View Full Version : Why Liberalism Will Ultimately Fail (From CNN of All Places!)
HoneyBadger
11-28-2012, 21:11
From CNN of all places:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/opinion/bennett-liberalism/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/opinion/bennett-liberalism/index.html)
(CNN) -- With President Obama's re-election, many liberals believe they possess the building blocks of the winning political coalition of the future: college students, single women, gays, secularists, Hispanics, African-Americans and Asian-Americans. Liberals see here not a splintered electorate but key constituencies united by a common agenda of economic and social justice. In previous columns, I have conceded the strength of the Democrats in these quarters.
Fifty, 25, perhaps even 10 years ago, this brand of liberalism probably would have failed. But today, the country, the demographics and the culture are different. Americans are less white, less religious (http://www.pewforum.org/unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx) and less likely to get married (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/26marry.html) and have families. Liberalism has adapted accordingly.
For the college student struggling with student loan debt, the single mother who can barely afford to provide for her children, the minority family in the inner city struggling to find work, liberalism offers immediate relief: subsidized student loans, national health care and entitlements for the elderly and the poor.
Rather than waiting on free markets to correct themselves and start creating wealth again, liberalism's cure is immediate, and so are the political payoffs. This explains partly why many voters feel liberals care about them more than conservatives.
For the ideologically driven -- the pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage voters and Sandra Flukes of the world (she was the Georgetown student at the center of a birth control debate this year) -- liberalism offers a slightly different relief: the rejection of the central role of mediating institutions -- like churches, families and community organizations -- in imposing moral standards to govern or regulate behavior within the state.
Churches and families can exist, says liberalism, so long as they exercise "soft" religion and don't force their views on the public. When they do, like in the case of the Catholic Church and contraception, it's necessary, says liberalism, for the state to step in and impart justice. This explains Obamacare's contraception mandate and why much was made over the "war on women."
Liberalism has effectively persuaded its many factions that it is uniquely qualified to meet their needs and desires, while conservatism has not. By its nature, liberalism molds to fit these times better than conservatism; conservatism is by its nature more abstract than practical, more focused on long-term considerations than short term.
Does this mean that conservatism is past its time and that liberalism is the mandate of the future?
No, it doesn't. Liberalism's continued success depends on many factors, but two in particular. First, it must paint the political alternative, conservatism, as the faction of social injustice, as anti-immigrant, anti-entitlement, anti-regulation and so on. The Obama campaign did that effectively in this election without an equally effective conservative response. One presumes that conservatives will be ready in 2016.
Second, and more important, effective state intervention of the sort liberals propose depends almost entirely on a state that is strong economically and socially. It is here that liberalism falls short in the long term. The various liberal constituencies are in fact atomized groups of individuals who are relying on government, rather than creating the economic growth or fostering the social and civic health necessary to sustain the ideal liberal state.
Whereas liberals see entitlements as the immediate response to economic injustice, many fail to realize that they alone cannot rebuild a middle class. In fact, they can have the opposite effect in the long term and insulate their recipients from upward mobility. With $16 trillion in national debt, an aging population and an already-overburdened entitlement system, the ideal liberal social welfare state can only sustain itself for so long before it collapses under its own weight. It is a lifeline attached to a slowly sinking ship.
Whereas liberals celebrate subsidized birth control and the unmooring of what they see as narrow-minded religious moral standards, they fail to realize the alternative that is right in front of them: out-of-wedlock birth rates (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp&gwh=7C9C11E38B23EDD754577F01E685BC76&) that are at all-time highs and a destructive breakdown in the family unit.
Absent strong, active, character-forming institutions, like families, schools, and churches, single mothers and low-income households in many cases have no where else to turn but to the government. The problem is that liberals often confuse such allegiance with successful governing.
The liberal coalition of the future looks more like Greece, an advanced secular, social welfare state, than the idealized liberal glory days of FDR.
Yeah, eventually...the problem is the constituents care about me me me right now and the "leaders" only care about power, also in the now. Perfect storm of greedy short sighted fools and power hungry liars.
Goodburbon
11-28-2012, 21:42
All I can say is "duh" and if its on CNN it likely fell on deaf ears.
TEAMRICO
11-28-2012, 22:25
NYNCO or Rucker69 to chime in to defend, deflect and blame Bush in 3....2.....
Aloha_Shooter
11-28-2012, 22:27
The problem with this is 1) it will take years of decay before the morale decay of liberalism collapses of its own weight and 2) they're going to be standing on our heads and chests as they go down.
Zundfolge
11-28-2012, 22:59
The central problem with liberalism is that it is a lot like auto-erotic asphyxia ... it feels real good when you start doing it, but if you do it too long it kills you.
