Can Anyone Name A Social Problem Not Rooted in Liberalism?

[BigRob]

Great posts Pale....as usual.

If only we could return to the true meaning of the Constitution and limit this horrendous omnipotent federal government to it's original duties. How wonderful that would be. But, sadly liberalism has so infected every facet of our society that even many on the right would not go along.

I am willing to bet that not ONE government school student in the United States is required to read the Declaration and Constitution and understand their true meaning. Most Americans have no idea what our Founders did and how they gave us the greatest governmental design ever devised.

However I suspect that Liberalism is about to bankrupt our nation leading to a very big unintended consequence. Once it all comes crashing down, which may happen very soon, we will see if as a nation, we head back to tyranny or back to liberty.

But just what is the "true" meaning? Not even our founders agreed on such matters.

 

[palerider]

Hummm! So, you think I was correct? But have chosen to express it in a negative way.

And you continue to not get it. Deliberate or simple ignorance?

AH! So you presuppose I wasn't speaking in classical terms. (Remembering that I was replying to the idea that the term "liberal" might be derogatory in nature; not that I was supporting concept.)[/wuote]

Of course you weren't speaking of classical liberalism. You made that more than evident when you went on to say, in defense of liberalism as you understood it, that an adequate distribution of wealth would cure all. Such a claim could never be made in association with classical liberalism by anyone who had the least grasp of the philosophy. Clearly you were speaking as a modern liberal in defense of modern liberalism.

So again, you think I was correct? But have chosen to express it in a negative way.

Interesting how you continue to believe someone is agreeing with you when they are flatly disputing everyting you have said. Arrogance, ignorance, or some pathetic defense mechanism?

I may, in fact, be uneducated. And assuming I am, one look at you post would go a long way in convincing me (that what you describe yourself to be) is the pendulum at the extreme. And most things that are taken to the extreme, prove harmful or counterproductive.

Since you are "attmitedly" uneducated, you will pardon me if I don't put much stock in your perceptions. Clearly you have already missed the mark on a topic as easily studied and understood as the political philosophy of classical vs modern liberalism so the chances of you hitting the mark on a topic so obscure as the as of yet expressed political thinking of an individual are about nil.

I'm not sure I made a distinction between classical liberalism and what you describe as modern liberalism. But I take your point.

It is like not making a distinction between oxygen and cyanide gas. Such distinction is absolutely necessary to the discussion if it is to have any meaning at all.

I'm not sure that I subscribe to the notion that strict compliance of a doctrine, two centuries old, without the benefit of evolution, is the correct approach. I tend to think that "strict constitutionalism" (originalist perspective ) is just as harmful as "extreme judicial activism;" each being at opposite ends of the spectrum; contentious theory. But if one exists, so must the other to achieve balance in the continuing interpretation of The Constitution.

And therein lies the basis of the never ending chain of unintended consequences and misery that lies in the wake of modern liberalism. Moden liberals seek change for change's sake and don't seem never to learn that the torch of progress all to often turns out to be a devouring conflagration. There is as distinct a difference between natural evolution of political philosophy and the change for change's sake undertaken by modern liberalism as there is between classical liberalism and modern liberalism.

Many people, lightyears beyond my meager understanding, express the idea that The Constitution is a "Living Document."

The self same group, by the way, at whose feet the ongoing economic and societal disentigration that has been going on since the time of FDR can be laid.

Well, actually, when I went to school, we had to study both the Federalist Papers and the anti-Federalist Papers. But I don't claim to be as enlightened as you are on the subject.

Study and understanding are two different things.

Again, you are injecting something not in evidence. I don't believe I did a comparative analysis on America relative to other social, economic and political constructs (socialist, marxist, communist, or fascist, etc).

You attempted to defend modern liberalism which is by definition a smörgåsbord of socialism, marxim, communism, and fascism, etc.) To look at modern liberalism as it is practiced in the US is to look at the aforementioned "isms".

I believe I was discussing whether or not "liberal is a justifiably-derogatory term." It is a matter of whether we consider all alternative views in a derogatory light, or as an or simply one of a number of possibilities worth of consideration.

What you were doing was attempting to portray the classical liberalism espoused by the founders of this nation as having a close philosophical relationship to the modern liberalism being practiced today. To do so is disingenuous in the extreme as the one bears no resemblence in practice to the other.

