|
Now that we're in a "factors leading to" paragraph, everybody's reassessing not only American voting habits, but also whatever they thought the ideals of this country were, and it's really interesting to me to see what different people thought those were. I was catching up on a back issue of The New Yorker published a few weeks after the election, and this letter to the editor caught my eye:quote:Throughout the twentieth century, nationalism violently competed with Communism for the mantle of populist empowerment. Liberalism was supposed to be the solution, to give us a framework for adjudicating between the competing visions of the good society. It didn't propose any answers; it just told us how to conduct political discourse - with respect, intellectual compassion, and recognition of common dignity. This time, liberalism lost to nationalism. American voters chose racial and ethnic identity as the center of gravity for political discourse, and political violence. Many others, repelled by the movement, will slide into a radicalized left. I hope that the liberal ideal is not down for the count. But, as in the past, it will not be hope but action - individual and collective - that determines our future. A few things jump out at me here. First off, how unappealing, how out-of-touch and out-of-date is his praise of an ideology that "doesn't propose any answers"? If we learned anything from this election it's that nobody wants that. It doesn't take too deep of a reading to theorize that Trump voters showed us they want answers so badly they'll take them even from a man they know is a liar and a cheat and worse. And "adjudicating between" nationalism and Communism? Yeesh. Not only would both factions be rightly disgusted by that, no moral society can meet in the middle there. I doubt this guy is a political scholar and neither am I, so I'll forgive him for being slightly muddy with the terminology. By "nationalism" I think he means fascism, since of course Communism can be and has been nationalistic. And by Communism let's hope he means socialism, but pretty much every American over 40 who isn't Bernie Sanders uses those interchangeably and doesn't understand the difference. What he mourns about liberalism was the respect, compassion, and recognition of common dignity. All good things, and things worth fighting for. But positioning that as the halfway point between a fascist society and a socialist one, some kind of vaccine against either, is worse than naive. I don't want to rehash Mean Mommy Hillary's failings and imagined failings in here - please don't do that, or spam "Bernie Would Have Won" bullshit, but I think this guy inadvertently points out why liberalism, at least as it exists in modern American politics, is doomed to fail. This is what the young leftists hate about the old liberals. You have to be for something. You can't just wring your hands and go "well, both sides are bad, let's not be too extreme here" and pretend that a molehill of flaws on one side is equal to a mountain on the other. It's okay to be against things. Against fascism, against bigotry, against inequality and oppression. Political groups who fear anger and disruption will always lose to the ones who don't. Republicans win because they don't care who they make mad, because they are for and against things - incoherent and repugnant though they may be. This guy appeals to action in the same breath as he frets over a "radicalized" left. There's a much better letter that talks about the need for action too, by a woman I suspect doesn't waste any time wringing her hands: quote:The lesson I learned from Russia, where I come from, is that, when something goes wrong, people merely "hope" that it will change. They wait, they "heal," and they get back to "business as usual." This is the last thing you want to do! Dictatorships are built on the control of information and the passivity of its citizens. Dictators refuse to allow a voice to those who oppose them. We witnessed it throughout Trump's campaign. We should not "wait and see" or "heal and hope" but instead look for effective and straightforward ways to engage with the political process, en masse. A politically active society is the biggest threat to an authoritarian government. The slate's nearly wiped clean. The older generations are all going to die off from lack of medical care now that ACA is gone. We don't have to listen to milquetoast boomers anymore. So what are we going to do? What's a liberal now?
