Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If socialism isn't "liberal", I may be misunderstanding both terms?
Never so much as heard of this Chapo thing, but this is pretty on the mark:
"In this view, the role of Clinton Democrats is to administer the decline of the New Deal, not fight for its expansion through different means. For example, instead of advocating for single-payer health care, Democrats passed Obamacare, a largely ineffective market-based solution. Instead of helping unions build a mass movement that might reshape American society to the benefit of millions, they see the Democratic ethos as technocratic and meritocratic."
If being "liberal" means having to stump for corporations and refuse to give more than lip service to indigenous concerns, I'm more than happy to abandon the label and rejoin the good fight of the "Old Left". I certainly respect FDR more than most of the chuckleheads in Washington these days.
I recall thinking much the same thing back when it was Clinton and Obama on the primary ticket; both insisted that they wanted "change", but were largely unwilling to entertain the idea of any kind of serious disruption to the system that was making my generation so very poor and desperate; neither seemed to have my interests at heart, so I went for the guy with the cooler head under fire and the better stump speech. He surprised me, in the end, strengthening his position on things like gay rights and financial and housing regulation that he had been noticeably non-committal about when campaigning. Perhaps Clinton would have done the same. Or perhaps it is asking too much to get lucky twice.I think Chris Hedges accurately characterized liberals (i.e. folks like the Clintons) as people who believe in change primarily as a means of propping up the system. That is, they are fundamentally for the status quo and willing to tolerate change on in so far as it helps to preserve the status quo.
There's a lot of confusion between classical liberalism, modern liberalism, and libertarianism. Classical liberalism was most prevalent in the 60s, and the term "liberal" was applied to those who were experimenting with drugs, unconventional sex, breaking the boundaries of gender roles. It's more tied in with the "drug war", feminism, and sexual liberty than anything else. Modern liberalism, in the other hand, borrows elements of that philosophy (mainly regarding the legalization of marijuana), but it is more socialistic and less supportive of certain personal liberties (gun rights, "hate speech", and so on). I agree with aspects of both forms of liberalism, but I am more libertarian than anything.
Left Libertarianism is a revival of classical liberalism, augmented to relate more to modern issues than issues prevalent during the era of classical liberalism. Right Libertarianism is completely different, and it is more minarchistic.
I think that the modern millennial left dislikes libertarianism because it promotes the idea of a weaker government, and because the generation is in general, very naive, they want a stronger government to enforce their "kindness" policies.
I've used up my WaPo articles for the month.
I've used up my WaPo articles for the month.
Any highlights?
I've used up my WaPo articles for the month.
Any highlights?