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.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
If you really want to look deep, the fundamentals of liberalism have political "ratchet effect". During the most enlightened ages of liberalism in our country- the periods of the Great Depression and the early 1960s to the early 70s, many polices and programs were put into place for the American people. These of course include Social Security and Medicare- both passed under liberal political mandates where voters made it clear that the status quo was not going to fly anymore. Of course conservatives of the day fought like hell to no avail because conservatism was soundly rejected by the country. Even when the dark ages of conservatism returned under Reagan the conservatives found that they were unable to roll back the New Deal and other liberal mandates. Social Security is still intact as is Medicare, civil rights, women's rights and abortion on demand. Therefore one can conclude that liberalism has a rachet. While in the age of Reagan we were not able to expand liberalism (under Bush liberalism expanded a bit with the senior Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit), I see a new age dawning now where a new liberal mandate will come- perhaps even with the next election cycle! We may see new things like a national health program and the expansion of rights for gays and immigrants. And once these come into the national scene, they too will be rachets that, even should another dark age of conservatism come, will be safe because the people will demand that they be safe (how many Republicans do you hear saying they want to do away with Social Security?).
Nice bit of logic. Actually <harborlady>'s post raises a point not often enough raised: the desire -- particularly evident on the right -- to consume from the social investments of the past while refusing to make any social investments in the future. In this way a surplus is consumed, and a deficit is created in its place. For the sake of selfishness. This is not a promising strategy, nor one that we would be much thanked for by coming generations if we were to see it adopted...
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn
The Republican Party isn't going away. Think about it - two political parties have dominated American politics for well-nigh 170 years now. Their positions and principles have changed countless times over the years. What they have in common is a tenacious desire for power. If the voters move somewhere, the parties tend to follow. That's how they sustain themselves.
You are correct. The Republican Party is not going away. They will spend a deal of time locked out of power. And, just as they did during the tenure of FDR, they will adjust to the fact that the nation has changed and they will emerge as a much more moderate party having accepted the reality that the country is no longer willing to be governed by Reaganites in tune with religious nutcases, right wing extremeist, immigrant bashers, war mongers and anti abortion militants. And knowing the sins of their own, they will drop all this crap about "family values" because if there is one thing voters despise it is a hypocrit.
They will emerge as they did after FDR locked them out for almost 16 years- the party of Eisenhower. Ike was a very moderate-liberal President who believed in things like civil rights (he sent the Army to Little Rock to enforce Brown vs Board) and he believed that government should do things for the people which is why we have a great interstate highway system. For years after that, the Republican Party was a moderate party. It was the party of Rockefeller. Even Nixon was socially "liberal" by today's standards (it was Nixon that brought about affirmative action to help the black people rise above racism). Ford was a very moderate President. Even George HW Bush- the ONLY Republican I have ever voted for- was a moderate Republican. So that is where the GOP will head again. Radical Reaganism is dead.
Nice bit of logic. Actually <harborlady>'s post raises a point not often enough raised: the desire -- particularly evident on the right -- to consume from the social investments of the past while refusing to make any social investments in the future. In this way a surplus is consumed, and a deficit is created in its place. For the sake of selfishness. This is not a promising strategy, nor one that we would be much thanked for by coming generations if we were to see it adopted...
Incorrect.. To make that argument you first must assume that it was only liberals that contributed to the social investments of the past, and then you need to assume that conservatives do not contribute to social investments of the future.
Given the current state of government, taxes, social programs, the huge amounts of money that conservatives have contributed to socieyt, that is obviously incorrect.
You are correct. The Republican Party is not going away. They will spend a deal of time locked out of power. And, just as they did during the tenure of FDR, they will adjust to the fact that the nation has changed and they will emerge as a much more moderate party having accepted the reality that the country is no longer willing to be governed by Reaganites in tune with religious nutcases, right wing extremeist, immigrant bashers, war mongers and anti abortion militants. And knowing the sins of their own, they will drop all this crap about "family values" because if there is one thing voters despise it is a hypocrit.