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:08 |
|
|
This is a great post, thank you! I'm really curious to see where this discussion goes, and would write up a big long effort post about my observations and opinions but can't tonight. Really looking forward to reading the replies tomorrow and participating though!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
I think the problem with liberalism as it exists right now is that it lacks a material, economic dimension and is too often a sort of abstracted politics-lite, where as the OP says, civility is the watch word. You can be literally dying from economic hardship, poor access to healthcare and police violence, but what matters to liberal sensibilities is that you're polite and civil in stating your case. Before Thatcher and Reagan destroyed the existing economic order in the 80s there was something of a social-democratic concensus in western countries that, while far from perfect, salved the worst economic woes for a lot of people and provided a basis upon which they could build a politics of mutual respect and civil debate. It's clear that that foundation, however decrepit and blind-spotted it may have been, hasn't existed for some time and it's allowed buried grievances to emerge and cracks to show and has ultimately left us with a derelict, collapsing husk to show for it. The liberal establishment, more than anyone, has done a poor job of addressing this rot, opting to add a fresh lick of paint to the crumbling house rather than renovate it as is sorely needed. This is reflected too in the frankly bizarre grin-and-bear-it kayfabe attitude of everything being fine, we'll just tinker here or tinker there, that things are flawed but fixable rather than broken and in dire need of rebuilding from the ground up. The establishment and its hangers-on, along with true believers still clinging to the dream, just tick away through a predefined narrative, ignoring everything that doesn't fit like the robots in westworld.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I don't want to rehash Mean Mommy Hillary's failings and imagined failings in here - please don't do that, or spam "Bernie Would Have Won" bullshit, but I think this guy inadvertently points out why liberalism, at least as it exists in modern American politics, is doomed to fail. This is what the young leftists hate about the old liberals. You have to be for something. You can't just wring your hands and go "well, both sides are bad, let's not be too extreme here" and pretend that a molehill of flaws on one side is equal to a mountain on the other. It's okay to be against things. The election wasn't decided by a great swell of idiots who thought Trump had answers defecting from Democratic ranks because they hate 'social justice' or whatever dumb thing. It was decided by rank and file Republicans deciding enough red meat and had been thrown to them and turning up to vote, while Democratic voters just stayed home because they felt the Democratic party didn't speak to them. Being against things doesn't drive turn out. At best it depresses the vote on the other side if you manage to activate their shame (not a good strategy, shame is dead, all shaming and calling people out does anymore is make them angry and double down). You need something positive to motivate people, something to aspire to. Obama won on the strength of 'Yes We Can' and 'Hope and Change' (also campaigning in person across the country and working his rear end off to connect to voters across every demographic - but the message he conveyed when he stood face to face with the out of work auto-plant worker was 'Yes We Can'). Neither of those slogans *means* anything, but they sound very positive and inspirational. Positive messages drive turnout. You have to tell them you will make things better. Or at the least that you are willing to listen to them and make a token acknowledgement of their issues. And of course if you abandon people they will abandon you. Its also important to remember that the vast majority of people are incredibly self centered. They only care about things in relationship to themselves. This is pretty much universally true. Liberalism, or at least the pretense of liberalism, has had successes in the past, when real effort was put into coalition building with *all* interest groups. quote:The slate's nearly wiped clean. The older generations are all going to die off from lack of medical care now that ACA is gone. We don't have to listen to milquetoast boomers anymore. So what are we going to do? What's a liberal now? The boomers that hosed us the hardest all have private insurance and corporate retirement packages. They arent going anywhere any time soon. Also the younger generations are incredibly disillusioned with politics in general and 'politics as usual' in specific. Whatever liberalism is now, its not the milquetoast poo poo we had for decades. Unless no one has learned anything and everyone in power decides to double down on their failures. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Jan 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
