Has liberalism run its course? Should we replace it? (Reagan, legal, impeachment)

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by Avondalist

Has liberalism run its course? Should we replace it?

No. What else do you have?

Just to kick things off, liberty and equality are both considered Enlightenment ideals.
Are they in contention with each other?

No. But as they have come to be practiced in western civilization (incl the US)
... these fundamental ideals are in contention with basic common sense.

Pondering that question may help you to understand where the critics of liberalism are coming from.

The critics of liberalism are criticizing what gets allowed in the name of it ...most of which is problems rooted the criticizers own actions (wrt over-population/dependencies).
(That basic common sense thing often exampled with pendulums... that we've gone too far)

Originally Posted by Pirsig

...until the end of the Victorian era, social patterns dominated the conduct of members of the American culture. In the aftermath of World War I, intellectual patterns and the scientific method acceded to that position, becoming responsible for directing the nation's goals and actions. The later occurrences of fascism are seen as an anti-intellectual struggle to return social patterns to the dominant position. The hippie movement, having perceived the flaws inherent in both social and intellectual patterns, sought to transcend them, but failed to provide a stable replacement, degenerating instead into lower level biological patterns as...

[FindingZen]

Originally Posted by jtab4994

The United States was founded on Enlightenment principles. Our entire Constitution and system of laws is based on those principles. It's important that people understand that.

True. And the subsequent Amendments and other laws have worked towards fully realizing that vision for people who don't resemble the Founders.

The Enlightenment is absolutely under attack from the Left Wing ideology of 2020. Many people will be in denial about that because they still see the Left as proponents of racial equality and clean air.

The person (in)famous for your tagline hasn't proven to be the best proponent for those ideals, himself.

I didn't even fully understand the modern Left Wing antipathy toward the Enlightenment until I watched the Joe Rogan podcast where he interviewed (former) Evergreen College professor Bret Weinstein who said that a faculty colleague had dismissed the Enlightenment in a contentious meeting prior to his departure. The idea that a liberal arts college professor would simply treat Enlightenment principles as passé should scare everyone.

Joe Rogan isn't necessarily the most credible critic of the left let alone a member of the "Intellectual Dark Web" like Weinstein.

The problem with "replacing" the U.S. Constitution is, what do you replace it with? Nazism? Maoism? Sharia? Stalinism? The Enlightenment evolved over hundreds of years. What do we see as a competing philosophy on the horizon?

The implication that left-leaning people would want to embrace any of those systems is...fascinating.

One could argue that the religious right has been endeavoring to implement "Christian sharia" law and sees its best opportunity with one of its most unlikely allies.

Reiterating what I said at the top, I don't believe anyone in the standard liberal-to-progressive portion of the left-leaning spectrum wants to replace the Constitution. Rather, they would like to see it live up to its promise.

[djsuperfly]

Originally Posted by jghorton

It's apparent to most that what is happening today under the banner of "liberalism or progressivism" is a dangerous, corrosive element that could ultimately destroy America. Your background description of the "Agitprop days behind the Iron Curtain" seems quite descriptive of what is happening in America today (acceptable phrases, media manipulation, language takeover of seemingly benevolent phrases).

I'm not sure if it's former Soviets who need a megaphone ... or spineless Americans who need a backbone, but, the handwriting is on the wall. Older Americans who have seen the rise of socialism and communism probably have a better perspective of what is happening --- than younger Americans indoctrinated into a "new history" through our steadily eroding, "liberalized" education system.

The "Should WE replace liberalism" question pre-supposes the notion that there is a "WE" and that liberalism is little more than a brief anomaly in American history. If the momentum exists in America to put-down today's perverse liberalism, it should be evident in the November election results. -- Even then, as was the case in 2016, it's unlikely that the left will get the message, but, it will be a start.

So, "liberalism" has an actual definition around the rest of the world, which we in the US now describe as "classical" liberalism to differentiate from the fact that we've come to describe "liberalism" as synonymous with progressive, left-wing, etc.

So, OP told you that he was using the using the standard definition of the phrase, but you decided this was still a good time to get triggered. Makes sense.

[jtab4994]

Originally Posted by FindingZen

Reiterating what I said at the top, I don't believe anyone in the standard liberal-to-progressive portion of the left-leaning spectrum wants to replace the Constitution. Rather, they would like to see it live up to its promise.

I'm not talking about the standard Western liberal-to-progressive or "left-leaning" person, and I should have made that clearer. I'm talking about the hard radicals like the Evergreen professor who are throwing the Enlightenment on the trash heap of history.

I have to chuckle at "Christian sharia" in the West replacing the Enlightenment. Nobody even goes to church anymore except maybe on Christmas to make Grandma happy. When "Wet A*s P*ssy" is the #1 song while "Baby It's Cold Outside" gets banned, good luck with your Christian Sharia theory. How are you gonna keep 'em down at the Bible Camp after they've heard WAP?

[censusdata]

Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident

Why does liberalism need to be paired with Christianity or any religion for that matter? Marxism wasn’t really paired with atheism (which isn’t a movement), but was built around worshipping the state as the ultimate deity. An atheist could lean in any political direction.

