Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

[Coyote]

Re-examine corporatism in practice. It is socialism and socialism can not be construed as right wing.

Is it? Or does it simply have some socialist aspects?

In the example of Portugal - while corporatism might have still been a form of socialism other aspects of it's governing ideology were distinctly "rightwing". You can't use socialism alone to define whether something is left or rightwing. This is also why I have a real problem with the simplicity of defining things based solely on a single left-right access.

In real life practice I would wonder: is American capitalism a form of corporatism? With the government giving out corporate subsidies and with political elections heavily influenced through the donations of large corporate entities and interest groups? Is that socialism? I don't think so.

Are you going to tell me that this doesn't also describe the soviet union and china, and cambodia, etc, etc or are you going to tell me that they got it wrong and the soviet union, china, and all the rest of the great socialist tyranies were actually fascists?

Are you saying that the Kibbutz movement, then, in practice was fascist?

Socialist tyrannies - look at that term. The emphasis is not on socialist, but on tyranny. Again - some of the countries today with the greatest standard of living and of civil and political liberties are also heavily socialist. Are they also tyrannies? Are they authoritarian?

I don't know much about Cambodia's government other than it was a reign of extreme brutality that had less to do with the ideology of socialism and more to do with it's authoritarian abuses committed by Pol Pot.

I also wonder about something else here - and that is the frequent blurring of socialism and communism. In practice they are both quite different.

Communism establishes a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production and is directly associated with Karl Marx. The only weight it can do that in practice is via an authoritarian state. I think my example of Kibbutz's are more one of socialism then communism.

Socialism advocates that property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community in order to increase social and economic equality and cooperation.

So you can say - all communism is a form of socialism but not all socialism is communism.

I agree that there are elements in common with communism and fascism in those governments along with communism and - most important - authoritarianism. But there are defining elements of facism that you don't find in former USSR for example:
national unity, usually based on ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes
anti-communism
corporatism

You can also say that all communist states in practice are authoritarian, that doesn't necessarily mean that all authoritarian states are communist. Facism in practice takes the wealth of the people but does not re-distribute it in any way - it belongs to a dictator or a small group of people whereas in communism, in practice it is redistributed in the form of the lowest common denominator.

Come on coyote, you are better than this. At least try to make the debate challenging if you are going to engage in it. Fascism is socialism. In practice, all nazis were fascists, but not all fascists were nazis and all fascist were socialist while not all socialists were fascists and all communists were socialists while not all socialists are communists.

In practice fascism contains elements of socialism - but it also contains elements that are also not socialist and are associated with rightwing ideologies. You are deliberately ignoring those unless you are going to apply only economic definitions and not political ones.

You should have been able to look at that definition and see that it also describes the soviet union and china, and any other socialist regime and disregard it as inaccurate.

I notice that you didn't describe any substantial differences between german or italian fascism in practice and stalin's socialism. Is that because you see that they are essentially the same in practice?

No, it's because I don't know enough about them.

 

[Coyote]

I will agree that fascism is rooted in socialism but - that does not make it a leftwing ideology because it also has distinct elements associated with rightwing ideologies that seperate it from the left.

Alright...I did some more looking around...

Fascism appears to be authoritarian capitalism to the extent that property may be privately owned but subject to the authoritarianism of the state or a dictator.

What I see is this: fascists are still basically capitalists. I notice the right likes to deny it in much the same way as the left will say that the USSR wasn't really communist. Fascism does have some socialism (like social security) but it isn't much more socialist than the US.

I did some more reading. Looking at Germany, Italy and Spain - fascists come to power in each nation when communists were about to take over. If the Nazis hadn't taken over, the Communists would have - fascism appears to be a reaction to communism. They are basically people who oppose communism using the same ruthless tactics that the communists use.

In practice then- fascism looks like a free enterprise system where you still have a free market but without any political freedom.

I suppose...looking at all this...it would in the end be a leftwing ideology if you define them as:

Left=more government control with the extreme being communism
Right=less government control with the extreme being anarchy/warlords etc

 

[Coyote]

Man...I sure rambled a lot. Not a good idea to think aloud.

 

[Coyote]

First – Palerider, let me apologize for jumping in to this debate without reading the beginning post – a bad habit of mine (because I am admittedly intellectually lazy). What I have contributed to this dialogue is garbage because of that. So I’m going to start again by answering your initial post which is very well written by the way. You can bash me because I do deserve it (this time).