A liberal in a post-boomer era will probably settle down in a general realm of where norwegian social democratists kind of sit, but we'll keep a lot of our american peculiarities. We'll eventually go single payer, and once it's a universal platform it will never be able to go back (similar to how it's untouchable even to the foulest right wing parties in other developed nations). The conservatives will bump over the hump of no return with their transphobia and eventually lose out in the same inexorable pattern that saw them losing the culture war over gay marriage. We'll be in some combination reboot and repair mode over social systems which are much more robust in literally every other developed nation, overcoming the damage of decades of work by a party that gets elected on the promise of government not working (followed by 'starve the beast' style attacks on those systems to 'prove' it). The elements of the left wing that are less likely to survive probably include those elements which are the most traction-killingly divisive. Even some of the most otherwise identity-politics-left types I have known in my entire life are starting to walk away from the endless divisive infighting of left wing circles that spend most of their time policing left wing groups to death over who is or is not being appropriately conscientious and intersectionally Allied over whatever microaggression du jour is not being paid attention to. I would probably do a bad job of explaining it at length but basically what we should be thinking about is to wonder what we're going to be looking at, what is left when liberal-ness gets put through the forced evolution of a core test of "is it done with being useless and self-defeatingly internally divisive?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:I think the problem with liberalism as it exists right now is that it lacks a material, economic dimension and is too often a sort of abstracted politics-lite, where as the OP says, civility is the watch word. You can be literally dying from economic hardship, poor access to healthcare and police violence, but what matters to liberal sensibilities is that you're polite and civil in stating your case. Before Thatcher and Reagan destroyed the existing economic order in the 80s there was something of a social-democratic concensus in western countries that, while far from perfect, salved the worst economic woes for a lot of people and provided a basis upon which they could build a politics of mutual respect and civil debate. It's clear that that foundation, however decrepit and blind-spotted it may have been, hasn't existed for some time and it's allowed buried grievances to emerge and cracks to show and has ultimately left us with a derelict, collapsing husk to show for it. The liberal establishment, more than anyone, has done a poor job of addressing this rot, opting to add a fresh lick of paint to the crumbling house rather than renovate it as is sorely needed. This is reflected too in the frankly bizarre grin-and-bear-it kayfabe attitude of everything being fine, we'll just tinker here or tinker there, that things are flawed but fixable rather than broken and in dire need of rebuilding from the ground up. The establishment and its hangers-on, along with true believers still clinging to the dream, just tick away through a predefined narrative, ignoring everything that doesn't fit like the robots in westworld. To build on this theres an idea that 'fairness constraints' have fundamentally broken down in America. The income gap between CEOs and the lowest paid person in their company has grown out of control, and everyone seems cool with this. Tax dodgers are lauded as sticking it to the greedy government instead of being yelled at for stealing bread from the mouths of the hungry. We've lost 'robber baron' from our national vocabulary (and the historic robber barons were no where near on the same level as the modern corporate overlords). The wealthy are unironically worshiped as 'Job Creators' and really loving stupid people literally have a 'Prosperity Gospel' that equates the favor of some god to getting rich. Where did it go? Why did the basic constraints of fairness break down?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
Standing up for a process or a system based on a set of ideals isn't standing for nothing (like the justice system which is a process with jury etc not an answer). Nor does it mean you can't have positive policy ideas too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Where did it go? Why did the basic constraints of fairness break down? They broke down because they are designed in such a way that they always would. I believe that as soon as a system contains inequality it's essentially doomed to break unless corrected. I don't have time this second to go into the details of why, but people who gain from inequality will seek to defend it, either through force or by ideology. We're getting the ideological defence for inequality in western democracies primarily (with a healthy dose of violence "as needed"). The ideological defences now are essentially that you have to earn what you get and what you earn is a reflection of what you deserve, and also that certain people also automatically deserve less through things like race, sex, etc. This naturally causes people to selfishly scramble for themselves and then those with more resources will win just a little more often and compound advantage over and over until they just run away with all the power and wealth. Once inequality grows far enough the whole ideology is undermined not necessarily because people don't believe it, but because they can't afford to believe it, which puts huge strain on the ideology and leaves society vulnerable to breaking down in all sorts of fun and interesting ways. Late era Soviet Union, current Russia, likely near-future USA all fell or are falling into an absurdist malaise because their citizens are being mind-hosed by the contradiction between their society's ideology and the reality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
