Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

Point 5. One look at the number of women operating within government from the highest appointed position down to the local level puts this sad little nugget to bed. Take a look at the fascist governments, or any of the governments of the great leftist despots and see how many women you find in leadership positions within government, if you can find any at all.

Point 6. The only government funded media that I am aware of in this country are NPR and PBS which lean decidedly to the left. As to government trying to control media via legislation, consider the attack on talk radio by the left via the fairness doctrine.

Point 7. We have an enemy that has attacked us multiple times on our own soil and has been attacking us, and our interests abroad for 3 decades. Our enemy has cells working within our own borders and has promised more and worse attacks in the futurre. Radical islam is not an enemy fabricated from nothing in an attempt to scare the population. When one has a stated and determined enemy, only the most irresponsible government imaginable would not make said enemy a national security issue.

Point 8. Which religion is it that the government supports and uses at the local level to influence and direct the people? Campaign and political speaking in churches is illegal and the only examples of such that I can recall have been democrats. Al gore gave lots of political speeches in church. Which church is it that the government recommends that you attend and how often do they tell you to go?

Point 9. Facism was all about controlling the means of production. Under fascist governments, only "party" men could own and manage business or industry. If they were not party men, they would lose thier business. Those "party" owners and managers were encouraged by the party to only hire and retain "party" workers. So tell me, when was the last time you lost your job or didn't get a job because of the political party you belonged to?

Point 10. Can you name for me a union or two that has been outlawed by government? Union membership has been dwindling for several decades and is presently at its lowest numbers ever, but that is due to poor leadership, involvement in other than labor politics, and general ineffectiveness rather than any direct or overt action by government.

Point 11. So now, professors and teachers can only get jobs if they are "party" men and women and teach the party line? Is the only work artists can find painting huge heroic murals of the fearless leaders?

Point 12. Which national police force are you under the impression is working here? Are you and your family in danger of being picked up if you speak out against the government?

Point 13. You aren't really going to inject cronyism into the conversation after the clintons are you? Two words. Billy Dale.

Point 14. You are aware, aren't you, that if you do any research you will find that democrats have been charged and convicted at a ratio of about 4 to 1 when compared to republicans. Stuffed ballot boxes, dead people voting, handing out cigarettes to homeless to get them to vote democrat, puncturing tires of busses slated to pick up retirees who lived in predominantly republican areas, etc., etc., etc.

I have read your post and IF I were going to weep, it would be over the fact that you read this crap and believe that you have any real knowledge of fascism either as a politcal theory or in practice. These pathetic points required exactly no effort to brush aside.

You really should study the political philosophy and theory of fascism before you get into the nuts and bolts of fascism in practice, but here, let me give you some of the the planks of the political platforms that the fascist parties ran on and governed by;

*We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

*All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

*We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

*We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

*We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

*We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

*The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

*The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
 
Werbung:
Modern neoconservatism also equals authoritarianism.

That is probably due to the fact that neo conservatives, by definition are liberals that have crossed the aisle and have most certainly brought some of their liberal leanings and tendencies with them.
 
That is probably due to the fact that neo conservatives, by definition are liberals that have crossed the aisle and have most certainly brought some of their liberal leanings and tendencies with them.

I have seen one such liberal turned neocon, David Horowitz, interviewed on several occassions. I see no "liberal leanings and tendencies" in him whatsoever. I'm sure though you know of others, enlighten me.
 
I have seen one such liberal turned neocon, David Horowitz, interviewed on several occassions. I see no "liberal leanings and tendencies" in him whatsoever. I'm sure though you know of others, enlighten me.

It isn't difficult popeye. Look for any republican who has voted for, or supported legislation that expands government power or increases government spending on the welfare state.

Perhaps you are under the impression that neocons are a new thing that just popped up with the bush administration? You couldn't be more wrong. The neocon movement started decades ago and is largely responsible for the drift to the left that the republican party has been experiencing for the past 25 or 30 years.
 
It isn't difficult popeye. Look for any republican who has voted for, or supported legislation that expands government power or increases government spending on the welfare state.

Perhaps you are under the impression that neocons are a new thing that just popped up with the bush administration? You couldn't be more wrong. The neocon movement started decades ago and is largely responsible for the drift to the left that the republican party has been experiencing for the past 25 or 30 years.

By your definition, commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the like are really neocons. Same goes for the majority of Republicans in Congress, not to mention Bush himself. Why then do they persist in calling themselves conservatives if they are really neocons? Could it be they find the term demeaning?
 
By your definition, commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the like are really neocons. Same goes for the majority of Republicans in Congress, not to mention Bush himself. Why then do they persist in calling themselves conservatives if they are really neocons? Could it be they find the term demeaning?

White supremacists prefer to call themselves "white nationalists." This doesn't change what they are.

You know, "A rose, by any other name..." and all that.
 
By your definition, commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the like are really neocons. Same goes for the majority of Republicans in Congress, not to mention Bush himself. Why then do they persist in calling themselves conservatives if they are really neocons? Could it be they find the term demeaning?

A few of the people you mention could be considered neocons, some couldn't. The radio guys often call bush and the republican party on actions that deviate from conservativism.

And I suppose few people want to be identified as neocons for the same reason that very few will admit to being liberal which is one of the most demeaning terms of all. Barely 25%, and in some polls even less are comfortable identifying themselves as liberal these days.
 
White supremacists prefer to call themselves "white nationalists." This doesn't change what they are.

You know, "A rose, by any other name..." and all that.

Care to describe how neoconservatives and conservatives are no more than the same thing with different names? If you have a point to make, then make it. Don't hint that you have a point, or suggest that you may have a point. Be bold and articulate .your argument

I started this thread with the idea of illustrating the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism. To date, no one has effectively challenged a single idea, example or deduction that I put forward. Articulate your own position and see if it stands as well.
 