The expansion of government duties and responsibilities has been (for the most part) a result of Congressional Action, derivative of Constitutional Authority. Whether they are observed as serving classical liberal or conservative views is virtually unimportant as the implementation and funding was done by the will of the people. However, individually, they are all open for debate.

Which goes back to the modern liberal idea of the constitution being a "living" document subject to corruption and degradation whenever the ends seems to justify it; which in turn has resulted in the seemingly endless human and economic carnage left in the wake of said expansion.

While a discussion of the alternative mental lexicon governing the interpretation of what it means to be a "liberal" or a "conservative" may be philosophically entertaining, it ultimately has no relevance to the nature of governance.

It does if one undertakes to claim that modern liberalism and its goals are anything like the classical liberalism and associated goals upon which this nation was founded. It has great relevance if one undertakes, as you clearly did, to propagandize modern liberalism as the basis for the founding of this nation.

In this short discussion, my commentary was focused on the derogatory connotation of the labels and not the political outcomes of the legislative processes in governance.

Liberal as it applies to the modern use of the word holds great derogatory connotations. It, in fact, is the very symbol of the deterioration of our social and economic fabric. The OP was entirely correct in its assumption that very few if any of the troubles we find ourselves facing today can't be laid at the feet of modern liberalism. Any attempt at defending modern liberalism necessarily brings on a rebuttal and the deeper the conversation goes, the more sinister and if I may say, evil, modern liberalism appears to be.

 

[palerider]

But just what is the "true" meaning? Not even our founders agreed on such matters.

If you read the Federalist papers from beginning to end with anything like an effort to really glean what they say, you will find that the founders were far more in agreement on what the true meaning of the Constitution was than you seem to think. The Federalist papers were uncoordinated frank talk on the part of the founders regarding their thoughts on what the constution was, and was not. Few, if any, real disagreements existed between them regarding the meaning of the document upon which they pledged their lives and fortunes.

The meaning of the Constitution, according to the founders, is self evident. Read the words and apply the corresponding definitions. To their way of thinking, the constitution said what it meant and required absolutely no "interpretation". Interpretation of the Constitution implying some other meaning than the literal is a trick of modern liberalism which has unfortunately rendered the original intent of the document, and stated ideals of the US irretrievable and lost to all future generations.

 

[BigRob]

If you read the Federalist papers from beginning to end with anything like an effort to really glean what they say, you will find that the founders were far more in agreement on what the true meaning of the Constitution was than you seem to think. The Federalist papers were uncoordinated frank talk on the part of the founders regarding their thoughts on what the constution was, and was not. Few, if any, real disagreements existed between them regarding the meaning of the document upon which they pledged their lives and fortunes.

The meaning of the Constitution, according to the founders, is self evident. Read the words and apply the corresponding definitions. To their way of thinking, the constitution said what it meant and required absolutely no "interpretation". Interpretation of the Constitution implying some other meaning than the literal is a trick of modern liberalism which has unfortunately rendered the original intent of the document, and stated ideals of the US irretrievable and lost to all future generations.

I think they all generally agreed upon what it was, and the idea behind it -- but I would argue there were major disagreements about what the government had the power to do and not to do -- the first bank of the United States immediately coming to mind -- something in which Madison and Jefferson argued was unconstitutional -- and Hamilton (and others) disagreed, and ultimately George Washington signed the legislation into law -- over clear constitutional objections from people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

 

[Gipper]

But just what is the "true" meaning? Not even our founders agreed on such matters.

Why are you doing this? This is getting absurd.

The true meaning is the true meaning. It is not nebulous. We can identify exactly what the true meaning. As Pale stated, it is well known by those who have researched our founding documents, what the true meaning is. Our Founders made it very clear what it means. The written record is there for all to read.

Constantly asking for definitions diminishes the true meaning (it also diminishes YOU). Are you like many who believe the Constitution is a flexible document? Do you believe in judicial activitism or judicial restraint? For example, does the Constitution grant American women the right to kill their unborn child?

 

[palerider]

I think they all generally agreed upon what it was, and the idea behind it -- but I would argue there were major disagreements about what the government had the power to do and not to do -- the first bank of the United States immediately coming to mind -- something in which Madison and Jefferson argued was unconstitutional -- and Hamilton (and others) disagreed, and ultimately George Washington signed the legislation into law -- over clear constitutional objections from people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Exactly which article in the Constitution establishes a bank of the US? I must have missed that in my many readings of the document.

