I hardly think what George Washington was talking about had the same definition has today's liberalism. Even today, the term has different meanings in different parts of the world.
okie wrote:I hardly think what George Washington was talking about had the same definition has today's liberalism. Even today, the term has different meanings in different parts of the world.
Or at different points in history as you suggest. The modern definition of liberalism bears no resemblance to the classical definition. In fact, the modern conservative is much closer to the classical liberal than is the modern liberal, at least here in America.
Sure, but they do have some ideas in common:
Quote:Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought.
Broadly speaking, contemporary liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. [2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed[3].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal
Cycloptichorn
Wow. that's one of the worse definitions of liberalism I have ever read. No where does it speak of needing government baby-sitting of the poor, whining about conservatism, the need for higher taxes on the rich to complete the wealth distribution goals of liberalism, or the idea that the individual should only succeed if everyone else does.
I would say that that definition is good, but not one I would ascribe to "liberalism"
That's why wikipedia should not be used as a source. I think some editing is in it's future.
Quote:Wow. that's one of the worse definitions of liberalism I have ever read. No where does it speak of needing government baby-sitting of the poor, whining about conservatism, the need for higher taxes on the rich to complete the wealth distribution goals of liberalism, or the idea that the individual should only succeed if everyone else does.
Naturally, that's because the things you list have nothing to do with the definition of Liberalism.
Cycloptichorn
okie wrote:I hardly think what George Washington was talking about had the same definition has today's liberalism. Even today, the term has different meanings in different parts of the world.
As usual, thank you for posting your elucidated opinion with no source.
I suggest you get a book from your local library about George Washington.
'As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality'.
George Washington
END QUOTE
www.brainyquote.com
The Founding Fathers believed in LIMITED GOVERNMENT and STATES RIGHTS. A far cry from what America has now.
'If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter'.
George Washington
END QUOTE
www.brainyquote.com
Baaaaaaaaaa.............of course, you have the right to speak, just not be heard. Exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. You think?
pachelbel wrote:
The Founding Fathers believed in LIMITED GOVERNMENT and STATES RIGHTS. A far cry from what America has now.
And a far cry from what today's American liberals believe in!
Not really. Our definitions of limited gov't are different, is all.
And the whole state's rights issue got kind of set back by the Civil war, if I remember correctly.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Not really. Our definitions of limited gov't are different, is all.
And the whole state's rights issue got kind of set back by the Civil war, if I remember correctly.
Cycloptichorn
You can't be serious? I've got to hear your explanation. Give it a try if you care to.
Well, let me ask you: do you think that modern conservatism is advancing the cause of limited gov't?
I would remind you that in the last 6 years, the size of the gov't has exploded. The amount of money they spend has exploded. The amount of gov't intrusion in people's lives has exploded.
Cycloptichorn
The current administration is not adopting conservative philosophy. Bush's domestic agenda has only continued liberal philosophy of expanding the bureaucracy. Cyclops, you need to substitute the word, Republicanism for conservatism. Reagan was a conservative, but even in the case, in practice, the Congress never allowed him to institute much of his conservative ideas of reducing the bureaucracy.
The only really truly conservative idea that has ever been instituted that I can remember in my entire lifetime that has actually reduced bureaucracy has been welfare reform, which was part of Newt Gingrich's contract with America program, and Congress under his leadership was actually able to reduce the deficit spending to almost a balance. Throughout my life, government has steadily been increased, and once any program or bureaucracy is established, it is never ever rescinded. There may be other examples of conservative ideas instituted, so if there are, I would like to know about them.
And really cyclops, for you to suggest that small government is a liberal idea is pretty bizzarre and unbelievable. I have never heard this ever suggested by a sane person that seriously observes politics in America.
okie wrote:The current administration is not adopting conservative philosophy. Bush's domestic agenda has only continued liberal philosophy of expanding the bureaucracy. Cyclops, you need to substitute the word, Republicanism for conservatism. Reagan was a conservative, but even in the case, in practice, the Congress never allowed him to institute much of his conservative ideas of reducing the bureaucracy.
The only really truly conservative idea that has ever been instituted that I can remember in my entire lifetime that has actually reduced bureaucracy has been welfare reform, which was part of Newt Gingrich's contract with America program, and Congress under his leadership was actually able to reduce the deficit spending to almost a balance. Throughout my life, government has steadily been increased, and once any program or bureaucracy is established, it is never ever rescinded. There may be other examples of conservative ideas instituted, so if there are, I would like to know about them.
And really cyclops, for you to suggest that small government is a liberal idea is pretty bizzarre and unbelievable. I have never heard this ever suggested by a sane person that seriously observes politics in America.
Well small government and perosnal freedom/responsibility/accountablility is very much a component of classical liberalism but now belongs to the heart of modern conservatism.
Modern liberalism in no way advocates smaller government but would rather see government control all of human activities according to their particular preferred view of course.
Quote:
Modern liberalism in no way advocates smaller government but would rather see government control all of human activities according to their particular preferred view of course.
Ridiculous. Which party is the one who wants to see more gov't intrusion into people's lives: the one who fights for privacy rights (dems, manifest liberal thought), or the one who states that the interests of the state are greater than the interests of the individual (Repubs, manifest conservative thought)?
Which party has been arguing for balanced budgets - one of the best ways to control the size of government?
You are so busy demonizing Liberals that you don't even realize that Conservatives are busy doing all the things that you supposedly don't like: increasing the size of gov't tremendously, and intruding in personal lives.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:
Modern liberalism in no way advocates smaller government but would rather see government control all of human activities according to their particular preferred view of course.
Ridiculous. Which party is the one who wants to see more gov't intrusion into people's lives: the one who fights for privacy rights (dems, manifest liberal thought), or the one who states that the interests of the state are greater than the interests of the individual (Repubs, manifest conservative thought)?
Which party has been arguing for balanced budgets - one of the best ways to control the size of government?
You are so busy demonizing Liberals that you don't even realize that Conservatives are busy doing all the things that you supposedly don't like: increasing the size of gov't tremendously, and intruding in personal lives.
Cycloptichorn
Prove any of that through legislation please.
Also we are not talking about political parties though the Democrats fought tooth and nail against a balanced budget when the GOP put the legislation into effect that accomplished it and didn't give a damn about a balanced budget until George Bush was elected and they could make political points with it without actually having to do it. I sure haven't seen any of them suggest we should spend less money on anything, especially services to their constituency and/or pork barrel projects for their home states. At the same time they also try to make political hay out of any spending reductions no matter where they are. The hypocrisy is mind numbing.
But they do want to increase a lot of taxes to make up for the spending. That's a pretty typical modern liberal point of view.
There is no doubt that the GOP has not been consistently conservative in recent years nor has our President on every point. But the Democrats keep moving further and further left and punishing any of their ranks who show any conservative backbone whatsoever.
What he HAVE been talking about are the principles of modern liberalism and modern conservatism. And I'll stand by my definitions against anybody who wishes to challenge them.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Not really. Our definitions of limited gov't are different, is all.
And the whole state's rights issue got kind of set back by the Civil war, if I remember correctly.
Cycloptichorn
Exactly, Cycloptichorn.
People don't remember that the Civil War was about State's Rights.
Slavery was a side issue.
Abe Lincoln wanted a decentralized government. The South did not; they were adhering to the principles of the Founding Fathers - limited government and states' rights.
The South was apparently right.
The Republicans believe in socialism for the wealthy. They gave massive tax cuts to the super rich, and subsidies for health insurance and drug companies. They also gave large subsidies to wealthy energy companies. Please don't forget about the massive pork legislation.
But I guess that is limited government.