"Authoritarian" views are certainly not liberal views, they are a trait of conservative ideology.”

I’m going to address this particular point, made by your protagonist. I agree with you actually on this: authoritarian views are the end result of leftist ideology carried to it’s extreme.

I am unsure though if it is solely a characteristic of the leftist ideology. For example one person described leftwing/liberal as increased government role while rightwing/conservative is a decreased government role. But this only addresses a narrow spectrum of characteristics that tend to define those ideologies. Going with that definition, the end result of liberalism carried to it’s extreme is a totalitarian communist state. Likewise, carrying rightwing ideology to it’s extreme brings us to anarchy.

Consider modern liberalism. It is a political philosophy that claims equality and equal freedom as its ultimate goal. Ask any liberal to describe their philosophy and without fail, you will get some variation of “live and let live. In an effort to achieve this goal, however, liberalism requires supervision of everything. Its multicultural ideal excludes and stigmatizes regular people and in order to enforce its equality, it uses quotas, speech codes, and mandatory sensitivity training in politically correct attitudes and opinions. Clearly, there is little connection between those things and “live and let live”.

I agree. However, I’m a liberal. I’m proud of it. I believe in tolerance and social equality, and equality in justice and opportunities for ALL. I do not agree with quota’s for example, mandatory sensitivity training etc. – these things should not be mandated from the top, but rise up from the bottom. No one should be rejected from employment or education soley on the basis of race, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation. The courts are there for that.

Liberals prize tolerance, but what they call tolerance is not tolerance at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but tolerance means letting people do what they want. Modern liberals, however have redefined tolerance (redefinition – a nasty habit of modern liberals) to mean a requirement of equal respect across the social spectrum. True tolerance requires live and let live, but the tolerance of the modern liberal requires an ever more invasive bureaucratic control of every aspect of our social lives. An ideology that “requires” equal respect across the social spectrum must, by definition be intolerant because it must try to control the attitudes that people have towards one another and any real attempt to that end will require means that are both inflexible and tyrannical.

Tolerance does not mean “letting people do what they want”. That would be anarchy. Tolerance stops when another person’s behavior effects your well being or safety or that of the greater society. Tolerance cannot be mandated by the government without becoming increasingly authoritarian in nature. Yet you must have laws in place to protect vulnerable populations from the effects of intolerance or you end up with the law of the jungle.

Lets compare two states. One is the conservative ideal and the other is the modern liberal ideal. In the conservative state, you can say and do pretty much whatever you like so long as you do not violate certain established rights. The conservative state doesn’t care whether you are tolerant or intolerant so long as you don’t physically attack others or damage their property. The conservative state, as a result may be very critical of certain social failures, as it would have a very limited social welfare system. In the conservative sate, you would be free to succeed or fail with interference from the state being limited to enforcing those clearly defined rights that were spoken of earlier.

Except this doesn’t work in like this in practice. A conservative state DOES care about whether you are tolerant or intolerant. A conservative state does not believe in tolerance in relation to an individual’s sexual behavior for example. A conservative state also does not particularly care for the rights of workers to safe working conditions either (because that would require increased government involvement in the regulation of business’). You would be free to succeed or fail without government interference except – you really wouldn’t if you didn’t fit the acceptable social norms.

 

[Coyote]

In the homogenous welfare state that modern liberals favor, however, things would be quite different. In its effort to promote equal respect and tolerance across the social spectrum, the modern liberal state will find that it must necessarily be very intolerant of ways of life that it defines as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. By establishing quotas, the state will force people to associate with others against their will, literally denying them the right to choose what sorts of people they will live near and work with.

Not really. In your description of the “ideal” conservative state you listed the “ideal”. In your description of the “ideal” liberal state, you listed instead, how it is in practice. Not so ideal.

The ideal liberal state would not be a homogenous welfare state.

