposed to Human Beings can cause sickness or death.

and unable to reconcile the realization= I understand that exposure to fecal matter can cause great harm, but if concentrate hard enough, I can suspend the existence of the bacteria, and consequently handle the turd with complete impunity.[/quote]Ok, you've gone off the deep end here. Philosophizing through Beavis and Butthead-like analogies doesn't really work. Why don't you concentrating on telling us about the "Human Condition" and how you've come to know its "constraints" so globally.

Quote:

But seriously, liberalism is the attention deficit student of the political classroom.

You're the one who created a thread entitled "the defects of liberal thought", lapsed immediately into defining it instead of critiquing it, and then supplemented it by talking about turds. So you don't really have the latitude to accuse something else of attention deficit...

Your name is "Ruthless Logic". If you aspire to this, you need to drop the stream of consciousness rant and start defining your terms, referring to specifics, and actually making a logically coherent point.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

In any case, I have some time before class. Why not turn this into a thread about liberalism.

Liberalism has a variety of uses, and applies to political ideologies that often seem worlds apart. Most basically, a liberal is someone who advocates individual liberty as the primary goal of government.

We can trace liberal ideas back to ancient Roman class struggles. The first liberal thinker in the modern sense was John Locke. In his Two Treatises on Government, Locke outlines the two fundamental aspects of liberalism, the need for economic and intellectual liberty.

Within this rich liberal tradition, the primary disagreement is over the nature of the rights the government should address. Positive rights are those rights which impose a moral obligation, negative rights obliges others to refrain from interference with someone's attempt to do something.

Classical liberals are those concerned with negative rights. They believe that freedom from coercion is the only sort of freedom. From this, they argue that government involvement in the economy is coercive and therefore restricts freedom. Milton Friedman is a popular classical liberal economist.

Modern liberalism, or social liberalism, contends that the government must play an active role in protecting the liberty and opportunity of each citizen. Rejecting the laissez-faire tendencies of classical liberals, social liberals tend to be more concerned with positive rights, such as the right to vote, the right to an education, ect, especially through the mutual collaboration of social institutions.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

This isn't a definition, it's an indictment. I could just as easily claim to have defined conservatism as you have defined liberalism, and in the process, neither one of us will have given a definition of either word that explains what the words mean, or might mean depending upon context.

How about this definition from Ambrose Bierce's, The Devil's Dictionary?

Conservative, n: [Someone] who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.

It, at least, has the virtue of being bi-partisan.

0 Replies

@Ruthless Logic,

Funny, but that's about it.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Funny, but that's about it.

Not even a grain of truth?

0 Replies

@Ruthless Logic,

The definition is funny because it is a generalization about a population that seems to mimic said population's motivations. Conservatives, by definition, are characterized by their tendency to prefer what is already established, while liberals tend to be viewed as wanting to inject new ideas and ways of doing things.

I think the definition fails because the generalization is too broad concerning liberals. Consider modern American libertarians, for example. They are liberal in that they are preeminently concerned with individual rights, and are also the archetype of American economic conservatives.

Don't get me wrong, it is witty. I'll probably end up quoting it from time to time, but not as a definition for conservative or liberal.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

The definition is funny because it is a generalization about a population that seems to mimic said population's motivations. Conservatives, by definition, are characterized by their tendency to prefer what is already established, while liberals tend to be viewed as wanting to inject new ideas and ways of doing things.

I think the definition fails because the generalization is too broad concerning liberals. Consider modern American libertarians, for example. They are liberal in that they are preeminently concerned with individual rights, and are also the archetype of American economic conservatives.

Don't get me wrong, it is witty. I'll probably end up quoting it from time to time, but not as a definition for conservative or liberal.

Of course it is not an adequate definition, nor is it intended to be. That is why it is in " The Devil's Dictionary" and not in Webster's. (You can get Bierce's Devil's Dictionary on line. It is well worth reading). But I just asked whether it doesn't have a grain of truth in it.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

But I just asked whether it doesn't have a grain of truth in it.

Seems to be nothing more than a stereotype or charicature to me. Stereotypes may be some distant tangent of something true -- but that doesn't by definition invest them with any truth -- they're too contaminated by the time they become stereotypes.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Seems to be nothing more than a stereotype or charicature to me. Stereotypes may be some distant tangent of something true -- but that doesn't by definition invest them with any truth -- they're too contaminated by the time they become stereotypes.

I beg to differ Sir. How does some numerical percentage of truth equate into zero percentage of truth, unless it is unequivocally disproven (appears to to inconsistent). On the contray, stereotypes ( I thought stereotypes were, Pioneer, JVC, Kenwood) exist or continue to exist, because their are constantly reinforced. There is no better testament then the arduous taskmaster of time (constantly challeged or reinforced). From a practical standpoint, the emotions derived from the accusations of stereotypes, is simply the difficult process of reconciling the current truth of the situation, and the idealistic destination. This does not indicated that change will not occur, but it is useless and counterproductive to use guilt as a force for change, especially when it tries to take on Reality.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Seems to be nothing more than a stereotype or charicature to me. Stereotypes may be some distant tangent of something true -- but that doesn't by definition invest them with any truth -- they're too contaminated by the time they become stereotypes.

Well, isn't it true that conservatives want to keep things much the same and preserve the status quo, and that Liberals are interested in changing the status quo and substituting something different. If you want confirmation listen to a few of Obama's speeches. In fact Obama seems to think (or, at least, try to get his supporters to think) that change just for the sake of change is good.

