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.
Regarding the bold text above: I think those books make a good point. I'm pleased to say that my own synagogue (Conservative Judaism) does not rely on membership dues as a business model. The synagogue owns a rental property that pays the cost of maintenance on the synagogue building, resulting in very low membership dues ($645 for family; $450 for single membership -- and this includes tickets for High Holy Days). Members also regularly (and happily) contribute their time as volunteers and make regular donations throughout the year. We have only one rabbi on salary, and I think that he has waived a full salary because he has another paying job (in addition to being an ordained rabbi, he also happens to be a physicist of some renown). Our synagogue "family" is very active and growing. Our Board of Trustees are, of course, all unpaid volunteers.
Whoa, we've really veered off-topic here, and I will take the blame for that. Forum members are welcome to chastise me for it.
I now return this discussion to its original topic.
As soon as I state what you cited are good things but rare. As rare as a Hubert Humphrey or Scoop Jackson liberal.
That circles back to the topic, though this post is close to a one-liner.
Liberalism was a wide range of beliefs and goals. Now the boundaries are narrow and vigorously enforced. That's not a healthy status. The next generation of liberals may find the liberal label too tainted to use.
Liberals and Liberalism has been used by the radical Leftists to obtain power. They are now in control and smell blood in the water. They won't back down and want a radical Mao style government in charge of the USA.
I was going to create a new thread with the following, but it was close enough to this original topic that I decided to bump the original.
When assessing whether liberalism has run its course, we should admit liberalism has contradictions. Of course it isn't perfect. However if those contradictions become so stark that people no longer believe in the liberal project, then liberalism has run its course.
I think the left in Anglophone countries has mostly abandoned liberalism. This isn't because of a conspiracy or bad faith, but rather because the contradictions and failures within liberalism became so obvious and un-ignorable that the status quo was impossible to sustain.
Let's start with liberalism's biggest promise to the left: "All men are created equal."
You can wax poetic about equality of opportunity, level playing fields, neutral institutions, etc. But in the end that sentence was written by Thomas Jefferson, a slave-owner who did not free his slaves because he had debts to pay.
Whiggish hopes for a more perfect union, given that inauspicious start, seemed to be justified for centuries. However I think the left has abandoned hopes that the arc of history bends toward justice. Again, I do not think they are acting in bad faith. I don't think this is simply impatience with the pace of progress, a tactical miscalculation, or anything like that. I think those on the left don't think liberalism has what it takes to bring about the equality of all people. They think if we don't change course, then inequality will never be eradicated.
I think this is because the left has stopped believing that all people are created equal. This explains the pursuit of equity, not equality, which is the use of power as a corrective to inequities.
Sure, the liberal rhetoric is still there in the emphasis on redress of historical injustices. The subtext of that approach is that if history is redressed, and everyone is zeroed out at the same level, then equity measures can be abandoned as simply a temporary corrective. We can return to a regime of equality once the playing field is leveled. But I think that message is for public consumption, is rhetoric.
Honest thinkers on the left appreciate the data we have collected during the 250 year age of liberalism. They appreciate the implications of persistent inequality during this period. And I think they grow tired of liberals, who often come from more privileged backgrounds, who constantly caution to wait for progress, to wait for liberalism to work its magic. I think those on the left who see appeals to liberalism and whiggish progress are correct that those are distractions from those in positions of privilege. I think they are correct that liberalism does not have what it takes to eradicate inequality.
(Where I part ways is that I see equality as one of several dimensions we should try to optimize along. I am fine with some level of persistent inequality, because I see it as the price to be paid for other features of liberalism. It is easy for me to adopt this position because I am a winner within the liberal regime. I won't try to sugarcoat that.)
I agree, stepping into the shoes of an egalitarian on the left primarily concerned with equality, that corrective measures would need to be permanent to bring about an equitable society. This is not whiggishness; it is not climbing a mountain. If it were, patience would be all that I would need. Rather it is a prescription for a steady state society that fulfills my dreams and aspirations. The steady state is not an imagined social order, but rather the raw material of the human condition.
To summarize: the human condition produces inequality. To live as humans in an equitable society, we need permanent correctives.
Again, I personally find all of this ominous. I would prefer that the old nostrums continue to be believed. However I understand why many on the left would abandon liberalism. I understand how the failures of liberalism to eradicate inequality, combined with the tacit knowledge of some of the sources of inequality within human society, could cause someone to lose faith, and not merely patience.
Liberalism was a wide range of beliefs and goals. Now the boundaries are narrow and vigorously enforced. That's not a healthy status. The next generation of liberals may find the liberal label too tainted to use.
You nailed it!!!! I live in Seattle and most of my friends are self described as classical liberals more in the Obama camp than the correct configuration of the Democratic Party. Now granted, they are all ecstatic that Trump is no longer in office but all it takes is a trip into downtown Seattle for them to realize not all is well. Most of my liberal buddies are appalled at any thoughts of defunding the police. They are concerned about the homelessness issue. They feel much of the race relations issue isn't quite as bad as the media portraits.
I've always thought that since liberalism spans such a big range, it's difficult to please everybody.
But the liberals are smart folks and they are organized. I secretly think the right is jealous of the beehive mentality and wish we had a bit more of that in our party (I'm right leaning Libertarian). They'll adjust eventually.
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.