The central problem with liberalism is that it is a lot like auto-erotic asphyxia ... it feels real good when you start doing it, but if you do it too long it kills you. - David Carradine
I knew that sounded familiar.
Great-Kazoo
11-28-2012, 23:10
From CNN of all places:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/opinion/bennett-liberalism/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/opinion/bennett-liberalism/index.html)
Liberalism Uber Alles
It use to be spicey food that upset my ulcers. I don't believe there is any medication that will ever fix that sickening feeling in my gut. Knowing the more ENTITLEMENT, USELESS FREELOADING, SHITHEADS Suck off our hard earned paycheck teat It will only get worse. The rash you ignore, gets worse, if not fatal, without corrective action.
The many lives of servicemen and women, lost, over time so fuck heads take what they think they deserve, oblivious to the sacrifices our men & women made so they have their cake and eat it too:(
Do you guys even know who William Bennette is? This guy is a freak
Goodburbon
12-01-2012, 10:02
Nynco from what I've seen over the last 24 hours you don't have any room to talk.
Nynco from what I've seen over the last 24 hours you don't have any room to talk.
Last 24 hours? Go back far enough (like before his extended vacation from here) and you'll think he never had any room to talk from the start. [Coffee]
i wonder if nynco knows who barack obama is. look at the guys history for god's sakes. and yet everything the guy says he fawns over. talk about freak.
Liberalism will fail because parasites need a host and liberalism always kills the host.
Liberalism will fail because parasites need a host and liberalism always kills the host.
Agreed. Liberalism needs hard working, morally upstanding, stable Americans in order to subsidize all of the others. It's only a matter of time. The Spring of Liberty is fully compressed, it's only a matter of time before it bounces back!
Rust_shackleford
12-05-2012, 11:09
Agreed. Liberalism needs hard working, morally upstanding, stable Americans in order to subsidize all of the others. It's only a matter of time. The Spring of Liberty is fully compressed, it's only a matter of time before it bounces back!
It's too late the Liberals (both parties) have put us in hawk with the Central Bank. We would have to do what Iceland did. Default on the unconstitutional loans and jail the banksters with the Republicans/Democrats who allowed this to happen.
It's too late the Liberals (both parties) have put us in hawk with the Central Bank. We would have to do what Iceland did. Default on the unconstitutional loans and jail the banksters with the Republicans/Democrats who allowed this to happen.
Throw a bunch of crooked politicians in jail? When do we get started? This is a grand idea!
Zundfolge
12-05-2012, 12:28
It's too late the Liberals (both parties) have put us in hawk with the Central Bank. We would have to do what Iceland did. Default on the unconstitutional loans and jail the banksters with the Republicans/Democrats who allowed this to happen.
Except that Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt are already dead ... we should exhume them and put their bones in jail?
Rust_shackleford
12-05-2012, 14:20
Except that Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt are already dead ... we should exhume them and put their bones in jail?
Every one likes a little ass, nobody likes a smart ass. I guess we could bring FDR & Reagan back too.
I just want to do my part to accelerate the failure of liberal plans.
Kraven251
12-06-2012, 07:55
I do like the shtick on unwed mothers and the family piece. An interesting book on economics and social structure called Freakonomics painted a slightly different picture. I think education has more a role to play in the "unwed" mother scenario. Beyond that I grew up in an area that had many a "good Christian" home where the father routinely got drunk and beat the shit out of his kids.
There are some valid points, but when someone writes something like this and seasons it with bullshit, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. No one group is ever going to have the right answer, it will always be a fragile dance.
As for everyone jumping on the bandwagon to want the "liberal agenda" to fail, I have to ask why? We are stuck with it for about 4 more years, if everything that has been said is true, then a more conservative President/Congress will be elected. In the meantime though if everything that this administration/congress puts up on the floor fails, the country will be uber boned instead of just slightly screwed. Defend what needs defending but allow some level of compromise to happen.
While many of you don't like Obama, if he follows through on something he said, he will have at least one +1 in my book. He said he would not cut military benefits. I grew up in the 70's-80's and every single time a defense budget was cut, my father and my family lost some part of the benefits my father had earned through 2 wars and 20 years in the Marine Corps. I may not agree with all of his policies or ideas, but if he makes good on this, I will have a little faith.
TEAMRICO
12-06-2012, 20:49
I just want to do my part to accelerate the failure of liberal plans.
This.
Kraven, thanks for playing.
Im sure there are sites out there you could sign up for out there where you can make friends who think the same way.
Please try to tell me the good things Obama has done, accomplished or even a promise he has kept.
If you want to embrace this guy and the people that surround him then by all means feel free to do so.
Try not to do it here like some have to rile us up.
Me like others here are tired of the Bullshit this clown has done to the country we served. After retiring a couple of years ago I thought I could enjoy this country and not have to come under attack, and thats what this is, from MY OWN GOVERNMENT.