I think Bertrand Russel said it best, when he described how liberalism aims for a golden mean between despotism and anarchy:

Every community is faced with two dangers, anarchy and despotism. The Puritans, especially the Independents, were most impressed by the danger of despotism. Hobbes, on the contrary, was obsessed by the fear of anarchy. The liberal philosophers who arose after the Restoration and acquire control after 1688, realized both dangers; they disliked both Strafford and the Anabaptists. This led Locke to the doctrine of division of powers and of checks and balances.​

I would say that an ideal liberal state would be one where tolerance exists because respect and tolerance are taught and rewarded, not mandated (whatever happened to manners?). Welfare would not be a multi-generational way of life but rather the short-term helping hand it was intended to be. In a liberal society the government has an obligation to provide a safety net to it’s most vulnerable: the disabled, the elderly, the poor . This does not have to be controlled by the federal government in a “one size fits all” manner but rather, can be given to the states to use in the matter that best works for their communities. There would be no quotas because quota’s are also a form of discrimination and intolerance. Hiring and firing should be based on merit and performance: not race, gender, sexual orientation or disability.

The liberal state will necessarily be unable to accept that ethnic loyalties, and religious and sexual distinctions form the structures by which all people organize their lives and as a result will find that it must, in fact, be intolerant of all real ways of life and must, by force of law, reconstruct them. This new tolerance as found in the modern liberal state means that no one, with the exception of a few elite ideologues gets to carry out his or her life by their own design.

You are not describing the “ideal” but rather what happens when liberalism is carried to an extreme – an extreme you most certainly don’t portray in your “ideal” conservative society.

The ideology of modern liberalism with regard to tolerance seems to be based on the idea that each person is as good as every other person and whatever a person likes is good for him. In order to believe this, however, one must accept that one way of living is as good as all other ways of living because to suggest that one way was better or worse than another would by definition be an act of intolerance. This is a very peculiar, and very specific moral theory. One must view each person impartially as valuable, but everything else as valuable only as defined by the individual. A society that holds such a moral theory must therefore define anyone who holds a moral code that recognizes any sort of absolute good or bad as intolerant.

If carried to it’s extreme yes…but I think you’ll find very few liberals who would extend tolerance say to pedophiles. The problem is balance and moral absolutes. Most liberals don’t advocate the most extreme extensions of the ideology.

But let’s look at a society ruled by moral absolutes. You don’t have to look far: Iran, Saudi Arabia come to mind.

Liberals advocate expanding the envelope of “tolerance”. Conservatives advocate preserving the status quo. The abolishment of slavery and giving women the right to vote were too examples of “liberalism” that at the time were radical and violently opposed. Now both are part of the “status quo”.

Since modern liberalism holds such a narrow and dubious moral theory that very few people indeed actually hold, how then, is it any different from old “theocratic” systems that it labels as intolerant? Is it better, somehow, to be indoctrinated in the dogma and delusion of all inclusiveness than that of one church or another? A panel of civil rights lawyers, after all, is certainly no more forgiving than a panel of robed priests and in all likelihood, less forgiving.

It is no different then the “theocratic” system in terms of “tolerance” but it is rather different in actual application. On the one hand – you have a system that will condemn a person for homosexuality as vigerously as it will for murder, and all this based on “moral absolutes” that don’t appear to have much relationship to reality or the good of society.

Upon close examination it is evident that modern liberalism does indeed hold all of the elements necessary to become authoritarian and totalitarian and in practice has already exhibited a streak of tyranny ranging from mandatory sensitivity training to the “thought police” mentality of actually punishing criminals more harshly based on what they may have been thinking when they committed their particular crime. In the name of equal freedom and equality for all, modern liberalism is willing to empower government bureaucracy to make us all, by force if necessary, into its image.

I can agree with that, but – what you are describing is an extreme. It would be as if I were to say that conservatism is characterized by anti-sodemy laws and “separate but equal” segregation.

I don't believe it is possible to defend the member's statement that "authoritarian views are certainly not liberal views" It may be true that liberals don't see themselves and their philosophy as authoritarian but that, in and of itself, is sad in that it is evidence that they have not invested much thought into thier philosophy and carried it to its logical end. The great leftist tyrants of the 20th century weren't expressing conservative ideals, they were simply men who were able to carry liberal theory to its logical end.

Now there, I disagree. For example there is nothing left of “liberalism” in those regimes only totalitarianism. Would you likewise then agree then that conservative theory carried to it’s logical end would be anarchy? Using the same argument, it would.

 

[palerider]

I think I agree, but I am not sure here and the reason goes back to definitions. What is modern liberalism? Socialism has a clear definition, as does fascism - but "modern liberalism"? What is it? I think that in order to impose any pure ideology into practice on a large scale - and I think these qualifiers are important - you need a certain degree of authoritarianism. In fact that is what most extreme ideologies (whether left or right) have in common.

