SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (128203)11/30/2012 3:49:44 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
A Liberal Moment

By TIMOTHY EGAN
Still hard to believe, I told a friend the other day while trying to fathom the election results, that pot is legal in my state, gays are free to marry, and a black man who vowed to raise taxes on the rich won a majority of the popular vote for president, back to back - the first time anyone has done that since Franklin Roosevelt's second election in 1936.

And yet only one in four voters identified themselves as "liberal" in national exit polls. Conservatives were 35 percent, and moderates the plurality, at 41 percent. The number of voters who agreed to the "l" tag was up by three percentage points, for what it's worth, from 22 percent in 2008.

What's going on here, demography and democracy seem to be saying at the same time, is the advance of progressive political ideas by a majority that spurns an obvious label. Liberals have long been a distinct minority; liberalism, in its better forms, has been triumphant at key times since the founding of the Republic.

Abraham Lincoln's push for the 13th Amendment, erasing the original sin of slavery from the land, was a liberal moment, as dramatized in Steven Spielberg's new film. Teddy Roosevelt's embrace of the income tax, eventually written into the Constitution after he left office, was a liberal moment. "No single device has done so much to secure the future of capitalism as this tax," said John Kenneth Galbraith.

Women's suffrage in 1920, Social Security in 1935, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - all liberal moments. Ditto the creation of national parks, and laws against child labor and poisoning the environment, and for giving most Americans access to health care.

Democrats were the knuckle-draggers on race and populist economic reform in the 19th century, Republicans in the latter half of the 20th. The party identities change; the arc of enlightenment does not.

Which brings us to the fascinating self-portrait of the United States at the start of the second half of the Obama era. A tenuous center-left majority wants to restore some equality to the outsize imbalance between the very rich and the rest of us. If a tenuous president can lead that coalition, without overreaching, he might be remembered among the greats.

In its simplest form, this will involve raising taxes at the high end and reforming entitlements enough to ensure their continued success and sustainability. Much of that, an accountant could do. But it takes a gifted politician for the heavier lifting. That leader will have to make his still-fledgling health care act work and earn his premature Nobel Peace Prize on an issue like climate change. In the process, he could restore the good name to traditional liberalism.

For at least a generation's time, liberals in this country have been afraid to call themselves liberal. Was it the excesses of their creed, from race-based preferential programs that went on far too long to crude speech censorship by the politically correct and humorless (one and the same) that soiled the brand? In blindly embracing, say, the teachers' union in the face of overwhelming evidence that public education needs a jolt or in never questioning the efficacy of government programs, the left earned its years in exile.

Or was it the relentless campaign by the broadcasting and publishing empires of the far right, associating liberals with tyranny, spiritual vacuity and baby killing, that drove people from the label that could not speak its name? "Godless," "Treason" and "Demonic" are actual Ann Coulter book titles, and a representative sample of the profitable cartooning of liberals.

Liberalism, in the broadest sense, is about expanding human rights and opportunity, while embracing science and reason. What do they call the secularists in Egypt today pushing for democracy over a theocracy? Liberals.

The Progressives of the early 20th had an amazing run - direct elections of senators, regulation of monopolistic trusts, modernization of public schools, cleaning up the food supply - with only one major blooper: Prohibition.

The New Deal's lasting legacy, Social Security, and its counterpart of the 1960s, Medicare, allowed millions of American to live out their lives in dignity. Those programs, attacked as socialistic abominations by the Fox News shills of their day, are now considered near sacrosanct by Americans of all political stripes.

Conservatives of the last decade lost their way by rejecting science, immigration reform and personal freedom, particularly in regard to choices made by women and gays. If you believe in climate change, finding a path to citizenship for millions of hard-working Hispanics and the right to marry the person you love, there is no place in the Republican Party of 2012 for you.

Their neo-con wing started a pair of disastrous wars that all but bankrupted the country. And for leaders, at least on television, the party put forth crackpots like Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and the morally elastic Newt Gingrich. This chorus promoted an orthodoxy that forced this year's standard-bearer, Mitt Romney, to sound even more out of touch than he already was.

All political moments are ephemeral. This one could vanish in the blink of a donkey's eye. But here it is: a chance to shore up a battered middle class, make the promise of health care expansion work and do something about a planet in peril. Huge tasks, of course, and fraught with risk. For now, the majority of Americans have Obama's back. But should he fail, the same majority could become something much worse - a confederacy of cynics.



