Comments on Political Liberalism

Go to The AntiChrist - Illiberal & Cruel to Boot. - Add a comment - Go to Political Liberalism

It's the radical righters who fail

What's wrong with liberalism? It seems that we spend a lot of time and money thinking of putting our kids through college only to be upset with the consequences of intelligence. One of the consequences is liberalism. Granted, a lot more experience is needed by kids who have barely begun to scratch the surface of what life is all about. But when you combine wisdom and liberalism, for instance a person experienced in many areas of life with compassion for those who have great disadvantages in the economic game, sometimes a huge genius is uncovered, and that is unlikely with a conservative. Too many of those who like to write about being conservatives are actually of the Rush Limbaugh - Savage Nation type, that is, stupid-thinking and intolerant, not to mention all too eager to kiss the perceived asses of the wealthy. Fortunately for the nation, the wealthy are usually more wise than these passionate, liberal-hating radical conservatives, and have declined to drop their pants for the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Tom Savage. This leaves the Limbaugh's and Savage's of the nation to bar-room brawling and rabble-rousing among the most ignorant. - Dickster c/o http://fastgig.com/

posted by Dickster on January 17, 2004 at 3:04 PM | link to this | reply

Whoops!

I need to make an apology.  I realized after making my earlier comments that I did a typically arrogant american thing to do.  I am new to BN and I unfortunately made the assumption that you(pg scott) were a citizen of the United States without having read your profile.  When I was thinking about the fact that BN is an international stage, I realized my mistake.  I will do my best to not make such assumptions in the future.

posted by Budmannomore on January 10, 2004 at 8:02 AM | link to this | reply

Separation of Religion and Politics

It amazings me that intelligent folks seem to want to separate variables of an equation and come up with a solution.  Religion and Politics are intigers whose sum is social construction.  Saying this, let me also say cautiously, that Politics is NOT Government.  I can't say it better than what is written in the Declaration of Independence:  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing it powers in such form  as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."  Politics and Religion (ideology) are mearly the oratory means by which we express our ideals as to what Government shall be established.  If Religion, specifically the prevailing Religion, has  amplified its voice and influenced the minds of men in one direction, say Christianity, as the right way to rule the society, then you get a political body that espouses the views of the prevailing religion.  This political party becomes popular, is elected to Government.  Once there, they then have the power to make laws and establish social justice based on the principles espoused by THEIR RELIGION.  Our founding fathers understood this all too well.  For this reason they adopted the "liberal" and unheard of doctrine found in the first amendment, in order to ensure that our Government would remain NUETRAL in the concerns of religion, allowing people to practice according to their own dictates and not dictated by the state. 

Religion, by its tenants is CONSERVATIVE, under American standards--yes, America is a liberal state--and the voice of Christianity is rising to power and its believers are acheiving political noteriety and gaining public office.  If this trend continues, than the ideologies of Christianity espoused by its believers will increasingly become the folks making the laws of the land and establishing their form of justice in order to enforce those laws--then will separation of Church and State be abolished and a New Government come into existence--and all our "liberal" efforts to build a nation of tolerance and democracy will be undone.  If you would like more information on this, read Ayn Rand's "For the New Intellectual" section on Atilla and the Witch-Doctor, to understand the relationship between religion and politics.

posted by freerain on January 9, 2004 at 9:04 PM | link to this | reply

Budmannomore

thank you for your comments. I haven't met you before, but hope you might continue to read. Actually what I am arguing is that pure liberalism is both an impossibility and completely empty. The failure of your government to live up to pure liberalism is no objection to your government (there may of course be other more substantive objections) for pure liberalism - as a child of Christianity - is a complete fantasy.

posted by pg_scott on January 9, 2004 at 7:03 PM | link to this | reply

Did I miss something?

pg scott Are you going to express your views as it stands on Political Liberalism in general or Political Liberalism as it stands in this country today. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but, pure liberalism would be tolerant and open to all view points. Liberalism in our country today is hardly tolerant of certain beliefs. I look at the term 'Political Liberalism' and I just want to scream 'oxy-moron!' I enjoyed your insights and look forward to learning from them in the future.

posted by Budmannomore on January 9, 2004 at 6:30 PM | link to this | reply

Able Ergot

The liberal state maintains the loyalty of the people by insisting that it is acting with neutrality to all such substantive beliefs. It does not outlaw all substantive beliefs (obviously) it simply maintains that when it does outlaw certain substantive beliefs that it is acting in a neutral fashion towards those beliefs - that it is not acting to outlaw certain beliefs according to some other substantive 'worldview' but rather from a 'freestanding' position that does not itself belong to any particular worldview or substantive position. The state only outlaws those particular substantive beliefs that conflict and disturb it (I do not object to this fact for it is inevitable and avoidable) it is rather the pretense that it is doing so from a position of neutrality (a task which is both impossible and unintelligible).

But in general the liberal state does not outlaw substantive beliefs - it allows all manner of different beliefs. It is the pretense of neutrality towards those beliefs when on occasion it does, that I am questioning.

 

 

posted by pg_scott on January 9, 2004 at 1:59 PM | link to this | reply

pg scott

Beating a dead horse maybe, but this is why I brought up the notion that agency, or action, is criminal under a liberal regieme (which I attributed to you but accept as my own). If the State outlaws everything that supports substantive beliefs, including acting on those beliefs, then those who insist on maintaining a comprehensive worldview, and acting on it, become criminals, do they not?

posted by Able_Ergot on January 9, 2004 at 11:29 AM | link to this | reply