Joseph over at The New Oklahoma Democrat has an interesting post about extremism in today's politics. I think he does a pretty fair job of slapping both parties for having the polarity that they do.
I left a comment on his site stating the major difference between Republican extremists and Democratic extremists is that the Republicans are being controlled by their crazies- the neocons- while the Democrats are not. I'm sure many will want to debate that comment.
However, after reading Joseph's post I began to think a little more. I began to think of what exactly are the roots of conservatism in America. There is nothing wrong with being conservative. I think it's human nature to be conservative. But, my question really is: what is the legacy of American conservatism?
And come to think about it, I could not think of any conservative movement with any foundation in modern America.
Liberalism is the very foundation of this nation today. In the last 50 years, the term liberal has undergone a metamorphosis in America. It's commonly used to degrade ones political views, ones lifestyle and ones ability to govern. This is an extreme misconception.
Liberalism doesn't mean pro-choice, pro-gay, or anything remotely close to those single issues, which the neocons created.
There has been no conservative movement in the history of this country that has any establishment in the present day. Not one. If there is, I would like to know what it is, because I'm having a hard time thinking of one. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying I can't think of any right now. If someone has one, let me know, I'll be the first to admit to it.
Liberalism, however, is the very foundation of American society.
The American Revolution is the most liberal phenomenon in human history. That people, ordinary people, have the ability to govern themselves without the rule of a monarchy is like saying today that drugs should be legalized. It was an unheard of notion; a liberal thought transformed into reality.
Lincoln, by far the most liberal president ever elected, set forth a liberal movement that resulted in some 25 million blacks living freely today. Lincoln's liberalism destroyed the largest conservative movement in this nation's history, slavery. The Civil War was nothing less than a war between a liberal agenda and a conservative one.
FDR brought hope to nearly every household in America by initiating the largest liberal economic movement in the world. Some 70 years later this country still operates with the very standard that FDR set- Social Security, regulated economy, GI Bill and so on. FDR, a liberal, delivered the country from the worst depression ever and the worst crisis since the Civil War, as well as led America through one of the greatest wars ever fought.
Today it is the neocons, along with some Republicans, who want FDR's hope dismantled. Could today's movement to dismantle the very fabric of this country constitute an emerging conservative movement? I think it very well could. The consequences could be paramount.
Liberal ideas and movements have shaped this country and the world. The largest and most famous conservative movement this world ever witnessed was Nazi Germany. A liberal movement known as the Marshall Plan has succeeded in rebuilding Europe and Japan as well as preventing another world war.
Liberalism doesn't mean radicalism. It's simply the ability to think, and not let others think for you.
Surely there has to be a conservative movement. Help me out now.
5.16.2005
A Country's Liberalism
Posted by Chris at 1:28 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
It's interesting to see that one man's hero is another man's "grrr" person. For example, my boyfriend rants about FDR's New Deal. [One wonders if The Marshall Plan would have been put into place had FDR not died. He seemed to be tending towards Morgenthau's proposal. I digress.]
I think a partial definition of conservatism is a fight for the status quo. Conservatives are going to fight any changes to the status quo, unless it is a change backwards.
I agree with you the Liberalism is the foundation of America. But Conservatism isn't all bad, it is there to reign in progressive movements. It is there to say: "If you don't understand why this law was in place, then you shouldn't be allowed to change it."
I don't think Conservatism means pro-life, anti-gay or anything remotely close to those single issues, which the tug-o-war between factions in our government created.
And the legacy of American conservatism? Perhaps, just that our country hasn't crashed and burned.
But like you said about the term Liberalism, the term Conservatism has been hijacked to mean something completely different.
I completely agree with you ValleyGirl.
I don't think conservatism is bad at all. But, I also don't think it has produced anything that we can say is a foundation for this country.
I have conservative views and liberal views. Both of which I struggle with all the time.
I wouldn't say FDR is my hero. I'm much more of a Lincoln fan myself. Contrary to popular belief, Lincoln was a liberal. That stumps most conservatives today.
Though I must defend my Marshall Plan suggestion. I never said the Marshall Plan was FDR's. I said that it was a liberal movement, which it was, and is.
I would contend that the reason our country hasn't crashed and burned has nothing to do with conservatism, but liberalism, which is the basis of my whole post.
Conservatism can be found in every negative element of American history.
Those might be strong words, but I'm searching for a conservative movement that has positive, progressive, foundations in American society.
I agree that conservatism has been hijacked as well, by the neocons that is. But not to the degree that liberalism has been. The difference is, that the term liberal has been hijacked, not by liberals, but by conservatives. The same is true for the term conservative also. Both terms have been hijacked by conservatives.
Thanks for your comments. You always keep me thinking.
I think you are hot as well.
"I think you are hot as well."
Did I miss something there? I mean, I personally know that I am hot, but how the hell do you? Or is there some part of this argument I am missing here? I am laughing my ass off here.
Hey Taylor thanks for stopping by my man. Since discovering your blog, I always try to check it out. I must admit, I agree with most you have to say, and think you do a very good job with your work.
I must respectively disagree with you this time. I mean, my goodness, you even have Hymer on your side :)
I understand the comparisons/definitions of classic liberalism and modern, and 18th and 19th century versions of liberalism and conservatism. I understand all that just fine. I've read Hitchens. Heck, most of my thesis is based on Hitchens. And a whole chapter of my dissertation is devoted to the thought.
I even understand the differences between American liberalism and European.
You do a great job of defining all of the above. However, my post isn't about any of that. My post is about movements, not ideology or theory. I'm not really looking for definitions here.