Modern liberalism is socialism lite. Socialism in its infancy. No more, no less.

Is it? Or does it simply have some socialist aspects?

In the example of Portugal - while corporatism might have still been a form of socialism other aspects of it's governing ideology were distinctly "rightwing". You can't use socialism alone to define whether something is left or rightwing. This is also why I have a real problem with the simplicity of defining things based solely on a single left-right access.

In real life practice I would wonder: is American capitalism a form of corporatism? With the government giving out corporate subsidies and with political elections heavily influenced through the donations of large corporate entities and interest groups? Is that socialism? I don't think so.

If you believe that the US, in any way, is practicing corporatism, then you need to devote more time to learning what corporatism is. Corporatism is socialism and socialism is always left. In any form it it takes, it is left.

Socialist tyrannies - look at that term. The emphasis is not on socialist, but on tyranny. Again - some of the countries today with the greatest standard of living and of civil and political liberties are also heavily socialist. Are they also tyrannies? Are they authoritarian?

Of course they are tyrannies and of course they are authoritarian when compared even to the US today. As to civil and political liberties, you better check again. Go and try to voice conservative viewpoints in those "free" socialist countries and see how well it goes for you. People in all the authoritarian socialist states said that they liked the system because they couldn't imagine not being taken care of. They wore their yoke meekly because they can't imagine being free.

In practice fascism contains elements of socialism - but it also contains elements that are also not socialist and are associated with rightwing ideologies. You are deliberately ignoring those unless you are going to apply only economic definitions and not political ones.

Which elements are right wing? Keep in mind that conservative ideology calls for small non intrusive government. Any large intrusive government is, by definition, left.

Fascism appears to be authoritarian capitalism to the extent that property may be privately owned but subject to the authoritarianism of the state or a dictator.

And you actually believe that is ownership? Come on.

I suppose...looking at all this...it would in the end be a leftwing ideology if you define them as:

Left=more government control with the extreme being communism
Right=less government control with the extreme being anarchy/warlords etc

No because the right recognizes the need for constitutional protection of certain rights and recognize government's responsibility to protect them. The right's ideal state has been done and it was not authoritarian. See the US right after the revolution. It did not begin to become authoritarian until modern liberalism began to worm its way into the government.

I am unsure though if it is solely a characteristic of the leftist ideology. For example one person described leftwing/liberal as increased government role while rightwing/conservative is a decreased government role. But this only addresses a narrow spectrum of characteristics that tend to define those ideologies. Going with that definition, the end result of liberalism carried to it’s extreme is a totalitarian communist state. Likewise, carrying rightwing ideology to it’s extreme brings us to anarchy.

Again, see the constitution if you are interested in what right wing carried to its extreme looks like.

I agree. However, I’m a liberal. I’m proud of it. I believe in tolerance and social equality, and equality in justice and opportunities for ALL. I do not agree with quota’s for example, mandatory sensitivity training etc. – these things should not be mandated from the top, but rise up from the bottom. No one should be rejected from employment or education soley on the basis of race, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation. The courts are there for that.

Not to insult you, but on this issue, you are conservative, not liberal.

Tolerance does not mean “letting people do what they want”. That would be anarchy. Tolerance stops when another person’s behavior effects your well being or safety or that of the greater society. Tolerance cannot be mandated by the government without becoming increasingly authoritarian in nature. Yet you must have laws in place to protect vulnerable populations from the effects of intolerance or you end up with the law of the jungle.[/quote[

Again, you are voicing a conservative view. Liberals tolerate all forms of activity that are clearly bad for society as a whole and coarsen it considerably in the name of "tolerance" and in the process become very authoritarian with regard to anyone who speaks out against these things that are hurting society at large. Modern liberalism simply doesn't believe in anything that trancends the individual and rejects the concept of a greater good.


I really don't have time to get to the rest today. I will try and rebutt the rest over the next day or so. Sorry I didn't get to it over the weekend. Fishing.

 

[Coyote]

We have a problem here and the problem is definitions. You've berated me for depending on definitions yet you are using definitions to make your point.

You are also berating me for not looking at ideologies in practice but - you seem to be doing the same thing.

For example you define conservative as minimal government. That's it. No more - no less.

Now let's look at how you define liberal. Wow - that's a whole book chapter!


