The hijacking of the term" Liberalism"

[adkbuck]

I would like to address the notion of why the so called "Democratic" or "progressive" party is not "Liberal" , a term that once implied the conservation of individual liberty.  

 

The term right and left is pretty much meaningless in todays world.     You have two fundamental philosophies to government, one where there is a desire to centralize government power and  that wants to preserve and conserve individual and religious freedoms. 

 

Actually the Democratic Party and the so called "modern day liberals"  (which are not really "liberal" at all)  have much more in common with the Nazi's and the Fascists than they are willing to admit and are are the opposite of conservatives who are the true liberals.  The modern day liberals (aka progressives) are for the centralization of power and bigger government along with the diminishing of individual rights and religious freedoms.  They have much in common with the effective and practiced policies of Nazi's, fascists and the actual practice of so-called communist states which have used the façade of socialistic democracy to achieve centralization of power before they devolve into dictatorships (which they all do eventually).

 

The term "Liberal"  prior to the emergence of the "progressive movement" in the early 20th century meant one that believed in conserving liberty and the preservation of individual freedoms.  Hence conservatives are the "true Liberals" in today's world.  The term liberal was hijacked in the early to mid 20th century. Using the term liberal, progressives like Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were able to fundamentally change the role of government in American society by expanding it under the guise that more regulation meant more freedom. The opposite was true, and they knew it.

 

 

 

[Curmudgeon]

Cabin fever is a problem everywhere.

[The_Field_Ager]

Cabin fever is a problem everywhere.

 

 

Meaning?

[The_Field_Ager]

Classical Liberalism Hijacked

 

 

 

Political and economic collectivist ideology such as Socialism, Fascism, Progressivism and Communism have been words that are usually not very respected and typically looked down upon in America so it is natural to develop other labels that can be used to accomplish the same objectives. It is from this point that “liberalism”, among other words, has become corrupted and manipulated to mean different things, and in fact, opposites. Some claim this an example of ideological evolution but others believe this has been an intentional act of terminological theft.

 

 

 

 

When Mises argued against anti-liberal policies by saying it is “socialism”, he considered, as I do, that socialism refers to all forms of central economic planning. This includes national socialism (Nazism), fascism, progressivism, Fabian socialism, and communism (international socialism). Historically, the commonly used economic terms include state capitalism, state socialism, planned economy, and industrial policy. In reality, there are many more terms to describe these similar economic policies which, in the end, are all similar attempts at the same Utopian ends. Today, all of this is can be considered to be some form of progressivism in America.

 

 

 

The outspoken socialist, H.G. Wells, was of the greatest influences on the progressive mind in the twentieth century (and, it turns out, the inspiration for Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World). Wells didn’t coin the phrase as an indictment, but as a badge of honor. Progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis,” he told the Young Liberals at Oxford in aspeech in July 1932.

In 1927 H.G. Wells (An enormous fan of FDR’s New Deal) couldn’t help but notice “the good there is in these Fascists. There is something brave and well-meaning about them.”

 

 

https://classicalliberalism.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/classical-liberal-quotes/

[wildcat junkie]

Seems that I remember the Constitution was written to give more centralized power to the feds than the failed Articles of Confederation it replaced.

Edited February 25, 2015 by wildcat junkie

[Curmudgeon]

Meaning?

 

People have way too much time on their hands.

 

Haven't any of you ever met a liberal libertarian?

 

[growalot]

Papist !!! Do you really want to know what a t he meant...Do you care. It's like inviting a cockroach into your house...then expecting it not to breed

[virgil]

I see the trolls woke up hungry this morning.

[Curmudgeon]

Papist -

 

The last time I took the time to seriously share my thoughts in one of these political discussions - as opposed to my usual sniping - you did not show any respect for my opinion. Regardless, I will try again. You will accuse me of reframing the debate and that is exactly what I am doing.

 

What do any of you intend to accomplish with these political discussions? Beyond entertainment for those who like to read them, or recreation for those who like to argue, did any of you ever change one person's mind? Is that a goal?

 

You are a smart guy. Why don't you present arguments in a way that educates instead of provokes?