The fundamental issue is this: liberalism is inherently opposed to providing security to people, and people are drawn to anyone who can promise them that. Whether its protection from hunger, want, of from threats, real or imagined, liberalism assumes, and treats other people as if they are not moved by such guarantees. That of course everyone is already safe, or is capable and willing to act with the confidence that comes from knowing that you, personally, are safe. The ideal of the market, as composed of rational agents who (with total confidence and without doubt), must constantly act and react to the constantly shifting sands of dynamic capitalism, is treated as reality, or rather, the 'true emancipation' of human beings. That is not how real people act, or will ever act. Real world human beings are fearful, anxious and easily spooked, they are in need of constant assurances and guarantees if they're even to be calm, let alone happy. How is this ignored? The reason is simple: the greatest proponents of liberalism are already shielded from its worst excesses. They live stable, secure lives, and so are free to hypocritically advocate that others act and believe exactly like them, even if 90% of people are in no position to rationally or logically do that. No one can 'stay calm', nor should they stay calm, when their person and livelihoods are threatened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Here's an example of what I mean: The logical endpoint of liberalism, as a pure ideology, is capitalist libertarianism. Libertarians only ever come from the demographic who are least likely to ever personally experience any of the downsides, who have never themselves ever been threatened by anything (they are, almost without exception, rich/middle class, male, cis and white). And as soon as they ever actually feel threatened, they immediately jump to fascism, and fascism of the worst kind, with all the racial bigotry and selfish violence that implies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The fundamental issue is this: liberalism is inherently opposed to providing security to people, and people are drawn to anyone who can promise them that. Whether its protection from hunger, want, of from threats, real or imagined, liberalism assumes, and treats other people as if they are not moved by such guarantees. That of course everyone is already safe, or is capable and willing to act with the confidence that comes from knowing that you, personally, are safe. The ideal of the market, as composed of rational agents who (with total confidence and without doubt), must constantly act and react to the constantly shifting sands of dynamic capitalism, is treated as reality, or rather, the 'true emancipation' of human beings. To me, this isn't actually a description of liberalism in its classical form. Classical liberalism (i.e., Locke or Madison) saw the desire for personal security as the fundamental bedrock of a liberal society. It's the threat hanging over our heads that forces us to play nicely, sign onto the social contract, and recognize each other's liberties in other areas. Those dudes saw property rights and markets as an important part of a liberal state and society, but not the most important thing. I think that turn toward "the ideal of the market, as composed of rational agents with total confidence and without doubt" is a much more recent conceptual framework. It's neoliberalism, and only began developing in the 1940s or whatever. I think one big problem with modern liberalism is that those two things have become conflated. Kavros posted:A liberal in a post-boomer era will probably settle down in a general realm of where norwegian social democratists kind of sit, but we'll keep a lot of our american peculiarities. We'll eventually go single payer, and once it's a universal platform it will never be able to go back (similar to how it's untouchable even to the foulest right wing parties in other developed nations). The conservatives will bump over the hump of no return with their transphobia and eventually lose out in the same inexorable pattern that saw them losing the culture war over gay marriage. We'll be in some combination reboot and repair mode over social systems which are much more robust in literally every other developed nation, overcoming the damage of decades of work by a party that gets elected on the promise of government not working (followed by 'starve the beast' style attacks on those systems to 'prove' it). I also think this attitude is another big problem with liberalism as an ideology (both classical and neoliberalism). It's essentially Whiggish. Things are just going to naturally go our way - we don't have to struggle or fight for it to happen, and we don't have to propose any mechanism to get from here to there. History is just on our side and we can just sit back and let it happen. But I don't think that's how politics actually works. Politics is nothing but contention and getting your hands dirty and fighting. It's like, Martin Luther King didn't just say "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." He went out there and he bent it himself, in ways that were deeply unpopular and divisive even among other progressives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:To me, this isn't actually a description of liberalism in its classical form. Classical liberalism (i.e., Locke or Madison) saw the desire for personal security as the fundamental bedrock of a liberal society. It's the threat hanging over our heads that forces us to play nicely, sign onto the social contract, and recognize each other's liberties in other areas. Those dudes saw property rights and markets as an important part of a liberal state and society, but not the most important thing. I think that turn toward "the ideal of the market, as composed of rational agents with total confidence and without doubt" is a much more recent conceptual framework. It's neoliberalism, and only began developing in the 1940s or whatever. I think one big problem with modern liberalism is that those two things have become conflated. Regardless, the letter in the OP was about the modern american understanding of "liberalism" so that's what I hope people will confine themselves to discussing here. He states what he thinks liberalism is, and while I don't think it's a complete definition or necessarily an admirable one, it's certainly a common one and worth examining.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