Now...let's look at your ideal "conservative society" with some historical accuracy and what do we see?

No government regulation of course which means you buy a pound of flour and ... well...it might be flour or....it might a mixture of flour and plaster of paris.

You hopefully have a job and what is that job? Maybe, you work in a shirt factory a bastion of capitalistic success. But to keep you all in there working at whatever minimum wage they choose to give you for however many hours they want you to work they might lock all the doors until closing time. No legally mandated safety standards. Too bad if there is a fire.

One common defining characteristic of conservatives is "exclusive" and of liberals "inclusive". That meant that whomever was not then defined as "us" was excluded: blacks, women....

Conservative thinking values traditional ways of life. Slavery was one such tradition. Liberals changed it. Now abolition is the status quo. Wasn't always.

Hope you caught lots of good fish!

 

[palerider]

We have a problem here and the problem is definitions. You've berated me for depending on definitions yet you are using definitions to make your point.

You are also berating me for not looking at ideologies in practice but - you seem to be doing the same thing.

For example you define conservative as minimal government. That's it. No more - no less.

Now let's look at how you define liberal. Wow - that's a whole book chapter!

Untrue. I defined modern liberalism as no more and no less than the quest for equality of outcome. That is it. The means to achieve that goal, however, must be authoritarian in nature.

One common defining characteristic of conservatives is "exclusive" and of liberals "inclusive". That meant that whomever was not then defined as "us" was excluded: blacks, women....

Now you have that exactly backwards coyote. It is modern liberalism that excludes all ways of life that aren't liberal. Conservativism, on the other hand just doesn't care. You may be included, and you may be excluded based on the local society, but government (which is the topic here) just doesn't care.

Conservative thinking values traditional ways of life. Slavery was one such tradition. Liberals changed it. Now abolition is the status quo. Wasn't always.

Actually, you have that wrong as well. Would you argue that europe in the time of slavery here was more conservative than the new US with its radical ideas of individual freedom? Slavery had gone the way of the dinosaurs, in most cases, a couple of centuries earlier in the more conservative europe.

Also, lets not forget that at the time of the founding of the country, blacks were not considered to be human beings. And it was not liberals who fought to end slavery. It was constitutionalists who fought to end slavery. Constitutionalist would be best described as classical liberals and lets not confuse classical liberals with modern liberals. Unless you are conservative, you bear no resemblence to the classical liberals who ended slavery.

Hope you caught lots of good fish!

Always. Where are you? If you are not too far, maybe we can get together some bright summer day and go out and catch some.

 

[Coyote]

Always. Where are you? If you are not too far, maybe we can get together some bright summer day and go out and catch some.

Ah, I'm in West Virginia but I travel to Chapel Hill NC to visit my mother regularly. Too far but I admit - you are one person I'd enjoy talking to over a beer or fishing!

On the rest of this post - I must think some before replying in depth (a habit I don't always engage in) - but let me add this thought. You throw around these different versions of "liberalism". In this issue - I have a very simple world outlook and philosophy. My view of liberal and conservative is pretty much aligned to what is described in the "fundamentalist agenda" article. I see liberal and conservative on a much broader spectrum then simple political ideologies - really as part of human nature.

 

[invest07]

Modern liberalism is, as Palerider says, a step on the road to socialism, which is in turn a step on the road to communism.

Liberalism requires massive amounts of governemnt interference in citizen's and requires a huge bureaucracy to enforce the basic tenets of liberalism.

One thing liberals do not argue is the terrible inefficiency of government. It just costs the gov'ment way more to do anything than it does for private citizens to do a similar thing. Out of every dollar the gov'ment confiscates from you for welfare, only 29 cents reaches the needy recipient. The gov'ment's overhead factor is 71%. According to Charity Watch, most established and well known charities have an overhead factor of 25% or less. If you give the Red Cross a dollar, they will see that over 80 cents reaches the needy recipient.

The less government you have, the more efficiently our economy functions and the more goodies we all have.

Socialism/communism failed in the USSR. It has produced societies in N Korea and Cuba that can barely feed themselves. And liberals say they hate the military but the military is the only healthy area of these 2 scoieties.

Western Europe has embraced modern liberalism and socialism and is now paying the price. Europe was run by kings and petty monarchs for close to 100 generations and Europeans appear to be comfortable with "Big Brother" running their lives. At least 2 European socialist states are nearing the breaking point financially, where there is no amount of tax they can collect that will pay the social obligations made. Look for more to be written about this in the near future and for possible collapse in the 2010-2012 window.