Now, of course, it is an exaggeration that Conservatives want to preserve what is evil, and Liberals want get new evils to replace the old evils. However, it is true that change is not always for the good, and of course, it is true that preserving the status quo is not always for the best either.

0 Replies

@Ruthless Logic,

Ruthless Logic wrote:

How does some numerical percentage of truth equate into zero percentage of truth, unless it is unequivocally disproven (appears to to inconsistent).

That's a fallacy. Picture the following stereotype: Germans are inherently genocidal. I mean look at WWII and look at the Herero Genocide, which were both committed by Germans. Seems ridiculous to call ALL Germans genocidal, right? So try to unequivocally disprove it -- you can't, because Heinrich Himmler and Lothar von Trotha were Germans who led genocides. So that stereotype can NEVER be unequivocally disproved in light of these two exceptions.

Logically, a positive assertion can never be unequivocally disproved unless you are omnicient and you know of all instances. So I can say that bunny rabbits are bloodthirsty killers, and that statement can NEVER be disproved.

And to be derived from something that is true is not the same as being true. The stereotype that Jews are obsessed with money is derived from the Christian prohibition of usury during medieval times, which created a professional niche in which Jews were allowed to enter banking and finance but Christians were not. That doesn't mean Jews were obsessed with money -- but the hatred against Jews during that (and subsequent eras) transformed that historical fact into a stereotype. So where's the truth in this age-old stereotype about Jews?

kennethamy wrote:

Well, isn't it true that conservatives want to keep things much the same and preserve the status quo, and that Liberals are interested in changing the status quo and substituting something different.

Do conservatives who want to overturn Roe vs Wade want to maintain the status quo? Do conservatives who want to end social welfare programs want to maintain the status quo? Do conservatives who want to expel illegal aliens want to maintain the status quo? Was Prohibition a maintenance of the status quo or was it something new?

Do liberals who want to prevent logging in national forests, i.e. conservationists, want to substitute something different? Do liberals who want to continue funding social programs, schools, the arts, etc want to substitute something different?

0 Replies

@Ruthless Logic,

Liberal and conservative do not rest at opposite ends of a spectrum. Liberals come in a wide variety, many of which are considered to be, at least in some respect, conservative, ie, Libertarians. Most American conservatives, despite their claims, are fundamentally liberals because they tend to vocalize concern with liberty and freedom as being their primary political concern. Though the equally ambiguous "security" has become popular.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Liberal and conservative do not rest at opposite ends of a spectrum. Liberals come in a wide variety, many of which are considered to be, at least in some respect, conservative, ie, Libertarians. Most American conservatives, despite their claims, are fundamentally liberals because they tend to vocalize concern with liberty and freedom as being their primary political concern. Though the equally ambiguous "security" has become popular.

Liberals are diverse, and so are Conservatives. But, nevertheless, both share common characteristics, otherwise they would not be classed together. There is clearly a close similarity between Clinton and Obama (in fact, between them, the difference between their ideologies and policies is so minimal, that the only issues between them seem to be personal. They don't debate economic or social issues because they agree on those). On the other hand, there is clear difference between Obama and Clinton, and McCain, since McCain is still conservative.

The meaning of the terms, "Liberal" and "Conservatives" have changed from the 19th century when we now talk of "Classical Liberalism" which emphasized civil liberties (see John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty") Nowadays, Liberals are mostly concerned with economic and social issues. It is now the Conservatives who are emphasizing both civil and also economic liberty which they see as inextricably tied together. So, although the meanings of the terms have shifted, Conservative are still, well-conservative. And Liberals seem to me to have forgotten their heritage.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

And Liberals seem to me to have forgotten their heritage.

Modern liberalism in the US has been borne of really just a few major historical figures and events. First, the international liberalism as espoused (really idealized) by Woodrow Wilson, with a sense that the US should be concerned about the well-being and freedom of people outside our country. Second, the environmental movement was politically legitimized by Teddy Roosevelt, more than anyone else. Third, social liberalism took modern form under Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, but really extends back through the labor crises of the early 1900s and all the way back to the abolitionist movement. Finally, economic liberalism was a phenomenon largely led by FDR during the Depression and WWII, then supplemented by Johnson in the 1960s (i.e. with Medicare).

All of these are historical phenomena that are largely the interests of self-identified liberals, and they constitute the major themes in modern American liberalism.

1 Reply

@Ruthless Logic,

Ruthless Logic wrote:

I beg to differ Sir. How does some numerical percentage of truth equate into zero percentage of truth, unless it is unequivocally disproven (appears to to inconsistent). On the contray, stereotypes ( I thought stereotypes were, Pioneer, JVC, Kenwood) exist or continue to exist, because their are constantly reinforced. There is no better testament then the arduous taskmaster of time (constantly challeged or reinforced). From a practical standpoint, the emotions derived from the accusations of stereotypes, is simply the difficult process of reconciling the current truth of the situation, and the idealistic destination. This does not indicated that change will not occur, but it is useless and counterproductive to use guilt as a force for change, especially when it tries to take on Reality.

Reinforcement of beliefs comes, more often than not, from the believer's inability to deal with his environment than from the environment itself. Fear, insecurity, and ignorance are even stronger perpetuators of ideas than their negations.

Because of that, your opinion that the stereotypes confronted by liberalism reflect reality, and your attempt to attack "liberalism" with a small set of vague criticisms, I have a good idea of which of those sets of motivations I referenced drive your opinions.

2 Replies

The defects of Liberal Thought

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know