When it comes to this conversation, are we speaking about the American usage and conceptualization of liberalism or the international understanding? It can be helpful to define this early since the term is often confusing and used as an empty epithet even within the US alone. I think one of the things that the Democratic Party has largely failed at is engagement with the public; in the bitterest irony, the membership and participation is largely closed off in lieu of a largely unaccountable elite. Are people who register to vote as Democrats actual members or are they a separate category altogether? My understanding is that "membership" is reserved for the people who become superdelegates, not the public who registered their party preference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:When it comes to this conversation, are we speaking about the American usage and conceptualization of liberalism or the international understanding? It can be helpful to define this early since the term is often confusing and used as an empty epithet even within the US alone. Read the post right above yours, yo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Read the post right above yours, yo. Sorry, I was writing it on my phone before yours showed up. I agree that we should probably use that definition of liberalism, but it still feels somewhat vague for my liking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:Sorry, I was writing it on my phone before yours showed up. I agree that we should probably use that definition of liberalism, but it still feels somewhat vague for my liking. Yeah, as I said I don't think the guy is a political scholar - he probably knows less terminology than the average D&D poster by a good margin. But I really really don't want this thread to become Libertarianism thread #985 or yet another host to the tedious sniping from euro posters about americans using a word differently than they do. Americans co-opted an existing politics word and now use it to describe a different thing than it originally did. That happens in language sometimes and it's okay. If we need to expand on his definition I think just, with as little quibbling and pedantry as possible please, call to mind the typical NPR-totebag-owning white middle-class middle-aged person. They are probably pro-choice but probably not anti-death penalty. They think climate change is real and use their recycling bins but probably don't live off the grid. People living in well-intentioned, shallow-thinking comfort. They don't like the problems conservatism creates in this country, but they shy away from what our letter-writer calls "radical leftism." They want problems to be solved through compromise and polite conversation, and they are uncomfortable with anyone who feels strong emotions about politics, on the left or the right. Basically, imagine the American who would say "I'm as liberal as they come, but..." Can we motivate those people to action, or is their ideology incompatible with real change?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yeah, as I said I don't think the guy is a political scholar - he probably knows less terminology than the average D&D poster by a good margin. But I really really don't want this thread to become Libertarianism thread #985 or yet another host to the tedious sniping from euro posters about americans using a word differently than they do. Americans co-opted an existing politics word and now use it to describe a different thing than it originally did. That happens in language sometimes and it's okay. I think a part of what makes it difficult is that they really don't understand their own ideology very well, to the point that admitting even having one at all is akin to taboo. The "economic conservative, social liberal" canard is less a statement of what they actually believe in terms of policy outcomes or desired society, but rather a projection of an ideal identity that appears to be unique and discerning; they want to appear like their beliefs are put together like a shopping list that they carefully put together by weighing the merits of each idea. They want to look like a smart shopper rather than a slave to branding. It's a form of political atheism where they look upon people who buy in to an existing ideological framework as true-believer dupes that allow dogma to define their worldview for them. The reality is that these self-imagined snowflakes have no idea what many of these political terms even mean, nor how politics and civic society intersect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Basically, imagine the American who would say "I'm as liberal as they come, but..." Can we motivate those people to action, or is their ideology incompatible with real change? American liberalism as an ideology seems like an unshaking defense of the status quo expressed in terms best calculated to appeal to whatever audience is listening, so those people are not just incompatible with real change but without realising actively opposed to it Like they're onboard with progress and change right up until it seems like it might actually cost them something Neeksy posted:I think a part of what makes it difficult is that they really don't understand their own ideology very well, to the point that admitting even having one at all is akin to taboo. The "economic conservative, social liberal" canard is less a statement of what they actually believe in terms of policy outcomes or desired society, but rather a projection of an ideal identity that appears to be unique and discerning; they want to appear like their beliefs are put together like a shopping list that they carefully put together by weighing the merits of each idea. They want to look like a smart shopper rather than a slave to branding. It's a form of political atheism where they look upon people who buy in to an existing ideological framework as true-believer dupes that allow dogma to define their worldview for them. The reality is that these self-imagined snowflakes have no idea what many of these political terms even mean, nor how politics and civic society intersect. The road to hell is paved with leftists quibbling over slight variations in their polsci terms
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