The most efficient economic system ever devised by man is free enterprise and socialism/liberalism requires less and less free enterprise and more and more govenrment interference.

The current liberal/socialist scheme is universal heath care. This has been a miserable failure in Canada and liberals, in their tunnel vision, want the same system for us.

Liberals are OK with people being miserable, so long as everyone is equally miserable.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

If you want to learn about a political philosophy, you must look at it in practice. Theoretical politics is a pointless exercise because no one can predeict how it will look in reality. That is the point of my whole argument. Modern liberalism looks great on paper, but in order to put it into practice, it must be decidedly authoritarian.

The whole premise of the thread you started is theoretical.

"to it's logical end..."

I also noticed in this thread that you suggested that the liberals participating in the debate should think twice about "who they pull the lever for". I've also noticed that you have referred to the modern republican party as moving to the left and that Bush is a leftist. So if the guy you voted for is a leftist, and the party you affiliate is moving to the left, what does that make you?

I'm glad I found this thread. the debate is excellent.

 

[palerider]

The whole premise of the thread you started is theoretical.

"to it's logical end..."

I also noticed in this thread that you suggested that the liberals participating in the debate should think twice about "who they pull the lever for". I've also noticed that you have referred to the modern republican party as moving to the left and that Bush is a leftist. So if the guy you voted for is a leftist, and the party you affiliate is moving to the left, what does that make you?

I'm glad I found this thread. the debate is excellent.

While I did vote for bush, I was voting for the lesser of two evils. That is what we, as conservatives, are left with. I won't argue that the US is headed for socialism, and ultimately an uncomfortably authoritarian state followed by years of misery in the guise of equality followed by an economic collapse because socialism destroys the drive to create the very wealth that it is dependent upon. The best conservatives can do is vote for the lesser of the evils and hopefully slow the process.

By the way, we have seen modern liberal theory taken to its logical end a number of times now and are seeing it move towards its logical end in europe now so my position is not theoretical at all.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

While I did vote for bush, I was voting for the lesser of two evils. That is what we, as conservatives, are left with. I won't argue that the US is headed for socialism, and ultimately an uncomfortably authoritarian state followed by years of misery in the guise of equality followed by an economic collapse because socialism destroys the drive to create the very wealth that it is dependent upon. The best conservatives can do is vote for the lesser of the evils and hopefully slow the process.

By the way, we have seen modern liberal theory taken to its logical end a number of times now and are seeing it move towards its logical end in europe now so my position is not theoretical at all.

If Bush, as you put it, has continued the republican move to the left, then how does voting for him slow the process? How does a "true conservative" vote for a leftist anyway?

If conservatism at the federal level is no longer in practice in today's America, there must be a reason. You've stated many times that modern republicans are moving left. why is that? If conservatism is the true political philosophy of our constitutional republic then why is it disappearing from the politics in America. Maybe it's because conservatism "taken to it's logical end" is Anarchism. and no governing body wants that.

 

[palerider]

If Bush, as you put it, has continued the republican move to the left, then how does voting for him slow the process? How does a "true conservative" vote for a leftist anyway?

I would have thought that would be obvious. While bush is pretty far left of me, he is no where near as far left as the two other choices I had. gore and kerry are both true believers and in addition to thinking they know what is best for the country, also believe that they know what is best for me, personally, and would have no compunction in legislating it.

If conservatism at the federal level is no longer in practice in today's America, there must be a reason. You've stated many times that modern republicans are moving left. why is that? If conservatism is the true political philosophy of our constitutional republic then why is it disappearing from the politics in America. Maybe it's because conservatism "taken to it's logical end" is Anarchism. and no governing body wants that.

Of course there is a reason. Too many people have become dependent. Modern liberalism since the 1950's has been very successful at creating dependence and remarkably successful at creating generational dependence in some areas. Couple that with a nearly 60 year campaign of class envy, fanatically supported by the mass media and you have a quite large percentage of those who are not dependent either being embarrassed by their success or holding an elitist attitude towards it. Folks like john edwards, for example, who came from very humble beginnings and gaining great success but talking as if he were one of the "lucky" ones. He made his but the rest of those poor schlubs don't have a prayer.

