I’m reading a history of the Middle Ages by Norman Cantor. He threw out a definition of “liberal” that seemed to work as well as any:
Liberals assume that men will be good if their environment and education are good, that improving men’s circumstances will improve their behavior.
This was the belief of the Enlightenment philosophers and Platonists before them. It is a belief rejected by Augustine and the conservative church fathers. He believed that men may know what is right, but something prevents them acting rightly
Crazy how long we’ve been arguing about these issues.
Original sin is what keeps us from doing right and St Augustine ,who died about the time Rome was falling to the Vandals , linked original sin and sexuality,which is now basic to christian understanding,if not so much the ‘official’ modern emphasis( my opinion).
Liberalism is The Rights of Man and our Declaration of Independence and our system of law and jurisprudence.To me,the biggest downfall of liberalism is that so many of the most in jeopardy people are the ones who dont participate in the process.and there is a real power struggle to keep the wealth and power circulatng among the top control cadre rather than circulate freely through all of society.
For a while liberal has been defined by the opposition,as in ‘tax and spend liberal’.. Slogans work well if they tune into an already held cultural belief .
Thats why the case against ACORN to me was such a sham.
ACORN got people involved who werent involved,and that was a threat to those who wanted to continue calling the shots. My solution for ACORN:clean it up, change the name and refund it .Thats how massive corruption in Iraq was generally handled.The massive fraud was in Iraq not with ACORN.
Liberals are branded and havent called themsleves liberals as opposed to conservatives who glory in the purity and righteousness of the concept. I was first isolated as a liberal in political chat group :I always thought I couldnt be a liberal because I hadn’t read enough.
My take is that the complete failure of Reaganism legacy(my characterization) has opened many peoples eyes.Not that Reagan was bad,but he had no control over his legacy; it was stolen by the extremists who came after him: ‘the no rules is the best rule ‘ type economists.I think Reagan believed in the value of rules and regulation.
I know Im very superficial in my views. Im not so much a reader as a traveler.But being able to argue the positive nature of american values with the surly French in France in French does give me some insight.
I know how dumbfounded I was when I was told NO american can be logical as the French,because only the French have studied Rene Descartes.And it’s true: all French do study Descartes in school and know his theory of observation ,rational evaluation and conclusion; Descartes is ,as much as anybody,the inpiration of American Independence,in my view.
Original sin is a bunch of made up hooey that has caused untold misery over the centuries. That’s my opinion, anyway. To me, it translates into “here is a problem you didn’t know you had; but we can help — do as we say, and everything will be fine.” The most fundamental marketing pitch of all. And a control play.
Augustine basically threw in with St. Paul, and the more liberal teachings of Jesus were minimized.
To me, the defination of a Conservative is one who believes that the best way to accomplish things is to continue doing them the same way as we are right now. That any major deviation from the path we are currently following is unacceptable.
Liberals believe that policy change, or at least the occasional shakeup, is necessary in order to continue making progress: Charging headfirst into a wall repeatedly will not eventually bring the wall down, it will instead eventually crack one’s head open.
I suppose the Cantor defination of Conservatives would be those who assume that men can will always be governed by evil, no matter how honest their intentions.
Lou, while I agree that Reaganism was a failure, I cannot go along with the premise that very many people here in America have rejected it. It seems to me that most Americans regard Ronnie as some sort of demigod who could do no wrong. And that those who came after him are no more or less than his Holy Apostles. After all, they invoke his name as much as true Christian ministers and priests invoke the name of Jesus. “And the wealthiest amongst us shall lead them.”
By the way, identifying yourself as a “traveler” is equivalant to admitting membership in the Communist Party. “So saith Attack Radio.”
Manfred,
My point about Reagan,valid or not, was that those who revere Reagan want to go back and re-invent Reagan as he was.But you can’t do that..Reagan is what his policies have become,and that does Reagan no justice.
Reagan…
Ive always been very pro-labor union because in my mind union wage is what brought american families the good life after ww2. We can see how vulnerable people have become now with low wages and no, or poor, health insurance..This is the legacy of modern conservatism.But it hasn’t sunk in yet for most.
