Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
Is Modern Liberalism facing complete disaster in our time?
Normal people have long known that Modern Liberalism - with its constant litany of taking from the rich to pay the poor, its chronic overspending and demands for ever more taxes, and a massive central government expanding into every corner of people's formerly-private lives - is unsustainable. But "unsustainable" means, in fact, that the end must eventually come.
And the end of liberalism might be a lot closer than anyone dared hope.
Is that why liberal hysteria has been rising to a shrill crescendo ever since the election of Barack Obama, the most socialist-left Congress in history, and a veto-proof Senate... the latter two of which they have already lost?
Modern liberalism was started in the U.S. in the 1920s and 1930s, with Hoover's tinkering with the economy and FDR's two New Deals. Will it finally be relegated to the ash heap of history in the 2010's, with small government, personal responsibility and private charity returning to the fore at last?
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.americanthinker.com/prin...hat_liberals_fear_more_than_obama_losing.html
What Liberals Fear More Than Obama Losing
by Geoffrey P. Hunt
August 30, 2011
The left are now wringing their hands fearing their agenda is overripe, blaming everyone else for their own spoiled pickling. While Obama's sinking prospects for re-election are disquieting, the real source of liberals' despair is their sudden, unexpected realization that the progressive agenda is dead in its tracks and will likely be in full retreat after 2012.
Obama is finished, but the demise of their identity politician is neither the main event nor surprising. He was a lame duck after he returned from Copenhagen empty handed in September 2009, expecting the mere presence of his electro-magnetic glow would secure the 2016 summer Olympics for Chicago.
He cannot claim a single success. His resume is a bibliography of failure. His signature achievement, the dubious namesake ObamaCare, was designed by someone else. Its central feature, the individual insurance mandate, is destined to be overturned by the Supreme Court.
We will have our fill of post mortems, ad nauseam, about how The One broke their hearts; his considerable skills, now considered overrated, were just no match for the enormity of the clean- up needed after Bush's mess; a victim of his opponents' entrenched racism.
Obama was only a convenient vessel, a mere tool. But enough about Obama; even the Congressional Black Caucus is ready to Move On.
The end of the Progressive Era, eclipsing Obama, has come from two places -- one fiscal and pragmatic, the other ideological and visceral. First, the debt crisis and persistent economic woes have made it clear that the progressive agenda is unaffordable and unsustainable. The money pumps in the forms of more borrowing and taxes cannot possibly keep up with the tons of green water spending coming aboard.
Second, beyond the limited government ideology now gaining real traction, Americans without an ideology are finding that central planning madness from Washington is making their lives worse, not better.
The tipping point provoking the libs' worst nightmare was contained in Rick Perry's speech announcing his candidacy to be the Republican nominee for president. Perry proclaimed his mission was not to make government more accountable, effective, or efficient -- that's standard issue bromide from populist reformers.
No, Perry was bold enough, and as his critics will assert reckless, to suggest government should be irrelevant -- his words "as inconsequential to your lives as possible." This may be the most radical anti-government posture since Calvin Coolidge, leaning on the likes of Lord Acton:
"There are many things the government can't do, many good purposes it must renounce. It must leave them to the enterprise of others. It cannot feed the people. It cannot enrich the people. It cannot teach the people."
The liberal press are frightened out of their wits. Whether Perry is an authentic purebred limited government advocate may be debatable. No matter, he's close enough.
Perry's credibility as a governor, his disdain for Washington, his unapologetic and outspoken defense of conservative principles, his jobs and business climate record, all despite occasional lapses and rhetorical excesses -- in short his popularity and substance overcoming his defects -- make him the candidate the Dems fear most. Perry, more ruthless, pragmatic, and plain spoken than any of his rivals is the most likely to lead the coming dismantling of the federal government monstrosity.
(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL... and should be. It is a MUST-READ)
Normal people have long known that Modern Liberalism - with its constant litany of taking from the rich to pay the poor, its chronic overspending and demands for ever more taxes, and a massive central government expanding into every corner of people's formerly-private lives - is unsustainable. But "unsustainable" means, in fact, that the end must eventually come.
And the end of liberalism might be a lot closer than anyone dared hope.
Is that why liberal hysteria has been rising to a shrill crescendo ever since the election of Barack Obama, the most socialist-left Congress in history, and a veto-proof Senate... the latter two of which they have already lost?
Modern liberalism was started in the U.S. in the 1920s and 1930s, with Hoover's tinkering with the economy and FDR's two New Deals. Will it finally be relegated to the ash heap of history in the 2010's, with small government, personal responsibility and private charity returning to the fore at last?
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.americanthinker.com/prin...hat_liberals_fear_more_than_obama_losing.html
What Liberals Fear More Than Obama Losing
by Geoffrey P. Hunt
August 30, 2011
The left are now wringing their hands fearing their agenda is overripe, blaming everyone else for their own spoiled pickling. While Obama's sinking prospects for re-election are disquieting, the real source of liberals' despair is their sudden, unexpected realization that the progressive agenda is dead in its tracks and will likely be in full retreat after 2012.
Obama is finished, but the demise of their identity politician is neither the main event nor surprising. He was a lame duck after he returned from Copenhagen empty handed in September 2009, expecting the mere presence of his electro-magnetic glow would secure the 2016 summer Olympics for Chicago.
He cannot claim a single success. His resume is a bibliography of failure. His signature achievement, the dubious namesake ObamaCare, was designed by someone else. Its central feature, the individual insurance mandate, is destined to be overturned by the Supreme Court.
We will have our fill of post mortems, ad nauseam, about how The One broke their hearts; his considerable skills, now considered overrated, were just no match for the enormity of the clean- up needed after Bush's mess; a victim of his opponents' entrenched racism.
Obama was only a convenient vessel, a mere tool. But enough about Obama; even the Congressional Black Caucus is ready to Move On.
The end of the Progressive Era, eclipsing Obama, has come from two places -- one fiscal and pragmatic, the other ideological and visceral. First, the debt crisis and persistent economic woes have made it clear that the progressive agenda is unaffordable and unsustainable. The money pumps in the forms of more borrowing and taxes cannot possibly keep up with the tons of green water spending coming aboard.
Second, beyond the limited government ideology now gaining real traction, Americans without an ideology are finding that central planning madness from Washington is making their lives worse, not better.
The tipping point provoking the libs' worst nightmare was contained in Rick Perry's speech announcing his candidacy to be the Republican nominee for president. Perry proclaimed his mission was not to make government more accountable, effective, or efficient -- that's standard issue bromide from populist reformers.
No, Perry was bold enough, and as his critics will assert reckless, to suggest government should be irrelevant -- his words "as inconsequential to your lives as possible." This may be the most radical anti-government posture since Calvin Coolidge, leaning on the likes of Lord Acton:
"There are many things the government can't do, many good purposes it must renounce. It must leave them to the enterprise of others. It cannot feed the people. It cannot enrich the people. It cannot teach the people."
The liberal press are frightened out of their wits. Whether Perry is an authentic purebred limited government advocate may be debatable. No matter, he's close enough.
Perry's credibility as a governor, his disdain for Washington, his unapologetic and outspoken defense of conservative principles, his jobs and business climate record, all despite occasional lapses and rhetorical excesses -- in short his popularity and substance overcoming his defects -- make him the candidate the Dems fear most. Perry, more ruthless, pragmatic, and plain spoken than any of his rivals is the most likely to lead the coming dismantling of the federal government monstrosity.
(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL... and should be. It is a MUST-READ)