And conservativism taken to its logical end is a strictly constitutional government. No more, no less. Self reliance is not as easy as being taken care of and the media has fostered a societal attitude of instant gratification and class envy. It isn't difficult to see why so many woud opt for the easy route of the nanny state.

The route to getting elected has become a contest to see who can give the most of other people's money away rather than a contest to show who can give you the most freedom to do for yourself.

 

[Coyote]

Untrue. I defined modern liberalism as no more and no less than the quest for equality of outcome. That is it. The means to achieve that goal, however, must be authoritarian in nature.

Ok, I think we need to be clear here. Are we talking about Liberalism/Conservatism theoretically – or in practice? For example, your definition of conservatism leaves out a great many issues that are included in it in practice.

Originally Posted by Coyote
One common defining characteristic of conservatives is "exclusive" and of liberals "inclusive". That meant that whomever was not then defined as "us" was excluded: blacks, women....

Now you have that exactly backwards coyote. It is modern liberalism that excludes all ways of life that aren't liberal. Conservativism, on the other hand just doesn't care. You may be included, and you may be excluded based on the local society, but government (which is the topic here) just doesn't care.

It sounds like you are describing liberalism – in PRACTICE and conservatism – in THEORY. Apples and oranges. Conservatism in practice DOES care – very much. It excludes whatever group is defined as “not us”. In different periods of history that has been blacks, women, native Americans or homosexuals. Look right now at your conservative base. How many of them say they wouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Morman and Morman’s aren’t quite “us”.

I could easily make the argument here that liberalism “doesn’t care”. For example: a child can pray in school, bring a bible (but not disrupt classes); a preacher can preach and hand out leaflets on a public street corner, a man and a woman can marry if they choose too, send their children to the school of their choice and, if they can’t afford it take advantage of the public school system. If they don’t like gay people in a parade – they can ignore them. If I don’t like conservative Christian preachers on the street corner, I can ignore them. One of the tenants of liberalism is a strong support for civil and political rights and liberties as outlined in the Bill of Rights. Both liberals and conservatives revere the Constitution, they just emphasize different portions of it.

Now…you make an interesting distinction: local society and government. Local society IS government – it just isn’t federal government. Conservatives want power in the hands of local governments and liberals want power in the hands of federal governments. Because of that, local society can be just as restrictive and authoritarian in mandating it’s views as the federal government can be. And in BOTH cases – you can leave if you don’t like it. Maybe.

Actually, you have that wrong as well. Would you argue that europe in the time of slavery here was more conservative than the new US with its radical ideas of individual freedom? Slavery had gone the way of the dinosaurs, in most cases, a couple of centuries earlier in the more conservative europe.

The ideas of individual freedom were radical. But the ideas of limiting it to certain groups of humans were not. Just because some of the vews were radical and liberal does not mean they all were.

Also, lets not forget that at the time of the founding of the country, blacks were not considered to be human beings. And it was not liberals who fought to end slavery. It was constitutionalists who fought to end slavery. Constitutionalist would be best described as classical liberals and lets not confuse classical liberals with modern liberals. Unless you are conservative, you bear no resemblence to the classical liberals who ended slavery.

I don’t think I am wrong. If you look at liberalism as changing and expanding what is “us” then the abolitionist movement was very liberal. Abolitionism started during the enlightenment – a period when the traditional forms of government and the traditional role of religion in society and public policy were being questioned and overturned. The Enlightenment brought us our form of government but somehow the idea of abolition did not carry over - or rather, opponents of it held a stronger voice. Our Constitution came out of this but – that does not mean that “constitutionalists” (who advocate a strict interpretation of the constitution) were also. The constitutionalists did not abolish slavery, the abolitionists did. Constitutionalists advocated states rights in the matter of slavery. And that meant each state – not the federal government – could decide whether to legalize it or not.

You are making “classical liberal” sound like “conservative”. I disagree. For example, one primary tenant of conservatism that does not fit the liberal model is the social agenda of conservatives. That social agenda wants to mandate: its idea of marriage on everyone. It would like to see sodomy and adultery laws enforced. It would like to see people denied jobs or housing on the basis of sexual orientation. It would like to see one entire class of people relegated to de-facto second class citizenship. It would like to promote a greater role of “the Church” (and only the Christian church at that) in the political and social lives of all Americans and it is willing to use both federal and local levels to attain this.