Please just please attempt to convince me that he has the COUNTRY'S and the LEGAL BORN AMERICAN's best interest at heart. What has he demonstrated without lip service that would make me think that he value's my freedoms or beliefs? Has he shown that he loves America as we do? Im still not seeing it.
Cut out the cliches or the talking points. State your case.
Until then I will continue to resist the agenda he wants to force me and others into buying.
Kraven251
12-07-2012, 07:36
Our system of government is based on compromise, that is all I am saying. If two sides can not come to an agreement then nothing will get done at all, and we all get fucked. The system is built on balance. The other point, which remains to be seen, is if Obama makes good on his word to not cut military benefits. Do I think he is the savior of the country, no, has he done somethings that have royally pissed me off, yes. I am however forever the optimist, and am hopeful some good can come out of any situation no matter how shitty it looks.
To that end the United States was built on many different ideas and views working together to a common goal. The road taken was not always a straight one, but yet our system flawed as it might be still works. Personally I am a socially liberal and fiscally conservative, so I am not singing Obama's praises from the rooftops, but I do support him because for no other reason he is our President.
Well...unlike previous administrations he did green light the mission for a high value target in a reasonable amount of time so the target was still home.
Well...unlike previous administrations he did green light the mission for a high value target in a reasonable amount of time so the target was still home.
Respect level reduced from 9 to 3... Any president who had that opportunity, more than likely, would have said "go!" You can't use this argument, it's stupid, and makes me think you and nynco need to refrain from singing his praises here.
Oh, and you speak on compromise... you mean like compromise with the Brady Bunch? I think there are some things we all need to compromise on, but when it comes to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, et al. there can be, and will be absolutely ZERO compromise.
Kraven251
12-07-2012, 12:47
There have been more than a couple people that were not green lighted. The easiest example is the Persian Gulf War and the ceasefire versus taking Baghdad then. During the GW's administration UBL escaped an area after CIA and Rangers had an issue getting the go no go among other things.
Presidents have had the opportunity and good or bad, didn't take it or waited too long to take it.
I am not saying compromise on the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but I am saying compromise on funding for education, survivor's benefits, government pensions etc. Without any compromise or attempt at balance, shit grinds to a halt and the US defaults on a loan or two, the OPEC countries decide the US Dollar isn't the currency they want to use and we all get to eat a big shit sandwich. These are the consequences of a legislative failure and I am not even putting on a tinfoil hat for these scenarios.
Bailey Guns
12-09-2012, 08:15
I'm done listening to experts like Bill Bennett. While I agree with some of his points about liberalism, I disagree with his assessment of the eventual outcome.
Liberals are not motivated to change by the (constant and unending) failures of liberal ideology.
I'm done listening to experts like Bill Bennett. While I agree with some of his points about liberalism, I disagree with his assessment of the eventual outcome.
Liberals are not motivated to change by the (constant and unending) failures of liberal ideology.
You're right. Liberals are true believers, facts simply DO NOT MATTER. The only thing that matters is the end result and if liberals have to oversee the murder of tens of millions and the advancement of easily disprovable lies they'll do that in a heartbeat.
The only thing holding liberals back in this country is gun owners.
KestrelBike
12-10-2012, 19:39
Do you guys even know who William Bennette is? This guy is a freak
Flipping Cookie Monster could have written that article and it would have not made it any less true. FFS.
KestrelBike
12-10-2012, 19:40
Throw a bunch of crooked politicians in jail? When do we get started? This is a grand idea!
Jail is expensive. I'm thinking captive-bolt, cattle style.
HoneyBadger
12-11-2012, 09:05
Oh, and you speak on compromise... you mean like compromise with the Brady Bunch? I think there are some things we all need to compromise on, but when it comes to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, et al. there can be, and will be absolutely ZERO compromise.
The big picture: NEVER compromise your principles. This is really all that liberals try to get you to do.
The big picture: NEVER compromise your principles. This is really all that liberals try to get you to do.
I was speaking on policies, not principles... I agree that the right needs to STFU about religiously inspired legislation (abortion is #1 on that list), and the left needs to compromise on massive welfare reform.
Zundfolge
12-11-2012, 14:25
I was speaking on policies, not principles... I agree that the right needs to STFU about religiously inspired legislation (abortion is #1 on that list), and the left needs to compromise on massive welfare reform.
Abortion is a violation of the Non Aggregation Principal (the very ideological cornerstone libertarianism is built on).
If one believes that murdering babies because they are inconvenient is wrong than one would be a fool not to stand up for said belief.
The problem is that the left has metastasized into a completely unreasonable group (like Muslims) they refuse any compromise on their side and total compromise on the other side. You could give the left in America 99.99% of what they want in exchange for .01% of what they don't want and they would refuse.
