>MOD WARNING<So...what do progressives/liberals really stand for, exactly?

MOD WARNING

Trump want’s more jobs here, they oppose him.
Trump wants to put America 1st, they oppose him
Trump wants to secure our borders, they oppose him
Trump wants to keep terrorists from coming here, they oppose him
Trump want’s lower taxes, they oppose him
Trump want’s to reduce government over spending, they oppose him
Trump wants to infuse inner cities with economic opportunity, they oppose him
Trump want’s better trade deals for the US, they oppose him
Trump want’s to end China’s currency manipulation, they oppose him
Trump want’s other countries to pay their fair share for protection, they oppose him
Trump want’s to destroy Islamic terrorism, they oppose him
Trump want’s America to have the best HC at the best price, they oppose him
Trump want’s an honest, un-bias media, they oppose him
Trump want’s the best & smartest people running the country & not just the most politically connected, they oppose him
Trump want’s to restore law & order on the streets, they oppose him

So, given liberals oppose “all things Trump”, what exactly do they stand for, specifically?

 

There just isn't any traditional liberalism or progressivism in this aberration called liberalism, which is modern liberalism. A liberalism that is not just defined by over the top SJWs, but is joined by neoliberalism and neoconism. I am a FDR, Truman, Ike, and JFK liberal. Which is not related to what is called liberalism or progressivism today. A traditional liberal is hopeful that trump will in some way address constructively the plights of our working americans who used to be able to prosper and have some security, but who have been forgotten about by the party that used to stand up for them, look out for their interests. We do not agree with his tax plans, given that a lack of capital is not the problem when it comes to investing in America. The problem is that capital is traveling to those areas of the world which can provide slave labor, which of course maxes out returns, profits. And its not like these offshored productions are being made to sell in big markets around the world, but instead they are sent here. I hope trump sees this as little more than irresponsible

MOD EDIT>>>RULE 3<<< behavior, which does damage to America and does not make her healthier.

The modern liberal does not care about blue collar workers. Perhaps it is because most of them are white? Yet there are numbers of Hispanic americans and African americans who also are blue collar workers. Yet the majority of this class of people is still white. The dems act like these people already have what they call white privilege, even if long term unemployed, with no hope of another living wage job, and therefore have nothing to complain about. These white modern liberals self loathe, their whiteness, and do not care about white blue collar people. They would rather care about an illegal alien, breaking our laws, taking jobs, with others

MOD EDIT>>>RULE 3<<< on an already over burdened system.

And that is another reason their most horrible candidate got pounded into the manure.

 

Having been a lifelong liberal, I think I can muddle up some thoughts on this.

I always believed that we stood for equality, care for the least, and care for nature, expressed via democratic socialism. We did not concern ourselves with the finer details of the rich mans' world (aka, social justice), we left that to conservatives ... with their harping on specific morality while children are still starving.

While it's easy and cheap to respond to that with "but caring for the least IS specific morality", it would be wrong. ALL humans want to care for the least and look after the planet. There are few to zero exceptions. Given that, there is no virtue in wanting the same thing everyone else wants, so I no longer believe that the left is morally superior. There is utility, however, in approaching those goals in the least harmful and most efficacious ways possible. This means remaining focused on the pragmatic. It means grasping that a focus on 'feelings' is an absolute luxury, and has no place in the management of finite resources and millions upon millions of very poor people.

Upshot - I have no idea of what the modern indoctrinated (and apparently brain dead) leftist believes. Other than, from what I can gather, the belief that they're morally superior because ... compassion! I see them as a terrible symptom of too much safety and comfort, for too long. The vanity and triviality of their concerns is nauseating, in a world with more pressing problems.

 

Lefties stand for one thing-their own political agenda.

 

For me, the key to all this is the HUGE difference between the posturing and corrupt version of the term 'progress', and actual progress. I'm a progressive, and a liberal - but I'm nothing at all like Progressives. I believe in actual progress - food shelter and education for all, cleaner power, advances in medical science, space exploration, an end to wars, protection of remaining reserves of forest and clean oceans, etc. These poseur Progressives think progress means addressing trivial social issues which only apply to the richest and safest people on the face of the earth. Not only that, but they want to stop once these 'gains' are made. If progress were to see a return to say, 1950's type values, they'd fight it - so they're not really about progress at all, they're about a fixed state travelling forward. A very different proposition. Further, so much in the way of energy and resources must go to the fostering of this stuff that real progress will be impacted - if it isn't already. That's why they're referred to as the Regressive Left.

 

They want to feel morally superior. Just like the religious right used to, back in the day. They're the new conservatives.

 

All nice and wonderful things, I guess, but... isn't there any attempt at looking at methods to achieve those goals and saying "x failed, but y succeeded", and then going with y?

As a conservative, I look at detroit and think that's a fail. I look at the welfare state and see a fail.

When do you start becoming pragmatic about these objectives by looking at end results?

 

I've never 'started' being pragmatic (philosophically), because I've always been thus. As for real action, then my choice would be to steer western politics towards socialist democracy NOT dependent upon a globalist model. While there is much about Singapore (and Japan) to dislike, and they are not socialist democracies, there are elements of those success stories worth considering, just as an example. They have very little poverty, and maintain a reasonable standard of living. They produce very little, but trade worldwide without opening their borders. They have a high standard of education and health care, and not much in the way of violent crime. I would imagine something between what Sweden was ten years ago (before they opened their borders) and what Japan and Singapore are today, with a healthy infusion of tech/science/space programs etc.

