Food for thought, as re: Liberalism in America

[Rat Faced]

Liberalism has no vision of a final, settled social order; it’s always waiting for the next “revolution of perception” to overturn everything.

Ah, so you'd rather still live in a cave?

Society evolves.. you cannot just sit still and hope it doesnt or, like the Neanderthal, you'll die out.

Thankyou j2K4, for showing us that Liberalism is the "Fittest" way to survive in an ever changing world....

[vidcc]

Society evolves.. you cannot just sit still and hope it doesnt or, like the Neanderthal, you'll die out.
..

Problem is Rat that some are trying their upmost to not only make sure there is no progress, but are actively working to reverse evolution..

[hobbes]

I see nothing wrong with society becoming aware that "liberty and justice for all" really does apply to EVERYONE. That is the common logic which runs through the changes in society described above.

The "pedophile" comment shows the breakdown of the authors logic.

J2, do you need me to explain why giving rights to pedophiles is not a logical progression of our changing society?

I think it is fine for judges to decide if a law is fair or if an individuals rights are being violated. That is what they are supposed to be good at, right?

Religious people want to oppose gay marraiges because of their beliefs. In a free society, they should not be allowed to impose their opinion upon others because God does not run our government. A Judge is not there to give an opinion about whether he approves of being gay or not, he is there to determine if the laws we have are fair. That is the problem with letting the common man decide things like this. The common man is not "fair". He doesn't care about "right or wrong", he just echoes what is in his Bible. We are a country founded upon freedom of the individual and we are not a theocracy.


When I was a wee lad, my parents never thought to put me in a seatbelt. In fact, I liked to sit on that little armrest that Oldsmobile98's had in the middle of the backseat. Today, I always wear my seatbelt, as everyone else now does as well.

Is this random societal change? No, we are just more aware today of how dangerous it can be not to wear one.

Awareness- Society, like a waking giant, rouses in stages.

[j2k4]

I see nothing wrong with society becoming aware that "liberty and justice for all" really does apply to EVERYONE. That is the common logic which runs through the changes in society described above.

That is not Sobran's point; no thinking person would place himself athwart an argument (which is not an "argument" after all, but the goal) against "liberty and justice for all".

Sobran is merely assaying the degree to which we have succumbed to the elitest view that "experts" in black robes should determine what is good for us absent our input, but nominally guided and informed by a blindly liberal agenda.

For God's sake, you people act as if judicial activism is akin to standing at the airport baggage carousel, only you have to take whatever variety of luggage comes by.

The whole point of the Constitution and it's amendment process is to allow the people-not the judiciary-to set the socio/cultural agenda; the judiciary then decides whether the people's fiat passes constitutional muster.

The "pedophile" comment shows the breakdown of the authors logic.

J2, do you need me to explain why giving rights to pedophiles is not a logical progression of our changing society?

No.

Please parse for me the Court's logic, not in deciding Roe v. Wade as it did, but in taking up the case to begin with, over concerns (rejected out of hand) for State's Rights?

Also the Gay Marriage case, as decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Court?

While you're at it, tell me precisely how any court could manage to reject a pedophile's plea for equality, if the people have no entree to the process?

I think it is fine for judges to decide if a law is fair or if an individuals rights are being violated. That is what they are supposed to be good at, right?

I, too, think that is fine, but then, that is not what is actually happening, is it?

Religious people want to oppose gay marraiges because of their beliefs. In a free society, they should not be allowed to impose their opinion upon others because God does not run our government. A Judge is not there to give an opinion about whether he approves of being gay or not, he is there to determine if the laws we have are fair. That is the problem with letting the common man decide things like this. The common man is not "fair". He doesn't care about "right or wrong", he just echoes what is in his Bible. We are a country founded upon freedom of the individual and we are not a theocracy.

Again, what you describe is not what is happening.

And such contempt for the "common man"!

Freedom of the individual?

Surely...but what is this country but a collection of individual and common men and women?