 

[BigRob]

Why are you doing this? This is getting absurd.

Don't mean for it to be -- I had some interesting conversations with some Republican activists down here and wanted to get some opinions here as well.

The true meaning is the true meaning. It is not nebulous. We can identify exactly what the true meaning. As Pale stated, it is well known by those who have researched our founding documents, what the true meaning is. Our Founders made it very clear what it means. The written record is there for all to read.

Constantly asking for definitions diminishes the true meaning (it also diminishes YOU). Are you like many who believe the Constitution is a flexible document? Do you believe in judicial activitism or judicial restraint? For example, does the Constitution grant American women the right to kill their unborn child?

I think we can all agree on principles behind the Constitution -- but as clearly seen over and over again in history, the application of such principles varies (even among the founders) varied wildly. How can we say this is what the founders meant -- when the founders themselves argued about it after the fact?

 

[BigRob]

Exactly which article in the Constitution establishes a bank of the US? I must have missed that in my many readings of the document.

You didn't miss -- it is not there -- but that is not my point.

You argued that the founders all generally agreed upon what the Constitutional was about and allowed. Yet a mere two years after it took effect, they were having a major policy debate about what was allowed and what was not.

Certainly we can all agree that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are "founders", just as we can agree that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton are -- Washington was in fact the first person to sign the Constitution. Jefferson and Madison obviously argued that the Bank was unconstitutional. Hamilton obviously argued that it was -- and Washington ultimately agreed and the charter was granted.

It should come as little surprise that if the writers of the document themselves had these debates right after it took effect that we continue to have them. I certainly know where I come down in my positions on the issue -- but I can recognize that claims of the founders all agreed, or returning to the Constitution don't really seem to have much validity past a talking point.

 

[Gipper]

Don't mean for it to be -- I had some interesting conversations with some Republican activists down here and wanted to get some opinions here as well.

I think we can all agree on principles behind the Constitution -- but as clearly seen over and over again in history, the application of such principles varies (even among the founders) varied wildly. How can we say this is what the founders meant -- when the founders themselves argued about it after the fact?

Could you point to the 'arguments' the founders had after the fact? If you are referring to Hamilton's efforts at a more centralized statist federal government versus the federal limited position most of the founders had, I do not think this supports your argument. Hamilton did not claim the Constitution meant something other than what Madison and the other founders intended.

For example, I do not believe any of the Founders argued or disagreed about the meaning of the Bill of Rights.

 

[RoccoR]

Gipper, et al,

I'm not sure about this (I could be wrong)!

... ... ...
For example, I do not believe any of the Founders argued or disagreed about the meaning of the Bill of Rights.

(COMMENT)

I was given the impression that "slaves" were considered "property" and that The Bill of Rights did not apply to slaves until the 13th Amendment (again I could be wrong). But that there were several founders (including Washington, Adams, Henry, Jefferson, Madison and Jay) that were openly vocal against slavery and the exclusion of "slaves" under The Bill of Rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[palerider]

Gipper, et al,

I'm not sure about this (I could be wrong)!


(COMMENT)

I was given the impression that "slaves" were considered "property" and that The Bill of Rights did not apply to slaves until the 13th Amendment (again I could be wrong). But that there were several founders (including Washington, Adams, Henry, Jefferson, Madison and Jay) that were openly vocal against slavery and the exclusion of "slaves" under The Bill of Rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

At the time, blacks were considered to be non human and therefore not man and therefore not created equal. Bummer for blacks but alas, that was the state of knowledge at the time.

 

[dogtowner]

At the time, blacks were considered to be non human and therefore not man and therefore not created equal. Bummer for blacks but alas, that was the state of knowledge at the time.

Ole Tommy Jefferson and his tepid anti slavery message described here. sounds very much like the liberals's view of blacks today.

By creating a moral and social distance between himself and enslaved people, by pushing them down the "scale of beings," he could consider himself as the "father" of "children" who needed his protection. As he wrote of slaves in 1814, "brought up from their infancy without necessity for thought or forecast, [they] are by their habits rendered as incapable as children of taking care of themselves." In the manner of other paternalistic slaveholders, he thus saw himself as the benevolent steward of the African Americans to whom he was bound in a relation of mutual dependency and obligation.

 

[TheJPRD]

Gipper, et al,

I'm not sure about this (I could be wrong)!


