How do liberals guage success?

Forums: Politics, Obama, Romney, 2012, Success
Email this Topic • Print this Page

With all the latest from Obama and people not making their own success and the looking down of ones nose at Romney's venture with Bain Capital; I began to wonder what is it exactly that your typical liberal would consider to qualify as success...

Obviously wealth does not equal success as most liberals seem to have a healthy disregard for such things as wealth and power. So, what is it exactly that you have on your short list of things that make one successful? Is it happiness? How does one gauge happiness? Is it giving to others? How much does one give to be successful? Do you have to go all Mother Theresa, oh wait, she is a religious figure... um, anyways you get the point.

So, what factors do you use to gauge ones success?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 15 • Views: 10,319 • Replies: 152

@McGentrix,

Legislation passed and policies implemented. Affordable Care Act counts as major success.

1 Reply

I for one have a healthy respect for success and wealth. It's just, I do not approve of the current business ethic of most wealthy persons I know of. This country once enforced business ethics and the country was way more sound than it is now.

1 Reply

@roger,

On a personal level roger.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

liberals care about money and power. prestige even.

just not to the exclusion of being a good human being...

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Bill Gates is a good example of a guy I think is successful, on a global scale. He's smart, created jobs, whole industries by people on local and multinational levels. At the height of his career, he stepped down from a leadership role in a company and actually took on a new mantle. Battling some of the terrible side effects that a lack of money creates. Like giving healthcare to millions of people who couldn't dream of paying for simple vaccinations in the poorest places on earth...
Not dreaming and scheming of ways to destroy people's livelihoods, or say... cutting healthcare in the richest nation on earth.
I'd say the difference is quite remarkable and has nothing to do with religion.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Oh. Sorry.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

My last employer would have satisfied you on business ethics, and as both a business owner and individual, I'm fairly sure he gave away almost as much as he kept. I tend to classify him as liberal at least in a social sense. This is pretty much out of the ordinary for an oil field service company owner. He was also a thouroughly disagreeable person to work for.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

How do liberals guage success?

Well, I consider a critical component of success to be attention to detail.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

We are priviledged to have been given a wee look into McG's worldview.
Simple, Direct, and non abstract in everything.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

I define a successful life as one that results in the planet being a better place in some way by one's efforts than it was before you were born. I define a successful business as the same thing. I define a successful govt policy as one that encourages successful business and lives. If an individual or business makes money along the way then they're welcome to it so long as it hasn't come from a zero sum game.

0 Replies

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

Bill Gates is a good example of a guy I think is successful, on a global scale. He's smart, created jobs, whole industries by people on local and multinational levels. At the height of his career, he stepped down from a leadership role in a company and actually took on a new mantle. Battling some of the terrible side effects that a lack of money creates. Like giving healthcare to millions of people who couldn't dream of paying for simple vaccinations in the poorest places on earth...
Not dreaming and scheming of ways to destroy people's livelihoods, or say... cutting healthcare in the richest nation on earth.
I'd say the difference is quite remarkable and has nothing to do with religion.

Don't forget that he stole the idea of his business model and as microsoft grew he bullied and used corporate methods to take down competitors at every turn. Shrewd business moves and even went to court and bought off the judges and left microsoft needing to break which didn't last.

The ONLY reason microsoft was successful is because patent laws and corrporate bullying. Microsoft was a monopoly for the longest time and would buy out any competitors a long the way. This is a problem created by the government and allowed such a beast to charge high prices for a really low quality product. When you have no competition you can create a crappy product and charge a lot for it.

0 Replies

@Ceili,

I think Bill's new mantle was more a result of Melinda's doing than his own.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

We are priviledged to have been given a wee look into McG's worldview.
Simple, Direct, and non abstract in everything.

Not sure of your point here FM. Do you not have a scale of sort to measure success? I notice Cyc didn't jump on your misspelling here, so that's obviously not that important to him.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

I began to wonder what is it exactly that your typical liberal would consider to qualify as success...

who/what is a typical liberal?

are you proposing a political/social/fiscal definition? American scale/global scale?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

pm
With all the latest from Obama and people not making their own success and the looking down of ones nose at Romney's venture with Bain Capital; I began to wonder what is it exactly that your typical liberal would consider to qualify as success...

