This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Death of American Liberalism?
Too
tired to post a lengthy piece. I'm awaiting QE2 tomorrow, but given
that today is all about politics, I wanted to share with you an
absolutely brilliant interview which I heard on CBC's Current this morning:
American Liberalism - Chris Hedges
American
voters are widely expected to deliver a harsh message to U.S.
President Barack Obama at the polls today. Republicans who aren't
actually even popular appear set to re-take control of the House of
Representatives and to pick up enough Senate seats to make the
President's life difficult.
That may be bad news for American liberals. But according to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and author Chris Hedges, they have a bigger problem. He says that American liberalism -- a once proud and politically potent tradition -- is dead. Chris Hedges is a Senior Fellow at The Nation Institute. He has just written Death of The Liberal Class. He was in our Toronto studio.
Click here
to listen to this interview. Listening to Chris Hedges reminded of what
the great social thinker, the late George Carlin, once said about why he
doesn't vote (clip below). I'll be back tomorrow, pumped following
another dose of QE.
to listen to this interview. Listening to Chris Hedges reminded of what
the great social thinker, the late George Carlin, once said about why he
doesn't vote (clip below). I'll be back tomorrow, pumped following
another dose of QE.
»
- advertisements -
"Even the anarchists you see at the G8 meetings are not true anarchists."
Well... yes and no. For a great discussion of this please read:
http://www.hack.org/mc/mirror/www.spunk.org/texts/intro/practice/sp00168...
"anarchism" good, "Anarchism" bad...
Good article. I was referring to anarchism in both senses and differentiating them, too. Anarchism as an ideology is actually appealing to me because I ask the serious question, "Do we really need government or to be ruled at all?"
I haven't thought it all through but I am definitely libertarian in thought. It occurs to me that if all the governments of the world simply vanished tomorrow we would all still go to work, try to prosper, raise our families and live a decent life. Something inside me says that a lot of misery and social burdens would be lifted...all in a theoretical sense, though. Seems to me most of the misery created in history is through government whether it was kings, emperors, politburo's, comrades, presidents, etc.
Your point is well taken. Thanks.
I believe our founding fathers were just to the "left" of Anarchy, but we have since moved quite far left from the beginning. Any more state control is farther to the left, so by default there is no "right" except true anarchy from where we originally started.
The term "conservative" should mean those who want to conserve the original ideas of the constitution, not religious beliefs. I have struggled with my personal religious idealism for most of my adult life, and how that defined me politically. I am actually a political liberal, meaning I believe in freedom of man, although defined in my religion, im a conservative.
There are Christian libertarians. It is not an automatic conflict of ideologies. The question is if you want to legislate specific religious beliefs. I acknowledge the distinct hellenic-judeo-christian foundations of our culture. I even honor them. However, there are over 2000 protestant denominations and numerous catholic orders, plus other flavors (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.). The question is what is the role of government? I believe that it is limited as our Christian founders would have it. Many of them were chased out of Christian countries with official state religions because of their differing Christian beliefs.
I believe you have a government you have very few laws based on things even a nontheist could agree with. Basically, I would say that you are free to do as you please as long as there's no harm or loss to others. Local communities can set their own standards, but not the Feds.
The problem I see is that many churches, especially evangelical protestant churches equate the State and its laws with moral righteousness or turpitude. Then God blesses or curses depending on the actions of the State. I submit that that is not necessarily the case. Your personal salvation is dependent on you, not what your legislature votes on, even gay marriage or abortion. I do believe actions have consequences and society can fall apart because of bad choices but it's not a freedom issue. It's a moral and rational issue. Autocratic and theocratic states fall apart routinely.
In a libertarian society we can live reasonably well with people of any religion or no religion. Ideally, you can civilly discuss your religious differences over a latte' at the local Starbucks.
Hitler was not a lefty. Conservatives like to paint any bad guy as a "lefty", and most of the guys on your list are indeed lefties, but Hitler is a far right-winger. Conservatives are going to have to face up to the fact that people can go too far to the right or conservatives will always be flawed.
I'm not sure what Kim Il Jong is.
Wrong Nazi party was named National Socialist party. Libertarianism is the way.
Hitler's party was the National Socialist Party. When you say it in german (Nationalsozialist) and shorten it, it becomes Nazi. He ushered in national healthcare, etc. His was the fascist brand which was an alliance of the state and large favored corporations and groups. If you were Krupps (national arms maker) or a union or something similar you could gain favor. It is a form of socialism where the state is still all powerful but they allow a significant degree of free market. They could use their power to protect and prosper favored industries. He was absolutely a socialist. Mussolini in Italy and Franco in Spain were also national socialists. There are many degrees and types of socialism, but the big three are Soviet-Maoist communist type where there is total centralization and control, fascist with some free market but all powerful government and democratic socialist which have elections and just heavily regulated and directed industries often with some being state owned.
Theocracies like Iran in the Middle East are another animal but in the end it is still an all powerful state with limited freedom. There is still a ruling party and although not communist they perform many of the same functions. Instead of political officers they have imams or theological police and you need to get your thinking in line with the official state thinking. Disagreement still tends to have high morbidity and mortality rates.
To argue that Hitler as an official socialist was a right winger requires some tricky definition of right wing. The best way to categorize right and left is the far right is 100% individual liberty and no government. That is a true anarchist. The far left is 100% government and no individual liberty. That is generally a communist society. In the middle are mixes of the two but they vary inversely. You cannot have 100% government and 100% individual liberty. Then all the political parties make sense.
Socialism as a political concept is not a marker of the left or the right.