Here's what I mean: because the vast majority of Americans at those times were religious they were willing to accept incremental rather than drastic steps to reduce inequality. The Have Nots still believed in forgiveness towards the Haves on earth and God to be the final say on creating true equality. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't have gotten the New Deal but the French Revolution, where thousands of Haves are executed by the Have Nots. Today's far left are almost universally non religious and are calling for similar changes to those in 1700s France: violent redistribution of wealth, scrubbing all holidays of religious meaning, etc.

I am not religious myself and am not trying to imply that it's inherently bad if movements aren't coupled with religion to some degree. Just that the results of the changes will be different as a result.

[censusdata]

Originally Posted by jtab4994

I'm not talking about the standard Western liberal-to-progressive or "left-leaning" person, and I should have made that clearer. I'm talking about the hard radicals like the Evergreen professor who are throwing the Enlightenment on the trash heap of history.

What surprises me is that those far left people are saying we need Marxism - that Social Democrat platform isn't enough - when the USA hasn't even tried anything to the left of the New Deal. How can you assume bringing back elements of the New Deal will fail before it's even tried? How can you assume Marxism is the answer when it's failed so bad everywhere it was tried that only a couple of nations still use it? Marxism never solved inequality, only shuffled the deck of who was rich and poor. At its worst it inflicted horrors as bad as the worst of capitalism.

[FindingZen]

Originally Posted by jtab4994

I'm not talking about the standard Western liberal-to-progressive or "left-leaning" person, and I should have made that clearer. I'm talking about the hard radicals like the Evergreen professor who are throwing the Enlightenment on the trash heap of history.

The hard radicals such as Weinstein aren't IMO anywhere close to influencing left-leaning opinion or policy. I'm an admitted progressive and know people even further left; today is the first time I have ever heard of Weinstein.

I have to chuckle at "Christian sharia" in the West replacing the Enlightenment. Nobody even goes to church anymore except maybe on Christmas to make Grandma happy. When "Wet A*s P*ssy" is the #1 song while "Baby It's Cold Outside" gets banned, good luck with your Christian Sharia theory. How are you gonna keep 'em down at the Bible Camp after they've heard WAP?

I spent two years in Dallas and I can tell you that your observation about church attendance isn't true. To the contrary, the influence that the megachurches there and elsewhere have on the current Administration - including familiar conservative faith leaders on the Religious Advisory Council - is significant.

Regarding music, the inspirational/gospel category is a noteworthy niche. Two of the five nominees in the genre on last week's Billboard Music Awards come from the aforementioned megachurches. Just this past weekend, SNL - the same show that earlier this month featured Megan Thee Stallion, one half of the "WAP" collab - had Justin Bieber and Chance The Rapper perform a song called "Holy" with a visible cross as part of their stage. Bieber has certainly had a mercurial career but both popular musicians have been outspoken as of late about their faith.

The rush to get Judge Barrett confirmed is largely to have her join a presumed conservative majority in ruling on cases designed to overturn Roe v. Wade and Obergfell v. Hodges, two decisions whose outcomes have long been scorned by (leaders of) the religious right despite polls that show support or acceptance by the majority of Americans.

[FindingZen]

Originally Posted by censusdata

What surprises me is that those far left people are saying we need Marxism - that Social Democrat platform isn't enough - when the USA hasn't even tried anything to the left of the New Deal. How can you assume bringing back elements of the New Deal will fail before it's even tried? How can you assume Marxism is the answer when it's failed so bad everywhere it was tried that only a couple of nations still use it? Marxism never solved inequality, only shuffled the deck of who was rich and poor. At its worst it inflicted horrors as bad as the worst of capitalism.

Are you referring to the one BLM founder who supports Marxism? As I said in another post, I know people in some far left corners and Marxism is something that just doesn't come up.

If one is apparently willing to accept Democratic Socialism as a compromise to prevent Marxism, then I suppose liberalism hasn't run its course after all.

[FindingZen]

Originally Posted by censusdata

Here's what I mean: because the vast majority of Americans at those times were religious they were willing to accept incremental rather than drastic steps to reduce inequality. The Have Nots still believed in forgiveness towards the Haves on earth and God to be the final say on creating true equality.

You know that mostly consisted of White Protestant guys, right? Everyone else didn't have a say or literally a vote.

If that wasn't the case you wouldn't have gotten the New Deal but the French Revolution, where thousands of Haves are executed by the Have Nots. Today's far left are almost universally non religious and are calling for similar changes to those in 1700s France: violent redistribution of wealth, scrubbing all holidays of religious meaning, etc.

Your observation isn't accurate. Perhaps the % of religious among the far left is less than the (far) right but even fewer are calling for outright violence. Acknowledging winter holidays other than Christmas isn't "scrubbing" them away. To the contrary, it's not the far left that is showing up armed at state capitols, threatening to kidnap and kill Governors, and interpreting a call from a head of state to "stand back and stand by" as validation of their cause.

I am not religious myself and am not trying to imply that it's inherently bad if movements aren't coupled with religion to some degree. Just that the results of the changes will be different as a result.

I'm not going to get into my religious beliefs in this discussion... but suffice it to say that I know a number of progressive people of faith who support assertive but peaceful change.

[Nattering Heights]

Liberals seem to be stuck on a false dichotomy of socialism or capitalism. We probably will keep a mix of both for a while, but people who claim to be thinkers could start thinking about other economic systems.