They will emerge as they did after FDR locked them out for almost 16 years- the party of Eisenhower. Ike was a very moderate-liberal President who believed in things like civil rights (he sent the Army to Little Rock to enforce Brown vs Board) and he believed that government should do things for the people which is why we have a great interstate highway system. For years after that, the Republican Party was a moderate party. It was the party of Rockefeller. Even Nixon was socially "liberal" by today's standards (it was Nixon that brought about affirmative action to help the black people rise above racism). Ford was a very moderate President. Even George HW Bush- the ONLY Republican I have ever voted for- was a moderate Republican. So that is where the GOP will head again. Radical Reaganism is dead.
Conservatives might spend 2 years "locked out" but thats it. Given the current inempt ability of those running Congress, the american public will tire of the non-actions soon after.
I dont want people elected who can not accomplish anything without absolute power, and given the current accomplishments of Congress, and the excuses that I've seen for their lack of ability to get anything done, it wont take long for people to get tired of their inempt ability.
To compare liberalism in other countries to the United States is not comparing Apples to Apples. Not even close
Ah, America! Where even the liberals are exceptional!
Not so very long ago, right-wingers were pointing to the declining economic indicators of Europe and claiming vast and potentailly poisonous parallels between European liberals and those in the US. Now that the numbers have turned around a bit, they are all suddenly horses of a different color. Don't you find that just a bit odd???
Yes, and there will be some years now of pounding nails into the coffin. Time not so well spent, actually. Nails are needed in the framing of the new paradigm...
If you really want to look deep, the fundamentals of liberalism have political "ratchet effect". During the most enlightened ages of liberalism in our country- the periods of the Great Depression and the early 1960s to the early 70s, many polices and programs were put into place for the American people. These of course include Social Security and Medicare- both passed under liberal political mandates where voters made it clear that the status quo was not going to fly anymore. Of course conservatives of the day fought like hell to no avail because conservatism was soundly rejected by the country. Even when the dark ages of conservatism returned under Reagan the conservatives found that they were unable to roll back the New Deal and other liberal mandates. Social Security is still intact as is Medicare, civil rights, women's rights and abortion on demand. Therefore one can conclude that liberalism has a rachet. While in the age of Reagan we were not able to expand liberalism (under Bush liberalism expanded a bit with the senior Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit), I see a new age dawning now where a new liberal mandate will come- perhaps even with the next election cycle! We may see new things like a national health program and the expansion of rights for gays and immigrants. And once these come into the national scene, they too will be rachets that, even should another dark age of conservatism come, will be safe because the people will demand that they be safe (how many Republicans do you hear saying they want to do away with Social Security?).
Those aren't necessarily the result of Liberalism. While yes, they are things that Liberals support, there were hardly any Liberals in those times by modern definition. Social Security is not exactly the most successful system we've got, and it is a bad example if you wish to praise Liberalism.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Ouch.. a HOA.. Not a chance I'd buy a place with HOA... thats like buying a condo.. I'd prefer to rent..
It is a 2 sided thing. Yes the HOA can sometimes be assinine about stuff that really does not amount to much but I would prefer that to living next to people that don't cut their grass, pile junk in the yard and have cars parked on the lawn they don't cut. Also the HOA maintains the pool and the common areas that all of us get to enjoy. Having served on the HOA board myself, I, as a liberal, always was reasonable with people and "coached" them rather than issue threats and fines. Sometimes when you get to know people, you find that they have certain problems which is why they are not following the rules and if you work with them on the problem, they will follow the rules. I had one lady with 2 kids and I had to twice talk to her about her grass and she stated that she could not afford a mower right now because her ex husband was laid off and not sending the child support and the choice was between her mortgage or food and a lawn mower. Rather than write her up and give her a fine I knew she could not pay, me and my boys cut her lawn for free. And then another neighbour that was moving to Arizona gave her his mower for free. And we did not have anymore trouble out of her. That is what liberalism is all about. Conservatives would have kicked her when she was down and issued threats and fines. Glad I am a liberal.
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.