Conservatives in the US are socialist politically. Actually, the US have been socialist since their beginning with no exception.
Citizenship is a socialist notion. I dont see that conservatives oppose citizenship. Very few in the US oppose citizenship. US citizens are political socialists, no doubt about that.
Putting the emphasis on socialist in national socialism conceals the fact that socialism qualifies nationalism.
So there is no tricky definition of right wing here. There might be a tricky definition of socialism.
"He (Hitler) ushered in national healthcare, etc."
Uh huh, yeah, tell a Jew that. Come on man, Hitler is the definition of far right wing.
Central government planning of the economy doesn't define left of right, it has been, and can be done from either side. Left or right politically and socially, is most correctly understood in the context of how tolerance is excercised. Far righties don't tolerate anybody who is not like them. Far lefties tolerate everybody who they can tell to be like them. Get it?
Brilliant. +2 +2 = 4.
What would Ahmadinejad be?
Since he works in a theorcracy, I'm certain he's not a socialist. Socialism and theorcracy don't mix. Outside of that I'm not certain.
the banking system is socialism for the rich and
politically active which is why it is rightly called
fascism. i wish it was dead but see how everyone is
hanging on qe2( stealing in broad daylight, payoff hush
money bonuses to follow ). read in main stream media
stability. systemic importance, etc.
I can agree with that. Socialism and liberalism has been smeared together, too many monikers and splinters. Nationalist and Libertarians could be construed as the same, in the same context.
It's been another in a string of my pet peeves for a long time...LOL.
What is said/defined as liberals these days are not liberals...they are IMHO...the opposite.
They are statists, they are socialists...it is the crowd that tells you what you must eat...the way you must think...what is cool...what is not...how much is too little...how much is too much etc.
They have morphed into everything that is not liberal...a bunch a fucking control freaks.
Carlin knew it too;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
They aren't socialists. They are fascists.
Holy shit, I finally really truly understand it. Republicans are liberals and are overrun with conservatives, and democrats are socialist and statist, sort of.
Not really, but now I need an easy button.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPZzWYkdS6Y
everybody hurts
REM
The Chris Hedges interview was so right on critism of the liberal perspective, but so wrong on the conservative one. He actually thinks Krugman is intelligent.
so the country is ideologically fraudulent and as a result
there is no integrity, but, will this year be the year of largest
wall street bonuses ( much needed hush money ) paid for
by the taxpayer and various bailouts
while cities crumble and are sold off to financial international
terrorists financed by the fed?
.
http://maxkeiser.com/2010/11/02/kr91-keiser-report-a-paralyzed-fed-and-missing-bodies/
Max for prez! :-)
but stacy is the brains behind it all.;-)
Well things are bad enough for Barry and Michelle to run as far away as they can possibly run for $200 million a day: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_us-to-spend-200-million-a-day-on-ob...
47 of Michelle's BFFs will probably wait a respectful day or two before following...
Dead? No such luck.
They OWN the US educational establishment. They also own 3/4 of TV, 1/2 of radio, 9/10 of movies and 9/10 of music.
And, I will add, they own 8/10 of the US government - not the elected offices, but the millions of bureaucrats who actually do everything.
They will not go away.
You must have a different definition of liberalism.
+1776
worst rash ever known to liberty.
The problem with liberalism is that is has been incrementally co-opted by the NWO Progressives who trace their roots to Marx and Alinsky (although they would never admit it) and their whole idea of social justice and wealth redistribution is anathema to hard working Americans.
Actually liberalism goes back much further than Marx, and America's version has more to do with defeating Marxism than conservatism.
Hey, Carlin was a genius, but don't forget to listen to the interview with Chris Hedges:
http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=1631355837
Absolutely brilliant...starts off talking about Camden New Jersey and takes off from there.
i stopped listening when this asshole said, "the collapse of capitalism in the 1930's". Centralized money planning IS NOT CAPITALISM. quite the opposite, in fact.
The guy is another progressive with the progressive take on US history and social dynamics. What he defines as "liberalism" is really nothing more than authoritarianism of the left. Am I to believe that modern liberalism in the US doesn't use strong arm tactics to promote and advance their agenda? Please. Like all misguided ideologues and dissolute partisans Chris Hedges is unable to see that the methodologies of his ideology are no different than the ideologies he despises. And that is what matters most, for the ends never justify the means. For those who claim it does, there is where one finds the seeds of moral bankruptcy.
I think Hedges' heart is in the right place, no matter his ideology. Check out his book, Empire of Illusion. Has alot of great facts along with citations.
Leo, did you mean Liberalism or Socialism, or is it progressivism? could that be it?
Maybe I need another 101.
George Carlin was a good comedian and actually explained the world well (at least the US). He has another rant where he talks about why they keep Americans ignorant, and thats because you won't know how much you have been screwed over. Damn, that clip was made on HBO back in 1996, 14 years ago. Time starts to go by real fast when you get older don't it.
Yes Buck, 1996 was a long time ago. The reason the perception of time passage seems to be altered by the age of the observer, IMO, is simple. A decade to a teenager could represent over 50 percent of their total life and thus time experience.
A decade to a ww2 vet might be like one year in comparison. Im 49 but I remember when one year was a big deal in grade school.
I remember when Dallas was a currrent and hip TV series and older shows were seen as arcane. Todays fans of Dexter will probably relate someday.
We think we are a smart and enlighted generation but Patrick Henrys crowd would be apalled at our complacency.
Liberalism may be dead but so is the US economic system. I am afraid we are too late.
The system died in 1913, this "newest" system is now dying. We need to go back to true free markets and sound money.
Nice clip, Leo.