I think the individualism and worthiness are the aspects of American liberalism that are incompatible with real change. I'm not a fan of capitalism but I think it could be workable if income was seen as a benefit from society and capitalists were seen as managers of societal wealth rather than owners of wealth. Basically if capitalism was seen as the means of determining where labour and resources are used for society rather than as a way to enrich the individual. You know, we demand payment for goods and services so that goods and services that don't get paid for are discontinued and the resources reassigned by what people are willing to pay for and allowing you to pick and choose what you want, rather than say deciding centrally what people want. But as soon as liberalism inserted individualism and worth into the market it became an unworkable ideology that created a worthy ruling class not enough different from the aristocracy it originally replaced. How do you fix wealth inequality if the very justification for inequality are baked into a society's ideology?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I think the individualism and worthiness are the aspects of American liberalism that are incompatible with real change. I'm not a fan of capitalism but I think it could be workable if income was seen as a benefit from society and capitalists were seen as managers of societal wealth rather than owners of wealth. Basically if capitalism was seen as the means of determining where labour and resources are used for society rather than as a way to enrich the individual. So... Capitalism would work if it wasn't capitalism, but instead something completely different?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:I think a part of what makes it difficult is that they really don't understand their own ideology very well, to the point that admitting even having one at all is akin to taboo. The "economic conservative, social liberal" canard is less a statement of what they actually believe in terms of policy outcomes or desired society, but rather a projection of an ideal identity that appears to be unique and discerning; they want to appear like their beliefs are put together like a shopping list that they carefully put together by weighing the merits of each idea. They want to look like a smart shopper rather than a slave to branding. It's a form of political atheism where they look upon people who buy in to an existing ideological framework as true-believer dupes that allow dogma to define their worldview for them. The reality is that these self-imagined snowflakes have no idea what many of these political terms even mean, nor how politics and civic society intersect. That shopping/branding thing is a great analogy and I hadn't actually seen it put that way before, thanks. Choosy moms choose liberalism! Crane Fist posted:So... Capitalism would work if it wasn't capitalism, but instead something completely different? I mean... it certainly doesn't work if it's the same
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:The road to hell is paved with leftists quibbling over slight variations in their polsci terms When it comes to the general public, I'm less concerned with fealty to the denotation of polsci terms and more about how people craft their ideological identity for appearances rather than thinking about how they want society to be structured.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
The "liberalism" he's talking about isn't liberalism even in the American sense. It's just "How To Do Politics Without Resorting To Murder". One of our major political parties figured out that they can abandon those rules for huge electoral and cultural gain, and without much dire consequence for themselves provided the other major political party continues to follow them. What remains to be seen is whether the other major political party continues to follow them or not: if they do we'll have authoritarianism, and if they don't we'll have civil war (and then authoritarianism, probably). The probability space left over for other outcomes seems vanishingly small, e.g. the Democratic party is actually for real hijacked by an actual no-bullshit leftist movement that takes no prisoners - that will result in option two: civil war, since there is no way on Earth the American ruling class is going down without a fight, and they've got enough lower-class dupes on their side to put up an actual fight (and win, in my opinion, but that remains to be seen). Anyway, and apologies in advance for the quibbling, but I don't see much difference in the "European" understanding of "liberal" vs. the American one anyway. They both describe center-right, capitalist ideology. It's just that in America actual leftist political discussion isn't a thing in public discourse, so a "merely" center-right, somewhat mixed-market capitalist platform is seen as far left because, in a sense, it is. (It's the farthest left you can go and still be taken seriously.) Anyway I use them interchangeably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Where did it go? Why did the basic constraints of fairness break down? In the economic sense? Decades if not most of a century of concentrated effort on the part of the wealthy elite and capitalist classes. The Great Depression and the New Deal were a huge setback for them, but they have spent all this time lobbying for legal conditions that benefit enriching themselves and working to destroy and demonize the existing unions and prevent any attempts to organize in the new businesses generated in the technology booms of the last 40 years. Worker rights and mobility are, in many industries, at a low not seen since the Gilded Age, and the only thing preventing them from getting worse are the minimum wage and debtor protection laws that prevent Wal-Mart from operating a company store.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:option two: civil war, since there is no way on Earth the American ruling class is going down without a fight, and they've got enough lower-class dupes on their side to put up an actual fight (and win, in my opinion, but that remains to be seen).