Care to describe how neoconservatives and conservatives are no more than the same thing with different names? If you have a point to make, then make it. Don't hint that you have a point, or suggest that you may have a point. Be bold and articulate .your argument

I started this thread with the idea of illustrating the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism. To date, no one has effectively challenged a single idea, example or deduction that I put forward. Articulate your own position and see if it stands as well.

Actually, my statement was intended as a rebuttal for Popeye, not you. I don't know about Limbaugh or Hannity, but George Bush is most certainly a neocon, and he claims conservatism quite constantly (try saying that five times fast).

I do believe there is a difference between conservatives and neoconservatives; I just see that many neoconservatives wish to pass themselves off as conservatives.

And I did articulate my rebuttal to your view of modern liberalism. Perhaps I'll try to articulate it better later.
 
Interesting. That statement cut to the very heart of the totalitarian nature of modern liberalism. The light came on and you saw clearly what I was getting and and then by force of will, you turned the light off and set off on your multi step plan to totalitarianism. Exactly how do you justify that internally?

You misunderstand. When I said that I understood where you were coming from, it was because I understood the logic that underpins your arguments, and why that logic is not applicable.

You're viewing liberalism as a static ideology, which it is not. It is an ideology that embraces innovation and new ideas; as such, it cannot be "logically" mapped out beyond a few months down the line because we never know what new ideas will help reshape liberalism in the future.

Basically, we know the ends we wish to achieve: equality of outcome and full respect for all aspects of a multicultural society. We have yet to fully discover the means we will use to reach that goal because, frankly, they don't exist yet. We move towards those ends as best we can and encourage open-minded thought in order to help produce the next generation of ideas that will again help us progress towards our ultimate goals.

If you were to take liberalism as it stands now and assume that it will move unchangingly towards its goals, then yes, it will result in authoritarianism. If you take that a step further and assume that the present means used by liberals will always exist then the argument becomes stronger. Since neither is true, neither is the assertion that liberalism will logically result in authoritarianism.
 
You misunderstand. When I said that I understood where you were coming from, it was because I understood the logic that underpins your arguments, and why that logic is not applicable.

You're viewing liberalism as a static ideology, which it is not. It is an ideology that embraces innovation and new ideas; as such, it cannot be "logically" mapped out beyond a few months down the line because we never know what new ideas will help reshape liberalism in the future.

No, I don't see liberalism as staic. Liberalism is always embracing the newest this or the newest that and as a result, liberals are the very kings of unintended consequences. Rarely does the newest this or the newest that fail to have more negative conotations for society than good.

Basically, we know the ends we wish to achieve: equality of outcome and full respect for all aspects of a multicultural society. We have yet to fully discover the means we will use to reach that goal because, frankly, they don't exist yet. We move towards those ends as best we can and encourage open-minded thought in order to help produce the next generation of ideas that will again help us progress towards our ultimate goals.

Like I said, the only question liberals ever ask themselves seriously is what justification shall be given to principles already settled in advance, and how those principles shall be realized without regard to whether or not they are pie in the sky idealism that will require an iron fist on the part of government to achieve.

The idea of equality rather than freedom is at the heart of the inevetable failure of modern liberalism. Equality of outcome is not possible because equality of effort or equality of purpose does not exist. The founders understood that we are all born equal, but from that time on, all bets are off.

Modern liberalism is necessarily authoritarian in nature because equality is your goal rather than freedom. Equality only exists at the lowest common denominator and an iron fist is required to force people to that level. Look at the failed socialist states. The populations, with the exception of a few elites, were pretty much equal but they were equal in their misery. No liberal state lifts up its citizens, because that is not where equality lies.

If you were to take liberalism as it stands now and assume that it will move unchangingly towards its goals, then yes, it will result in authoritarianism. If you take that a step further and assume that the present means used by liberals will always exist then the argument becomes stronger. Since neither is true, neither is the assertion that liberalism will logically result in authoritarianism.

Liberalism's ultimate goal, euality of outcome, REQUIRES an authoritarian nature. You can not allow people to be free and expect equality of outcome or equality of anything. Equality is not compatible with freedom so freedom must be quashed if liberalism is to achieve its ultimate goal. And the ultimate goal has already been settled.
 
Liberalism's ultimate goal, euality of outcome, REQUIRES an authoritarian nature. You can not allow people to be free and expect equality of outcome or equality of anything. Equality is not compatible with freedom so freedom must be quashed if liberalism is to achieve its ultimate goal. And the ultimate goal has already been settled.

Here's a definition of liberalism I found, "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties". Not only does it state quite clearly as to why I consider myself a liberal, but I don't see one thing in that definition that "REQUIRES an authoritarian nature".
 
Here's a definition of liberalism I found, "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties". Not only does it state quite clearly as to why I consider myself a liberal, but I don't see one thing in that definition that "REQUIRES an authoritarian nature".

Authoritarianism doesn't exist in the definition. Authoritarianism exist in the execution. Describe how you achieve the stated goals in that definition without becoming exactly the thing you claim to be against.

And progress towards what? Towards euality of outcome? Equality only exists at the lowest common denominator. Only a very authoritarian government can keep people at the lowes common denominator.
 
Werbung:
Here's a definition of liberalism I found, "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties". Not only does it state quite clearly as to why I consider myself a liberal, but I don't see one thing in that definition that "REQUIRES an authoritarian nature".

Autonomy of the individual? It is impossible to have this while also trying to enforce government-run healthcare, social security, medicaid, welfare, etc. Taking half of what people earn is hardly conducive to the "autonomy of the individual".

And I believe that palerider asked a very good question: progress towards what? What is the ultimate goal?
 
Back
Top