Another thing I appreciate about those societies, is their refusal to bow to petty social grievances in the way that many western nations have. People in those countries understand the social value of conformity, and appreciate the chaos and disharmony that can (and often does) result from the dogged pursuit of individuality.

 

I believe we should try to have about the same standard of living as most of the more prosperous Western European countries, Denmark and Sweden come to mind first but are not primary examples. I think we should include education through the graduate level as a standard of our social infrastructure and have single payer universal healthcare. I believe we should have a minimum wage of $15 an hour and have mandated wage controls such that CEO's cannot make more than a specified multiple more than their workers, this multiple being variable according to a specified formula.

I think we should aim to have zero homeless and people in poverty as far as is possible.

I think the ownership of guns should be strictly licensed and controlled, and limited to only responsible individuals

I think we, as the country taking most pride in being free, should set the standard for freedom in regard to the arts, sexuality and gender issues.

I think we should have strong military but the things above should take precedence. I seem, strangely, to agree with Trump as to our foreign/military policy and feel very strongly all our troops should be AT HOME, unless they are actually fighting overseas. Our military are heroes and should be treated as such, their lives carefully husbanded and their pay high enough to attract good people.

I think taxes should be set so that government may function as described above and no one pay more than they can afford to. They would generally be higher but your benefits would be more.

Can't think of anything else at this time. Generally refer to Bernie Sanders platform

I don't care what other liberals think

 

The accumulation of power. Identity politics. It hasn't worked. They are now a fringe party full of urban centers, social justice, lgbt "rights", African American "rights", illegal immigrants and black lives matter types.
It's safe to say that their game plan has seriously backfired as they were completely wiped out during the Obama years.
I suggest that the left keep doing what they're doing...they will soon be relegated to the dust bin of history. They and their pundits and followers have become irrelevant in the eyes of main stream America.

 

He's not going to deliver any of those things any more than the bland candidate would have, which basically leaves his celebrity and incivility to hang yer hat on.

 

It does seem the modern left is more about smug virtue signalling than any actual policy.

Why else would they spend political capital on importing Muslim refugees? As a policy, what is the criteria in which it's beneficial public policy?

 

Excellent question & one that drives all successful enterprise but seems lost within the spectrum of issue debates where even the specific policy objectives are often purposely presented in a vague & ambiguous manner. In our daily lives, as in business, success is measured by the specific results we achieve, but far to often in politic's good intentions overshadows meaningful, practical debate involving the specific characteristics of policy.

 

I respectfully disagree. The current state of affairs is much to unstable to dismiss the left or the establishment of either side. Remember, for years our education system has been indoctrinating youths with a skewed, often negative version of America. We're hearing & seeing the results now; ex. "America has never been great" & "America has never been great for anyone except whites". And, besides the army of young people who've bought into the left's prop, 90% of the MS press is all-aboard the lefty express as are an abundance of public & private Universities that are awash in progressive anti-American sentiment & pro-globalist idealism. So, despite the current situation, it's a mistake to write these folks off. They're well funded, well organized & they aren't going away any time soon. I fact, I expect them to be even more visibly vicious and aggressive now than ever before.

 

When discussing the topic, please do so civilly and within the forum rules. Any poster violating the rules will be thread banned without further notice

Shangrila
Moderator

 

I respectfully disagree. We all remember the right retreating and hiding in silence when the liberals talked about "the American Dream" and positive program proposals for alternative energy and retirement security. The negative view of America was pushed by the right in their (unfounded) discouragement about the survival of Social Security and Medicare, job security, healthcare, and deterioration of education.

See? There it is. False negative characterizations of education.

 

There's a simple difference between "Want's" and "Get's" you must understand.

Trump wants the "best and smartest people running the country..."
You mean Trump gets the most clueless CEO's to run the country. There's a word people like you don't like. Its called expertise, and it applies to politics.

But, instead of calling out the hypocrisy on your own OP, I'll answer your question. Hopefully you can comprehend this.

Liberals/Progressives stand for diversity. That means all walks of life, whites and Hispanics alike. And Christians and Muslims alike.
Liberals/Progressives stand for a more, sustainable planet, in finding more eco-friendly technologies to replace outdated coal, oil, and petroleum. Thus creating jobs.
Liberals/Progressives stand for giving the homosexuals rights, without allowing the overtly religious to trample all over those rights.
Liberals/Progressives stand for keeping sons and daughters at home, instead of waging war with "boots on the ground."
Liberals/Progressives stand for obeying certain documents pertaining to war, such as the Geneva Convention, that forbids acts of torture like waterboarding.

Any questions?

 

In other words, the OP is . . . . -may I say, "horse pucky"?

N O B O D Y opposes most of what is listed.

 

Well, just one......in reference to the list of items I posted, do you want or not want what Trump & his supports want?

 

Well, if nobody opposes them, why are they freaking out over Trump who campaigned on accomplishing those things?

 

Good post. I would challenge some of your platform, but at least you attempted to answer the question I posed with some specificity & did it without attacking anyone. Well done.

 

Look who has become the party of "no".

 

Kinda stating the obvious, but given that, the question is "what do they stand for" because apparently they oppose everything Trump is proposing.

 

Everyone does, but in a intelligent and realistic manner.

Both of which Trump has yet to convey.

 

Well, I would argue that not everyone does, but that's for another thread.
But, lets start here; many on the left, including Obama, support defying existing Federal immigration laws & allowing thousands of un-screened Muslim refugees into the country, many from countries ripe with terrorist groups who hate us. So, how does that equate to securing our borders or our national security? How does the left deal with that?