(COMMENT)

I was given the impression that "slaves" were considered "property" and that The Bill of Rights did not apply to slaves until the 13th Amendment (again I could be wrong). But that there were several founders (including Washington, Adams, Henry, Jefferson, Madison and Jay) that were openly vocal against slavery and the exclusion of "slaves" under The Bill of Rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco: The question of "slavery" is a great one when trying to explain how we Conservatives view our Constitution. You mentioned that some supposedly "intelligent" Americans see the Constitution as a "living document". We Conservatives believe that the only "Life" in the Constitution is that which is breathed-into it by We-The-People in the form of properly-instituted amendments. If slavery still existed in today's America, you can bet there'd be a treasonous liberal judge who'd declare it un-Constitutonal, even though the Constitution specifically allowed it. Our founders disagreed on numerous issues. I cannot point to one founder, however, who believed that a judge could CHANGE the clearly-stated intent of our Constitution; nor that an arrogant Chief Executive could alter the intent of our Constitution by Executive decree, or by picking and choosing which laws will or will not be enforced!

 

[RoccoR]

TheJPRD, et al,

I agree with you, that The Founders wanted to create a constitution that would stand the test of time; lasting forever. And to that end, I think they wrote The Constitution with that in mind. It expresses the foundational principles in such a manner that, for the most part, have been applicable for the last two centuries - adapting to change in the nation and the world in ways far beyond anything The Founders could conceive.

Whether The Constitution was brilliantly written and adopted by a very unlikely band of genius, or scribed through the human hand by devine intervention, or whether we (the nation) were just plan lucky, we will never truly know. But the legacy of The Founders has has been passed-on, generation through generation, and built upon, to form the America we have today.

Rocco: The question of "slavery" is a great one when trying to explain how we Conservatives view our Constitution. You mentioned that some supposedly "intelligent" Americans see the Constitution as a "living document". We Conservatives believe that the only "Life" in the Constitution is that which is breathed-into it by We-The-People in the form of properly-instituted amendments. If slavery still existed in today's America, you can bet there'd be a treasonous liberal judge who'd declare it un-Constitutonal, even though the Constitution specifically allowed it. Our founders disagreed on numerous issues. I cannot point to one founder, however, who believed that a judge could CHANGE the clearly-stated intent of our Constitution; nor that an arrogant Chief Executive could alter the intent of our Constitution by Executive decree, or by picking and choosing which laws will or will not be enforced!

(COMMENT)

Clearly --- there will be, for its term of life, two competing views that were never stipulated by The Founders.

• Should The Constitution never be changed? Is The Constitution absolutely rigid, rock solid, engraved in stone, and beyond interpretation, only to exist in the vacuum of society to address 18th Century concerns, but never to evolve into the 21st Century? This is the view of the fundamentalist. That The Constitution states basic principles that can never be interpreted in vernacular of modern times.

• OR, is The Constitution such, that given change - its principles are adaptable and the intent of The Founders can be interpreted and applied to 21st Century controversial issues.

Except as to the expression of change and amendment in Article V, it does not appear that The Founders actually address the issue of adaptation or interpretation. So it is, that we must generally ask the question in the form of an "originalist:" What opinion or intent would The Founders express if they were addressing the question at hand?
How would The Founders addressed the late 20th Century issues of:

• Legal representation for the accused.
• Minority Civil Rights
• Search and Seizure
• Electronic and Technical Surveillance
• Lawful Detention, Habeas Corpus
• Foreign Military Engagements without a Declaration of War
• Economic Monopolies
• Just to name a few!

It would be interesting to see how The Founders would have reacted to the recent case on Immigration Law. The competitive question on "Strict Reading" vs "Interpretation" will be an ongoing battle forever. It is likely that neither is absolutely correct, but that each has a part to play in the struggle for balance. It is more likely that The Founders intended to place their trust in the hands of future generations - that they would act in the best interest of the nation.
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Gipper]

Gipper, et al,

I'm not sure about this (I could be wrong)!


(COMMENT)

I was given the impression that "slaves" were considered "property" and that The Bill of Rights did not apply to slaves until the 13th Amendment (again I could be wrong). But that there were several founders (including Washington, Adams, Henry, Jefferson, Madison and Jay) that were openly vocal against slavery and the exclusion of "slaves" under The Bill of Rights.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of the Constitution, which Big Rob claims the founders disagreed upon. The meaning and intent of the Constitution was not disputed by any of the Founders in significant manner.

Yes they did disagree about slavery.