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
I feel like it's become popular to take swipes at the idea of "civility". The problem with this is that civility, per se, isn't the problem. There's a difference between civility and spinelessness, IMO. You can be perfectly civil while saying "no I don't agree with you in any way and your ideas are atrocious".
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I think the individualism and worthiness are the aspects of American liberalism that are incompatible with real change. I'm not a fan of capitalism but I think it could be workable if income was seen as a benefit from society and capitalists were seen as managers of societal wealth rather than owners of wealth. Basically if capitalism was seen as the means of determining where labour and resources are used for society rather than as a way to enrich the individual. You know, we demand payment for goods and services so that goods and services that don't get paid for are discontinued and the resources reassigned by what people are willing to pay for and allowing you to pick and choose what you want, rather than say deciding centrally what people want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:I feel like it's become popular to take swipes at the idea of "civility". The problem with this is that civility, per se, isn't the problem. There's a difference between civility and spinelessness, IMO. You can be perfectly civil while saying "no I don't agree with you in any way and your ideas are atrocious". The person you say that to will call you uncivil for saying that and use that to discredit you. That's the problem with "civility" as a primary political value.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:So... Capitalism would work if it wasn't capitalism, but instead something completely different? Eh, no. I'm not saying anything would change in the mechanism of capitalism. Capitalists would still control the means of production and individuals would still gain income by serving capitalists. But capitalists would be restricted from actually using all their wealth for themselves. Capitalism only requires that capitalists control the means of production, not that they get to use it for themselves. That part comes from liberalism. You could have a communal capitalist society. We could require capitalists to live like monks and still call our system capitalism. I mean yes, it completely violates the spirit of capitalism as it is practised today, but the letter of it is not necessarily broken here. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Jan 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:I feel like it's become popular to take swipes at the idea of "civility". The problem with this is that civility, per se, isn't the problem. There's a difference between civility and spinelessness, IMO. You can be perfectly civil while saying "no I don't agree with you in any way and your ideas are atrocious". I think the critique is of people who promote civility as an end rather than means, or believe that civility as strategy should never be abandoned in the face of shameless fascism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Eh, no. I'm not saying anything would change in the mechanism of capitalism. Capitalists would still control the means of production and individuals would still gain income by serving capitalists. But capitalists would be restricted from actually using their wealth for themselves. Capitalism only requires that capitalists control the means of production, not that they get to use it for themselves. That part comes from liberalism. You could have a communal capitalist society. We could require capitalists to live like monks and still call our system capitalism. I legit think this is interesting but speculation about alternatives to/modifications of capitalism definitely deserves its own thread. I'd read it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Eh, no. I'm not saying anything would change in the mechanism of capitalism. Capitalists would still control the means of production and individuals would still gain income by serving capitalists. But capitalists would be restricted from actually using all their wealth for themselves. Capitalism only requires that capitalists control the means of production, not that they get to use it for themselves. That part comes from liberalism. You could have a communal capitalist society. We could require capitalists to live like monks and still call our system capitalism. This seems like stretching the word capitalists to its breaking point, though. I mean at the point where capitalists are required to live like monks you're so far removed from the system that is described by the word that you may as well refer to it as monakism or turblefish or something? It also seems like a stretch to say that liberalism is to blame for the owners of the means of production hoarding all the capital, that's capitalism working as intended? How do you figure that particular logic? e: Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I legit think this is interesting but speculation about alternatives to/modifications of capitalism definitely deserves its own thread. I'd read it! Didn't see this, I'll drop this until someone starts that thread since it's pretty far from the stated topic. So, those liberals! Two degrees to the left in the good times, ten degrees to the right when it affects them personally, am I right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:I think a part of what makes it difficult is that they really don't understand their own ideology very well, to the point that admitting even having one at all is akin to taboo. The "economic conservative, social liberal" canard is less a statement of what they actually believe in terms of policy outcomes or desired society, but rather a projection of an ideal identity that appears to be unique and discerning; they want to appear like their beliefs are put together like a shopping list