 

This thread and others look like venting to me - thus the "cabin fever" comment.

 

People are assigning qualities - real or imagined - to those they disagree with. From one extreme or the other, we can each perceive those in the middle - or those who are more complicated - as liberal, as conservative, as The Enemy.

 

Yours Truly,

The cockroach.

 

Edited February 25, 2015 by Curmudgeon

[growalot]

Let me explain my comment...it was not calling you a cockroach by any means ...the cockroach breeding comment was in regard to how these threads mulitiply into back and forth commentaries that end up in multiple page loops of the same thing .....Yes thats what discussions are but we ALL must be able to see the pattern  that yes MOST including me...fall into...that said

 

My appology to you if it seemed I referred to you as a cockroach..that WAS NOT MY INTENT

 

It was a frustration to akdbuck taking the time to have, what I think was a well thought out comment ,on a political phrase just to have the very first comment be what it was..then Papaist having that  end up being the conversation. I, having seen these go side ways, got frustrated...for one thing akdbuck isn't one to usually engage in political comments . Yes should have kept my frustaions to myself..second apology...

Edited February 25, 2015 by growalot

[Mr VJP]

Seems that I remember the Constitution was written to give more centralized power to the feds than the failed Articles of Confederation it replaced.

 

The Constitution was written to restrain the powers of the Federal government.  It has no power in any area not specifically granted to it by the Constitution, keeping all of the general powers in the hands of the states and the people.

 

The US Constitution is a restraining order on centralized power in the Federal government.

 

http://constitutionality.info/TheConstitution.html

Edited February 25, 2015 by Mr VJP

[The_Field_Ager]

Papist !!! Do you really want to know what a t he meant...Do you care. It's like inviting a cockroach into your house...then expecting it not to breed

 

No, I was just making it known that I had noticed yet another non-addition to the debate at hand.

[The_Field_Ager]

 you did not show any respect for my opinion.

 

 

You are absolutely correct. I have no respect for opinions based on emotional bias, that indicate no real reference to facts or relevant information. Especially when said 'opinions' generally manifest in the form of ad-hominem comment, denigration (such as above) or redirection.

 

Opinions based on nothing but more opinion are worthless.

 

Spot on sir.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Papist

[wildcat junkie]

For those that see the Constitution as "limiting" the power of the federal Government. The Constitution gave the Federal government more power over  the states (and individuals) than the "Articles of Confederation" it replaced.

 

 

Articles of Confederation vs. the Constitution

 

     The following chart compares some of the provisions of the Articles of Confederation with those in the Constitution. It's important to note that most commentators see the Articles period (1781-1789) as a weak one in terms of governmental power. Whether that is a positive or negative for the United States depends on one's point of view regarding the size and influence of a national government. Libertarians would view the Articles period as the pinnacle of American freedom, while those favoring a strong central government would see it as a failure. 
 

 

Levying taxes  
Articles of Confederation Congress could request states to pay taxes 

 

Constitution Congress has right to levy taxes on individuals

 

 

Federal courts 

Articles of Confederation  No system of federal courts 

 

Constitution Court system created to deal with issues between citizens, states 

 

 

Regulation of trade

Articles of confederation No provision to regulate interstate trade

 

Constitution Congress has right to regulate trade between states

 

 

Executive 

Articles of Confederation   No executive with power. President of U.S. merely presided over Congress

 

Constitution Executive branch headed by President who chooses Cabinet and has checks on power of judiciary and legislature

 

 

Amending document  

Articles of Confederation  13/13 needed to amend Articles

 

Constitution 2/3 of both houses of Congress plus 3/4 of state legislatures or national convention

 

 

Representation of states

Articles of Confederation  Each state received 1 vote regardless of size 

 

Constitution Upper house (Senate) with 2 votes; lower house (House of Representatives) based on population 

 

 

Raising an army

Articles of Confederation  Congress could not draft troops, dependent on states to contribute forces 
 

Constitution Congress can raise an army to deal with military situations 

 

 

Interstate commerce

Articles of Confederation  No control of trade between states 
  

Constitution Interstate commerce controlled by Congress 

   

 

Disputes between States

Articles of Confederation Complicated system of arbitration 

 

Constitution Federal court system to handle disputes 

 

 

Sovereignty 

Articles of Confederation Sovereignty resides in states 

 

Constitution Constitution the supreme law of the land 

 

 

Passing laws

Articles of Confederation  9/13 needed to approve legislation 
 

Constitution 50%+1 of both houses plus signature of President 
 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2015 by wildcat junkie

[virgil]

Opinions based on nothing but more opinion are worthless......