When did you stop beating your wife McG?

You start with a faulty premise about what Obama said then don't define success.
Business is NOT the end all and be all of success. I know some rather successful teachers that have never owned a business in their life. I also know some successful parents.

I see your definition ends up defining success as money and nothing else. A rather limited viewpoint there McG. Some rather successful people were never really rich.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I began to wonder what is it exactly that your typical liberal would consider to qualify as success...

who/what is a typical liberal?

are you proposing a political/social/fiscal definition? American scale/global scale?

a "typical liberal" would be 80-90% of the participants in the political threads on A2K. I have no strict definition in mind. More of a curiosity then anything else. I know what I have in mind when I think successful and I wish to know what others, who have a less conservative point of view, think of as successful.

For example, I think we can all agree that Bill Gates would be an example of a successful person. He started with little more then a dream and became the richest guy in the world. Pretty sure that qualifies him. Barack Obama, also started with little, became President of the USA. I'd say that is a success. Not the wealthiest guy, but still quite a success.

I am not implying that money = success by any means. But, being able to have the means to do what one wants is certainly a qualifier.

Some other examples: Harrison Ford is a successful actor, Tom Brady is a successful athlete, George W. Bush (despite whatever personal feelings you may have for him or his policy) is a successful politician, Oprah is a successful entertainer, Jonas Salk was a successful doctor... the list goes on.

But, what qualities do these people have that make them successful and what do you look for to gauge a person as being successful?

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

With all the latest from Obama and people not making their own success and the looking down of ones nose at Romney's venture with Bain Capital; I began to wonder what is it exactly that your typical liberal would consider to qualify as success...

I don't know what a typical liberal would look like but I'll try to answer your question from my perspective after first challenging your opening line. Obama did not say people don't make their own success as much as saying that in the US there is a basic platform upon which success is easier to build. You could have the exact same idea for a small business in Eithopia but never have a chance to get off the ground because you don't have the infrastructure to support your business, the education system to train your employees, the access to capital and a regulated banking system to provide you with funds and a relatively uncorrupt government to protect your interests. In the US, the public invests in things that promote private growth.

As to what I consider success, obviously money is one metric up until the point where I have enough so that I can have any reasonable thing that I want. Beyond that, it really isn't a valuable metric anymore. I can pay all my bills without any stretch and can basically buy what I want for cash (with the exception of my home) so I feel pretty successful. Not to pick on Romney but to use him as an example, he is no more successful for being worth $220 million than he would be if he were worth $100 million because there is no effective difference. He can still have multiple homes, lots of cars and never concern himself with money.

As to intangibles, I think success is liking what you do, having good friends, sharing your talents and getting the occasional A2K post with lots of thumbs up.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

farmerman wrote:

We are priviledged to have been given a wee look into McG's worldview.
Simple, Direct, and non abstract in everything.

Not sure of your point here FM. Do you not have a scale of sort to measure success? I notice Cyc didn't jump on your misspelling here, so that's obviously not that important to him.

Well, I didn't have time yet - I just woke up.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Some other examples: Harrison Ford is a successful actor, Tom Brady is a successful athlete, George W. Bush (despite whatever personal feelings you may have for him or his policy) is a successful politician, Oprah is a successful entertainer, Jonas Salk was a successful doctor... the list goes on.

The funny thing is. Not a single person on that list made it on their own.
Harrison Ford had to be cast by other people. He was actually considering giving up acting when he ended up in Star Wars. Tom Brady would be nothing but a crippled ex QB without his front line, let alone all the coaches, trainers etc that have helped him over the years. GW required a father that opened doors for him. Oprah spent time on welfare. Without that she may have starved to death or had to resort to crime. Jonas Salk hardly became a Dr on his own and certainly didn't test any vaccine without help from others including the government.

But even further, none of them would have made it without government.
Films are protected by government copyright allowing Ford to be paid.
Football is shown on TV and is protected by government, FCC and copyright to name a few.
GW was President. Without government there would not be that position.
Oprah again was protected by FCC rules concerning broadcast TV and copyright.
Jonas Salk conducted his vaccine testing in public schools.

1 Reply

How do liberals guage success?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know