I'm looking for movements that define modern American society, specifically conservative ones. Sure the theory and ideology is present in modern American thought and reasoning, but where are the movements?
Is it the 1964 filibuster of the Civil Rights Bill? What about the movement to leave the union to protect slavery and state's rights?
Or maybe the present neocon movement to dismantle Social Security and anything remotely considered left of center?
Show me the movements. I've never been big on ideology or theory, maybe I'm just lazy that way.
And I know, some would argue that ideology and theory are themselves movements. I'm not so sure of that.
Now about Nazi Germany. You are right to call it radicalism. But, it was radical conservatism. The Nazi party fed off of the ordinary German conservatives. National Socialism would never have survived without the hardcore conservatives. I would actually argue that the very radicalism of Nazism was the movement itself, and would not have been possible without the conservative body. Thus, radicalism is the movement I'm looking for.
The same radicalism can be found on the left as well, which I'm just fine admitting to.
Like I said, I agree with your comments, to an extent. Thanks for taking the time to comment and write all that out.
You might still call me wrong, which is fine. I would just say I'm being lazy and trying to have it both ways. If that's not classic liberalism for ya, I don't know what is.
ValleyGirl, of course I do. I think you got it going on.
In my "Contradiction..." post about Bush's phase-out, talkingtina left a comment with a pic in her underwear. She ended her comment by telling me that I was hot, and I ended my reply by telling her she was hot (if that's really her in the pic).
Now if only you could post a comment with a pic in your underwear.......
Hymer....yeah, if I could get you in your underwear that would be great also.
Talking Tina is hot...wow...You know, perhaps all political discussion needs to be done in underwear, that would make things so much more interesting. I mean, because then even if you thought the person was talking bubbles, you could still be like: well, she's a hottie, so I just focus on that until she shuts her trap...I think that is boyfriend's tactic, too...;-)
I love it how quickly intelligent discussion can degrade. But I don't think I will be appearing anytime soon in my undies online...nice try though.
wow, I just learned a lot here :)
There is so much going on.
Thanks for the lesson.
K
I think that some amount of Conservatism is a good thing. If social liberalism and fiscal conservatism could co-exist in our government, I would have much less to gripe about. However, the current so-called conservative administration has it completely backwards. They are breaking the bank on a war that should not have occured in the first place. They want to spend more tax dollars they don't have on trillion dollar plans to fix Social Security. They overpay no-bid contractors like Halliburton to do work that is never actually done. But when it comes to social progress, the clock is slowly getting turned backwards.
Hey Tina thanks again.
To me it matters none who a person votes for. Everyone has their reasons for doing what they do. I think the best thing about this country is that we can vote for whoever we want.
But, I'm not just going to stop calling Bush on things just because it's not the hip thing to do, or just because Rumsfield tells me I need to be careful. I was the same way I am now when Clinton was in office.
Thanks again.
Drew thanks for stopping by.
Yeah that co-existing thing sounds great to me also.
I am impressed none with the current neocon administration.
Come back anytime.
Hymer I can't believe you won't do a post in your underwear. I bet you already have the pics :)
Hymer you know I agree with you a lot more than you think. But I do disagree with the logic of Social Security. I could have sworn that Reagan was the first president to have tried to fix Social Security before it is too late. I mean in 1982-3, the Republicans claimed they had fixed it then. I can't believe you would diss Reagan that way.
I will agree that Social Security needs some tweaking, but it doesn't need to be phased-out. It doesn't need to be turned into a welfare system either.
If the current Bush plan is allowed to happen, then Social Security will actually go bankrupt in the 2020s, which is quicker than it would if left untouched.
I don't believe Social Security should be left untouched, but I also don't believe that it needs to man-handled and legislation passed before June either. Let's take some time with this. Let's compromise and a make a system that benefits the country. Bush has three more years to do something with this.
Even with all that said, I still believe that the neocons want Social Security dismantled, and that is why they are rushing and trying to create a "crisis" situation with it.
I do not agree with those politics at all.
As for your conservative movements that you brought up: yeah, I agree they could turn into a movement, and maybe already has. But, again, I'm looking for a conservative movement with foundations in modern American society, which means I'm looking for a past, progressive, conservative movement.
But, like I said in the original post, maybe this is the beginning of a lasting conservative movement in America- one that I totally disagree with if I do say so myself.
Thanks Hymer for checking back.
Taylor, you are getting quick, maybe too quick :)
I know what ya mean with the current definition of neocon. Sorry I can't help you there at all. You see, the term liberal has been turned around just the same way the term neocon is happening now.
I know the first generation of neocons were good, moderate, progressive conservatives, including Kristol (the father), but the only way the term can be changed back to the original meaning is by the neocons themselves.
I'm not tyring to drag the term through the mud, I would argue that the current neocons are doing a good job of that by themselves, and I think you eluded to that as well.
I would be more than happy to return to the original definition of the word neocon, just as soon as we can return to the original meaning of liberal.
It kinda sucks when words are used incorrectly. I have been arguing against this lazy form of politics for years.
As for Social Security:
I will read your post about it and leave a comment.
Personally I see nothing wrong with a level of personal investment. I also think that people who have the money to invest are already doing so, and still paying into the SS Trust Fund. And I don't see anything wrong with that either.
But what you mention about your views does sound very interesting. I will dig through your archives and check it out.
I often see the neocons in power as neoneocons, a movement different, perhaps even in another reality, than what I consider classic neocons. I think that even among most neocons, there is confusion over what labels should apply and what a “neocon” should stand for.
Post a Comment