Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My understanding of Weiss is that she was on the receiving end of some horrible treatment from coworkers at the Times. I'd like to be sanguine about the "successor ideology", but I'm also aware that Jews are often the canary in the coal mine and am willing to hear Weiss out.
There was a time when Gulags in America were unthinkable because of our democracy, free press, and all the freedoms we are "guaranteed". But really, that all depends on a consensus. If law enforcement collectively decides they won't enforce certain laws or will over-enforce others, and the political and judicial classes shrug it off, then what becomes of Liberal Democracy?
Gulags in the US were not only "thinkable", conceivable, but they actually happened, but without the required hard labor. Ask Japanese-Americans. The Constitution doesn't guarantee as much as people think it does. The Constitution has never guaranteed Native Americans freedom of religion. They had to fight and go to court to be allowed to have their spiritual leaders minister to them in prison, and in the customary manner. The Forest Service routinely bulldozes through their sacred sites of worship, even when they go to court to protect a remote site. The Parks Department builds tourist attractions adjacent to their prayer sites.
There are so many loopholes in the Constitution, it sometimes looks like a sieve. "All men are created equal", but slaves are some fraction of a man? Really??
There are so many loopholes in the Constitution, it sometimes looks like a sieve. "All men are created equal", but slaves are some fraction of a man? Really??
The phrase "All men are created equal" comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution.
Nope, liberalism is here to stay. It’s a natural evolution of society. As there are a greater number of younger people, they will push for policies that cater to their needs, rather than be stuck catering to the needs of dying boomers. I don’t see that as a bad thing either. Sure, there might be points I disagree with, but in the long run, I expect it to lead to a better, more caring society. After all, when you think about it, it’s not really that different from prior movements, once viewed as radical, that reshaped society. Think about all the opposition to the counter-culture movement of the 60’s and how the aftermath of those changes is still felt today.
Back and forth, back and forth. It's always been a tug of war between liberalism and conservatism. If we do it right, we get the best of both. Each one is evil when taken to an extreme.
Example--liberalism wants to be tolerant and kind. Taken too far, they want us to sacrifice a little too much so that we don't step on anyone's toes and say the "wrong" thing or hurt anyone's feelings. Then books start being called "racist" and so it goes. But who can say there was anything wrong with the original intent of being tolerant and kind? In its original form, it was good.
Conservatism--Can't think of a good example except way back in the 1950s Conservatives were against Elvis Presley. He wiggled around too much, too sexy. The conservative radio stations reveled in destroying his records and bad mouthing him. He was sent away to Germany for the Army to make sure teenagers didn't get to see him.
At its roots, the idea of not letting kids see too much sex at too early an age is a good thing. Many are not ready to learn about it and the parents need to talk to the kids first No one wants sex orgies or prostitutes (well, some do, but it's not along liberal or conservative party lines) so at its roots it's good to have some sexual morals. But to ban Elvis, who was even a gospel singer and was mostly singing for his mother, was carrying it too far.
You can call it open minded vs closed minded or lax vs strict or authoritarian vs total freedom but it will always be a tug of war between two far flung extremes. We got too liberal in the late 60s and throughout the 1970s and the opposite side worked to pull us back to the middle. Lately maybe we got too conservative as a backlash and maybe we'll get more liberal as a backlash against the backlash!
Humanity is in a constant state of flux, always trying to find the happy medium. It's not just politics, it's in everything we think and do. Are we too strict with kids or too permissive? Back and forth--and the answer is somewhere in the middle. So there's no actual answer because times change and we change with the times. Humanity is always adjusting and fine tuning. No, liberalism is not done and neither is conservatism. They may be given different names but the ideas of finding the right balance will always be with us. There will always be a certain tension and that is a good thing. What was liberal in 1800 wouldn't work today. What was conservative in 1800 wouldn't work today either.
Gulags in the US were not only "thinkable", conceivable, but they actually happened, but without the required hard labor. Ask Japanese-Americans.
FDR's internment camps for an ethnic population should not be compared to the Soviet gulag system. The gulag system existed as a tool of political repression. Anyone in the Soviet Union could be sent to a gulag at any time. FDR's internment camps in the early 1940's, as un-American as they were, were not created for the same purpose.
Quote:
The Constitution doesn't guarantee as much as people think it does. The Constitution has never guaranteed Native Americans freedom of religion. They had to fight and go to court to be allowed to have their spiritual leaders minister to them in prison, and in the customary manner. The Forest Service routinely bulldozes through their sacred sites of worship, even when they go to court to protect a remote site. The Parks Department builds tourist attractions adjacent to their prayer sites.
There are so many loopholes in the Constitution, it sometimes looks like a sieve. "All men are created equal", but slaves are some fraction of a man? Really??
The point is, the Constitution provides for redress of grievances. Native Americans are far from the only people who have sued the government over religious freedom.
It's complete nonsense to say that taking the federal government to court and winning, means you are not protected. In fact it means the exact opposite.
The Classic Liberal (18th century) supported ideas such as free and fair elections, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and a right to life, liberty, and private property ownership.
The NeoLiberal (21st century) supports ideas such as social justice, expropriation of surplus property for the benefit of the needy, compelled labor for the benefit of another, and government management of the economy. Those ideas are contrary to classical liberalism, and are an assault upon absolute ownership of private property, natural and personal liberty and the freedom to exercise same.
. . .
By all means, please abandon neoliberalism.
Correct. Classical Liberalism is more akin to Libertarianism.
The opposition to Authoritarianism.
I would venture to say America has embraced Authoritarianism to a much higher degree the last two decades and at an even higher rate the last decade.
Left or right is irrelevant as we slide toward Authoritarianism.
The human drive to change, to find improved ways of doing things, never ends. Liberalism advocates for change. Conservatism is the yin to this yang, the desire to preserve the status quo: "Standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'", as William F. Buckley put it. For these reasons, both liberalism and conservatism are relative impulses. Liberalism seeks to take the next step. Conservatism seeks not to take that step. Both positions are relative to the state of a society at a given time.
The human condition is built upon an endless series of historical victories of liberalism over conservatism.
From same-sex marriage to abolishing Jim Crow to women's suffrage, those civil rights struggles were contests between liberal advocates for change and conservative advocates for the status quo. Incorporation? Abolition? The Bill of Rights? The War of Independence? The very concept of democratic governance, that governance must come with the consent of the people as expressed through periodic elections? All liberal victories over those opposed to those particular changes. The end of the prohibition of 'obscene' books circa 1960? The repeal of the marital rape exception? Miranda rights? The end of segregated schools? I could go on and on. Pick a historical development and you will find arrayed for it liberals and against it conservatives.
Over time, conservatives come to accept liberal policies established in the past. While same-sex marriage continues to be resented by many on the right, albeit by ever-diminishing numbers, there is much more acceptance of interracial marriage. That's what half a century will do - the striking down of anti-miscegenation laws occurred forty-eight years before marriage equality was established nationwide in the United States. There is little advocation for slavery anymore, even less for actual rule by hereditary monarchs.
That is not going to stop. Both the drive for change in order to improve along with its counter-value, the resistance to change so as not to change for the worse, is not going to stop.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