When Reagan fired the air traffic controllers early in his 1st term, I first started to question that he may be a fraud to his message of ‘bringing america together’. I could rationalize the air controllers firing because they were kind of a white collar elite type union..
Orginal Sin: Certainly the RCC used this doctrine through the ages to control parishioners.It amounts to ‘only through the church can you save your soul..’Man put himself before God,so now he has to come to God (i.e church) to seek forgiveness and salvation.
The RCC has always been very legalistic .The church continued the heavy legalism of the Roman Empire.(When did the Holy Roman Empire finally die?) There’s a rule and a procedure for everything,and when in doubt,see the priest.
But in my mind, the church has undermined itself because it has always encouraged intellectualism which questions what is..
I wonder where the intellectual side is to conservative Protestantism?
The Roman Catholic Church definitely picked up where the Roman Empire left off in a lot of bureaucratic, legalistic ways. The book I’m reading talks about some of the dichotomies present in Western Christianity that produced creative tension that didn’t necessarily exist as much in Eastern Christianity. Among other things, the split between church & state. In the East, emperor and pope were the same person, I guess. (I really ought to know a lot more about the Byzantine Empire than I do.)
Then you had the tension between Roman notions of the state mixed with the differing political habits of the Germanic people.
Hold on for a minute. Hate to break this to people who revere Reagan and Limbaugh. Democrats and Republicans are liberal when you look at the whole range of political thought (Communism rightward to Fascism). I always thought Jeanne Kirkpatrick was full of academic bs with her authoritarian/totalitarian dichotomy. The Federalist Papers use the term despot and whether that despot is on the Left (Daniel Ortega) or the Right (Somoza), they are our enemy.
As much as I despise Rush Limbaugh, he does not want a monarchy or a Fascist government. Well, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt any way.
Yes, the difference between our liberals and conservatives is supposed to be that one thinks humanity can be improved and those who cannot. Our Founders took a very dim very of democracy but compared to their European contemporaries, they were very liberal.
Frankly, I think Reagan and our current crop of Conservatives have turned conservatism on its head. Most of the time it goes beyond conserving the past to either a reactionary overturning of the past or a radical restructuring of everything. The first part gave us a return to the Roaring Twenties our Great Recession. The latter group had us performing our first offensive war and the nutjobs who want us to become a theocracy. So maybe there is more truth in what you guys have already said than my strict interpretation of liberal/conservative.
And Dave, the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church was the Patriarch of Constantinople. He made no claim to temporal power like the Pope and so was subservient to the Emperor. Not that the Eastern Empire did not have its own religious problems – check out iconoclast under Wikipedia or the Nike riots. The Emperor could have his own crazy religious notions and had the power to carry them out. And Byzantine history is, well, byzantine .
I heard someone that considers himself to be a proud conservative state this:
“The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that social change is best achieved though laws. Conservatives believe that social change is best achieved through the people in a grassroots way, like through the church or non-profits.”
He then went on to state that current Republicans are just as liberal as Democrats. An interesting view.
Whether or liberal or conseravtive,the Bill of rights and the Constitution should be our ‘bible’ for running the country.The biggest
fear I have of this conservative bunch who are now temporarily ,at least, deposed, is that they dont respect the Constitution and American traditions of law making. The very idea that calling for a plebiscite to determine who can marry ,for example, is downright scary. Either marriage is constitutional or it isn’t… Voting on it? I don’t think anyone should have special privilges ,but on the other hand if certain people are denied privileges that others have assumed for themsleves,then find it in the Constitution and make a constitional-proof law that others shouldnt be allowed to assume these privileges(or rights?). I would beg to argue this point without being categorized by the opposition as being ‘for gay rights’.
And that leads to the other gripe I have against today’s conservatives: everyone is immediately put into a niche either for free circulation or for the garbage bin.
But probably liberals have faults too..I know many have issues with Obama’s way of governing,so maybe it can be debated that some of them are too extreme ‘on the left’.
But when I argue politics ,it’s with liberals.