 

....unless, of course, those opinions are similar to my own, in which case they will be considered facts.

 

 

 

 

[Curmudgeon]

Opinions based on nothing but more opinion are worthless......

 

....unless, of course, those opinions are similar to my own, in which case they will be considered facts.

 

Vigil -

 

I'm so tired of his hypocrisy, I'm giving up being serious with him. Notice he doesn't even answer the serious questions I ask him.

[virgil]

I've also tried to quit responding in any serious manner.  Glad to see that very few seem to take the nonsense seriously.

[wildcat junkie]

Isn't it funny how it seems none of them want to respond to the post above that points out that the Constitution undeniably strengthened the power of the federal government.

[adkbuck]

The Articles of Confederation were a temporary measure needed by the newly freed original states to survive until a centralized government and a more functional constitution could be established.  Wildcat, I think your post did a good job of explaining the differences between the two.  Immediately after the revolution the states were apprehensive about a return to a monarchy-like government through the misuse of power, so the Articles of Confederation were good at the time.   The constitution created a an executive branch and a tighter union that would be necessary for the country to survive.  The constitution created the three equal branches of government, which presumably would protect the citizens from tyranny by one branch or by one powerful individual.  You may disagree but today many of us see the executive branch usurping the powers righty given to the legislative branch. 

 

I am grateful to be a free person and to be an American citizen where I can express my opinion as I have above. I am glad we can have a discussion.    I also am very concerned that individual freedom is being threatened by the executive branch's plans through the FCC to impose governmental control of the internet in a way decided by the executive branch alone. . 

Edited February 25, 2015 by adkbuck

[wildcat junkie]

  I also am very concerned that individual freedom is being threatened by the executive branch's plans through the FCC to impose governmental control of the internet. 

You're kidding me right?

 

Would you rather have profit driven corporations imposing their control over what or who gets to see on the internet through exorbitant fees or even (possible) outright refusal to allow subscribers access? They are already doing that very thing.

 

Ted Cruz is bought & paid for by Comcast. Do you really expect him to put a truthful spin on this subject?

 

"Regulating" the internet as a utility through the FCC doesn't mean government control over the internet. It regulates what providers can charge just like (other) public utilities. This isn't about your ISP bill BTW.

[ants]

You're kidding me right?

 

Would you rather have profit driven corporations imposing their control over what or who gets to see on the internet through exorbitant fees or even (possible) outright refusal to allow subscribers access? They are already doing that very thing.

 

Ted Cruz is bought & paid for by Comcast. Do you really expect him to put a truthful spin on this subject?

 

"Regulating" the internet as a utility through the FCC doesn't mean government control over the internet. It regulates what providers can charge just like (other) public utilities. This isn't about your ISP bill BTW.

No way the Government would ever regulate or refuse access to certain sites….Right?? 

[Mr VJP]

I've decided Curm is correct.  

 

There is no way any amount of information or education will change the mind of anyone who is firmly convinced something is fact.  Therefore I'm not going to bother expending energy with replies to posts that are contrary.

 

The problem with the country today is there are too many things people "know" that just aren't true.

 

We need to change the country's slogan to "God Help America".

[wildcat junkie]

No way the Government would ever regulate or refuse access to certain sites….Right?? 

Oh your right. I forgot about how they regulate our phone calls & deny access.

[Mr VJP]

Ever study your phone bills?  See all of those government fees on there?  They pay for government regulations.

 

[philoshop]

The Constitution put in place a federal government to better enable the union of states to handle foreign affairs. It's powers were limited to, and are still supposed to be limited to: war, peace, foreign negotiation, and foreign commerce.