The sad truth is that once liberalism wins it is doomed to failure ... and if history is any indication, failures of liberalism most often end in genocide.
Aloha_Shooter
12-11-2012, 17:01
I'm done listening to experts like Bill Bennett. While I agree with some of his points about liberalism, I disagree with his assessment of the eventual outcome.
Liberals are not motivated to change by the (constant and unending) failures of liberal ideology.
The problem with Bill Bennett is that he still believes most people are good and therefore that liberals are people who can be reasoned with, that they will eventually see the failures in the policies they advocate. nynco is an abject example of why he's wrong on that score because most liberals IMHO will refuse to see reality when it conflicts with their cherished beliefs and they will do anything to undermine opposition to those beliefs no matter how logically vacuous or morally vapid they may be. Bennett's a great guy, unfortunately, I view him as the Candide of the conservative movement.
Abortion is a violation of the Non Aggregation Principal (the very ideological cornerstone libertarianism is built on).
If one believes that murdering babies because they are inconvenient is wrong than one would be a fool not to stand up for said belief.
The problem is that the left has metastasized into a completely unreasonable group (like Muslims) they refuse any compromise on their side and total compromise on the other side. You could give the left in America 99.99% of what they want in exchange for .01% of what they don't want and they would refuse.
The sad truth is that once liberalism wins it is doomed to failure ... and if history is any indication, failures of liberalism most often end in genocide.
I've heard a lot of explanations of liberalism over the past few year, but dammit, that is the absolute best description I've ever heard. They don't compromise, they don't want to give any, but they damn sure want to take... [facepalm]
Teufelhund
12-12-2012, 12:54
Abortion is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle (the very ideological cornerstone libertarianism is built on).
If one believes that murdering babies because they are inconvenient is wrong than one would be a fool not to stand up for said belief.
The problem is that the left has metastasized into a completely unreasonable group (like Muslims) they refuse any compromise on their side and total compromise on the other side. You could give the left in America 99.99% of what they want in exchange for .01% of what they don't want and they would refuse.
The sad truth is that once liberalism wins it is doomed to failure ... and if history is any indication, failures of liberalism most often end in genocide.
FIFY. Good post btw [Beer]
Here's a little write-up (http://www.l4l.org/library/frstprnc.html) on the same subject that I think covers it very well.
Bailey Guns
12-13-2012, 11:07
The sad truth is that once liberalism wins it is doomed to failure ... and if history is any indication, failures of liberalism most often end in genocide.
That's true. But I don't recall an instance of failed liberalism where, after the failures were apparent and the genocide scenario was imminent, the victims of the failed liberal policies were the ones with all (OK...most of) the guns. I'm thinking it will be a bit different when it happens here. Not like Germany, the USSR, Laos, Cambodia, etc...
Zundfolge
12-13-2012, 12:12
That's true. But I don't recall an instance of failed liberalism where, after the failures were apparent and the genocide scenario was imminent, the victims of the failed liberal policies were the ones with all (OK...most of) the guns. I'm thinking it will be a bit different when it happens here. Not like Germany, the USSR, Laos, Cambodia, etc...
I agree it's not going to look exactly like the Soviet Union, China, etc ... but it ain't gonna be pretty.
That's true. But I don't recall an instance of failed liberalism where, after the failures were apparent and the genocide scenario was imminent, the victims of the failed liberal policies were the ones with all (OK...most of) the guns. I'm thinking it will be a bit different when it happens here. Not like Germany, the USSR, Laos, Cambodia, etc...
No, it'll look like those, at least the attempt will- the execution will probably get pretty bloody.
Bailey Guns
12-13-2012, 19:03
No, it'll look like those, at least the attempt will- the execution will probably get pretty bloody.
I disagree. There are an estimated 300,000,000 privately owned firearms in the hands of US citizens. Not to mention a military and police forces that don't look anything like they looked in Nazi Germany or the USSR that won't just blindly follow a tyrannically corrupt government. Sure, it would be awful and it would be bloody. But it certainly wouldn't be anything like what we've seen in other countries because the people have a bona fide means of resistance. And there are millions of those gun owners who are former military and LE who are trained in the use of those weapons and government tactics.
I disagree. There are an estimated 300,000,000 privately owned firearms in the hands of US citizens. Not to mention a military and police forces that don't look anything like they looked in Nazi Germany or the USSR that won't just blindly follow a tyrannically corrupt government. Sure, it would be awful and it would be bloody. But it certainly wouldn't be anything like what we've seen in other countries because the people have a bona fide means of resistance. And there are millions of those gun owners who are former military and LE who are trained in the use of those weapons and government tactics.
Very true... also, lets not forget, modern military veterans (myself included) are trained in Counter Insurgency... guess what that training includes? That's right, insurgent tactics. [Peep]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.