To: koan who wrote (128203)11/30/2012 1:24:43 PM
From: RetiredNow1 Recommendation  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 149317
 
You libertarians lack empathy and would let the poor and downtroden suffer, ergo you are barbarians. - koan

It's not a lack of empathy, but rather short term love versus long term love. What Socialists do is give the heroin addict more heroin, which ultimately kills him. They say, he's really begging for it, so I love him and will give it to him. Long term love a lot of times is tough love. A Libertarian recognizes the root cause is that the heroin is killing the drug addict and refuses to participate and will not enable the drug addicts self-destructive behavior. Very similarly, Socialists want to intervene in every aspect of people's lives, because Socialists are like the well-meaning grandmother who wants to control everyone in the family, because she believes she knows better what's good for them. This is why Socialism always in the end leads to Totalitarianism. It always starts with well-meaning people imposing their will on others and it always ends in Totalitarian control over others.

So the truth is that Socialists and Libertarians have plenty of empathy, but Libertarians view things on a longer time scale and do what's best in the long run, which is to say, let people have the Freedom to make their own decisions. Freedom has it's up and downs, but it is always superior to the safety and coziness of Totalitarianism.

Germany and Russia, are not perfect examples. They are not examples at all. They were simple dictatorships. Socialism never came into it. Denmark, Sweden and Iceland would be good examples of democratic socialism. And they are some of the best societies on earth - koan

koan, go read your history books. This statement of yours is not malicious, but it is ignorant of the facts of history. Germany was way ahead of everyone in the development of Socialism, which ultimately lead to National Socialism and the Tyranny of Hitler. Marxism is Communism, which is just another collectivist, statist attempt to control the means of production, which is to say another version of Socialism. Marxist Communism lead to the Tyranny of Stalin. The reason socialism turns to tyranny is that the amount of government control has to be ratcheted up substantially to achieve it's economic aims. That prepares the way for Dictators who are less well-meaning than the socialists who created the infrastructure to impose socialism's aims.

W.H. Chamberlin was an American correspondent who spent a decade or more in Russia, Germany, and Italy studying their forms of economics and politics. Here's what he had to say about Socialism:
Socialism is certain to prove, in the beginning at least, the road NOT to freedom, but to dictatorship and counter-dictatorships, to civil war of the fiercest kind. Socialism achieved and maintained by democratic means seems definitely to belong to the world of utopias [by utopia, he meant academic dreams not realizeable without tyrannical outcomes]. - Chamberlin

Alexis de Tocqueville said in 1848:
Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom; socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while Democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. - Tocqueville
Even more telling, here's what Max Eastman, an old friend of Lenin's said:
Instead of being better, Stalinism is worse than fascism, more ruthless, barbarous, unjust, immoral, anti-democratic, unredeemed by any hope or scruple...Stalinism is socialism, in the sense of being an inevitable although unforeseen political accompaniment of the nationalization and collectivization which he had relied upon as part of his plan for erecting a classless society. -Max Eastman
Socialism is an economic term. Dictatorship is a political term. - koan

As the quotes I've listed above try to show you, economic and political systems are by necessity inextricably linked. Why do you think we've spent generations trying to export free markets to places like China and why we push for free trade agreements around the world? Most in power have long known that free markets require the institutionalization of individual liberty, which inevitably leads to Democratic reforms of the political system. Conversely, in order to impose Socialism, you must create a centrally planned economy. Since central planning by definition means taking away freedom from individuals to choose, you must also create a political system that can take away the means of production of goods and services, so they can be reordered according to some central plan. Taking things away from people against their will, which means loss of freedom, requires an increasingly Totalitarian and Tyrannical state infrastructure. This is why Socialism necessarily evolves towards Totalitarianism. Hayek's words echo down from the time of Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini...he wrote this in 1943-4, warning us what Socialism had lead to. His perspective was in watching history unfold, not in the speculation that many of today's generations engage in. We need to learn from history:

While to many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems has become increasingly obvious, in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined. There can be no doubt that most socialists here still believe profoundly in the liberal ideal of freedom and that they would recoil if they became convinced that the realization of their program would mean the destruction of freedom. So little is the problem yet seen, so easily do the most irreconcilable ideals still live together, that we can still hear such contradictions in terms...If this is the state of mind that makes us drift into a new world, nothing can be more urgent than that we should seriously examine the real significance of the evolution that has taken place elsewhere...That democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something so utterly different that few of those who now wish it would be prepared to accept the consequences... - Hayek