Where is Liberalism Going?

So, after watching:

://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnWKVhHPQpE

[video=youtube;WnWKVhHPQpE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnWKVhHPQpE[/video]


Not where they SAY they are going...

Not where they WANT to go...

Not where we'd LIKE them to go...

Given real-world resources, corruptions, denials and limitations, along with what they are attempting to accomplish...

Where is Liberalism Going?

-

 

I believe liberalism should improving the lot of Individuals, through liberal public policies.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes with the hourly cost of social services.

Low wage jobs should be exported and replaced with higher wage jobs that should reach a new equilibrium in the long run.

 

Libs will keep licking the boots of the Government and begging for handouts from working people.

That is their future

 

Moving the goal posts is a function of Government.

having nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost is a function of the right.

 

GOING, denotes an agenda. Man adds laws and mores as needed. Our patchwork of addressing emergencies and surprises, combine to create our reality. To make like Cons were not present, is WEAK.

 

nothing but platitudes instead of reason, gentlemen?

 

Well, the people in the OP video public forums all seemed to agree on several things:

1] Liberalism and the Left is basically out of new ideas

2] As their utopian dreams fade in the face of pragmatic realities, they are losing broad public support

3] They will give up trying to win over hearts and minds, and turn to blatant use of FORCE and unprincipled pursuit of POWER.

-

 

Where is Liberalism Going?

To the White House and control of the Senate....maybe even the House. And the GOP is making it happen by having a bigot for their nominee.

 

The Race-Card is a very OLD and worn out idea...

-

 

Despite all the claims to the contrary, the moderates and conservatives would love to see the standard of living rise for everyone; for poverty to end. The difference between the liberal and conservative sides is how we go about it. The conservatives believe in individual responsibility, reward for your own efforts... The liberal side thinks that if someone wins the race for success he should share the fruits of his labor with those who didn't bother to run.

The entire issue has to do with responsibility, forcing others to see society as if it were all one entity, share and share alike... and of course, that destroys the initiative that makes things happen and the nation thrive. In the ultimate liberal scenario, it is reasonable to find a cow that will pull your wagon, then take milk and hamburger from it and expect it to find it's own food all at the same time.

The essence of the standard of living is productivity. Regardless of the way we redistribute money, the standard of living does not improve overall unless productivity improves. part of that happens with the advent of technology- but if we produce less, we will always have less. It's simple. If you aren't producing at your best, you are coasting on the backs of others. Our existing social structure already makes this true, since about 20% of the taxpayers are paying 80% of the taxes. Still not enough for the liberal progressives, of course.

Personal Responsibility is also the essence of freedom. Once you decide someone else is responsible for you, you lose power over your own life; you surrender it to the entity that subsidizes you. You are soon dependent, and owned by those who control your survival. Horrible condition, devastating to self-respect, self confidence and honor- but surprisingly many weak people will embrace it rather than step up and rely on themselves. I doubt this tendency will ever end, it offers politicians power over people, and that is what most politicians think they need.

 

Blanket refutation of all charges of racist and bigot, is it's own brand of PC.

 

I want this to happen. The last time it happened fully was the Woodrow Wilson administration, giving us the Fed. I want the Dems to totally, royally screw up so that the next time around, they have no excuses.

 

Well, if the last twenty years are any indication, "to the right".

 

<The liberal side thinks that if someone wins the race for success he should share the fruits of his labor with those who didn't bother to run.>

Actually, the liberal side thinks that plenty of people who "win the race for success" did not win by "the fruits of [their] labor." Example: People who are born into wealthy families. They didn't "bother to run"--they didn't even have to walk. They just got lucky. Another example: People who have won by breaking the rules. Can you think of any such people? Another example: People who got ahead of the game one way or another and then were able to invest/gamble/pull strings, etc. In other words, people whose wealth increased logarithmically AFTER they had reached a certain point, so that they're no longer running a race for success; they're merely fattening up (for decades, in many cases) long after their running days are over.

These are inconvenient exceptions to your broad generalization about a supposed meritocracy. Any response?

 

Or civil war...

-

 

Are you implying it is LIBERALS that are all into revolution and secession? That is it Liberals that fantasize about double tapping zombies?

 

You tell me?...

The Lefties have a thoroughly established history and reputation for violence, particularly when the public turns against them.

So, when the Majority of Americans show their rejection of Obama and the radical Leftie/Pro-Islamic policies of the last eight years, by electing Trump, what are the Lefties going to do?

Meekly accept the democratic will of the majority with cooperation and goodwill?

Does that seem likely to anyone?

-

 

Straight to Hull.

 

So, obfuscate and confabulate?

 

A good post. I agree with your analysis of what is at the heart of the dysfunction of 2016 Democratic Party Liberalism.

John Locke, typically seen as the "Father of Classical Liberalism", would be aghast at what we label "Liberalism" today.

It says allot more about non-Liberals, and how they differ from Liberals, than it does about where Liberalism is going though...

So, IYO, were is this going? What will be the Outcome of Obama/Hillary?

What will happen to America, as a result of this era's power granted to Liberalism?

-

 

Liberalism is going to improve the lives of everyone.

 

Likely, but that won't help the living much.

-

 

The first speaker, at least, David Azzerad, is excellent :

"...Liberalism is the luxury of a bored, prosperous, and safe people..."

He goes on from there to explain how liberalism uses the license of free sex and drug use as a compensation for the abandonment of economic freedom. Excellent points...He's a doctoral student. Haven't listened to the rest yet.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not ready yet to move into their Brave New World?

 

Religion has already been, far worse. Why not give Individual Liberty a chance?

 

By which you mean?