that they carefully put together by weighing the merits of each idea. They want to look like a smart shopper rather than a slave to branding. It's a form of political atheism where they look upon people who buy in to an existing ideological framework as true-believer dupes that allow dogma to define their worldview for them. The reality is that these self-imagined snowflakes have no idea what many of these political terms even mean, nor how politics and civic society intersect. I think this is key, yeah. The paradigm shift in the late 70s–80s, combined with the fall of an ideologically oppositional superpower in the USSR, cemented liberal democracy as the dominant ideology and brought about this "end of history" mindset. When your ideology is the only game in town you stop viewing it as an ideology. So you get this kind of stagnation where political offices must be respected and wonkery is king. Political differences exist because republicans are just uneducated, people would vote the right way if they knew the truth. They don't really have any beliefs. Of course, at the same time they believe in truisms like "politics is the art of the possible", or that means testing and compromise solutions are somehow always better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:It probably depends on how the military's loyalties shake out, but civil war speculation is best left for another thread. As for what "liberals" (or former liberals) do now, I don't know what else there is to do but advocate socialism. That's not even a statement on the merits of socialism - I just can't think of anything else in the first place. Trying to humanize capitalism is what got us into this mess. Capitalism is inherently inhuman and corrupting and we see the influence of that corruption in the Democratic party. Even now, with the left pissed off at the Democrats and ready to revolt, the (for the moment) most likely 2020 Presidential candidate for the Democrats couldn't even marshal the fortitude required to make a totally symbolic and consequence-free (in terms of actual policy, anyway) vote in favor of cheaper prescription drugs. Him and 12 other morons. I mean on the flip side if you think there is not much wrong with the Democratic party as it is presently constituted then the answer seems pretty clear, and we've heard it a lot on this board and elsewhere: keep, ah, doing the same thing, and hope it works next time. So I guess it still means what you mean by "liberal", alas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The "liberalism" he's talking about isn't liberalism even in the American sense. It's just "How To Do Politics Without Resorting To Murder". One of our major political parties figured out that they can abandon those rules for huge electoral and cultural gain, and without much dire consequence for themselves provided the other major political party continues to follow them. What remains to be seen is whether the other major political party continues to follow them or not: if they do we'll have authoritarianism, and if they don't we'll have civil war (and then authoritarianism, probably). The probability space left over for other outcomes seems vanishingly small, e.g. the Democratic party is actually for real hijacked by an actual no-bullshit leftist movement that takes no prisoners - that will result in option two: civil war, since there is no way on Earth the American ruling class is going down without a fight, and they've got enough lower-class dupes on their side to put up an actual fight (and win, in my opinion, but that remains to be seen). Most of the proclaimed goals of liberal parties in Europe really aren't that different than the central policies of Democrats, the key difference is that left half of our political spectrum vanished in the 1920s-1930s. Traditionally, the most "leftist" someone could be in the US is some type of social liberal that wants moderate improvements to the social safety net and a much greater expansion of individual freedom on a social level. As far as the only outcome that could change things, actual leftists taking over the Democrats, we will have to see. There is still the possibility of enough leverage being applied without direct armed conflict to get some improvements to happen but this would only occur if these "new Democrats" were willing to be completely hard line. It is almost certain the response from the media would be completely negative (think of the coverage of Sanders/Corbyn but far worse). Also, keeping the status quo is natural for almost all forms of liberalism as long as individual property rights are not impinged. The only people who would have a real problem with it are the left ledge of liberals, but it seems most of them are realizing they actual believe in some sort of moderate form of socialism. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Jan 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:The person you say that to will call you uncivil for saying that and use that to discredit you. That's the problem with "civility" as a primary political value. I think we can safely agree that anyone who wants "civility" as a primary political goal is at best a silly ninny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:I think we can safely agree that anyone who wants "civility" as a primary political goal is at best a silly ninny. Agreed, but then we aren't published in the New Yorker, are we.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Agreed, but then we aren't published in the New Yorker, are we. Where I come from, that's a point of pride.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Where I come from, that's a point of pride. Christ, what an rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:08 |
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:I think we can safely agree that anyone who wants "civility" as a primary political goal is at best a silly ninny. Obama just got slammed!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 08:39
|
|