The collective "common man" is scrupulously fair, Hobbes.

When I was a wee lad, my parents never thought to put me in a seatbelt. In fact, I liked to sit on that little armrest that Oldsmobile98's had in the middle of the backseat. Today, I always wear my seatbelt, as everyone else now does as well.

Is this random societal change? No, we are just more aware today of how dangerous it can be not to wear one.

Awareness- Society, like a waking giant, rouses in stages.

Pffffffffft*





*Not sure about the spelling...

[hobbes]

Liberalism’s fatal flaw, as Kinsley’s argument shows, is that it has no permanent norms, only a succession of enthusiasms espoused by minor prophets. Each of these seems like a hot new idea to liberals, but soon goes to irksome and destructive extremes.

Liberalism has no vision of a final, settled social order; it’s always waiting for the next “revolution of perception” to overturn everything. What’s “progressive” today may be embarrassingly “reactionary” tomorrow. Kinsley may find this kaleidoscopic idea of endless and indefinable progress inspiring; the rest of us may find it merely exhausting.

Joseph Sobran

The author concludes that liberalism has no point, that it is arbitrary. The changes liberals will demand in the future are things we may now think are quite proper.

I find this completely absurd.

Giving equal rights to blacks and women and allowing gays to have equal marital unions is a recognition that "land of the free" is a meaningless slogan if certain groups of people are in chains (literally in some cases).

I think that if one were to contemplate "freedom" one could readily predict each of these changes. It is not arbitrary, it comes as no surprise and it is definitely not a FAD.

Just sit down and think about what is "fair to all". Sometimes, as certain issues are not things we think about in our daily lives, a new issue is brought to our attention and we see that some people are still getting the shaft.

Is it fair that 2 same sex people cannot get a legal union equal to a traditional marraige? I look at the Constitution and see that all men are equal and are free to chose their path to happiness as they see fit. There is nothing "wrong" with what they are doing at all, as defined by our national charter.

A pedophile is, of course, violating the rights of others to seek his pleasure, which is strictly forbidden.

So in conclusion, liberalism HAS a point, the assurance that all men are treated equally and there is nothing random about societal change in attempting to achieve this goal.

[Snee]

nm

[j2k4]

...liberalism HAS a point, the assurance that all men are treated equally and there is nothing random about societal change in attempting to achieve this goal.

Do you posit that conservatism does not aspire to "equality"?

BTW-societal change, as fomented by the elite liberals you seem so enamored of, is nothing if not scatter-shot and, yes, random.

[hobbes]

Do you posit that conservatism does not aspire to "equality"?

BTW-societal change, as fomented by the elite liberals you seem so enamored of, is nothing if not scatter-shot and, yes, random.

I explained what liberalism means to me and why i feel that it is neither pointless nor random.

I couldn't even name an "elite liberal" as I don't do politics. I think for myself and I speak for myself.

The spirit of Liberal thought is to seek change to promote equality.
Conservatism is to keep the "status quo".

In a society that oppresses some while touting freedom for all, I certainly can't support the "status quo".

[vidcc]

J2 you say that judges are not interpreting the law properly, However i do. They are saying that just because one may find a certain lifestyle distasteful that is no reason to deny them equality that is rightfully theirs as set out in the constitution.

What is happening is that they are not bowing down to the pressure of intollerant discrimination.....the constitution doesn't define marriage as just between man and woman...so the rulings of the court are correct. You don't have to like it, however it is still correct. If it was incorrect why would we need to add an amendment to change it?

If you wish to live in the land of the free, make sure it is free....

Who knows, someday you may find that a right wing extremist is trying to deny YOU freedom..... If that day comes i hope you stand next to the "liberal" that is fighting to stop him

[j2k4]

I explained what liberalism means to me and why i feel that it is neither pointless nor random.

Then I propose you do something about those whose understanding of Liberalism is so at odds with your own.

I couldn't even name an "elite liberal" as I don't do politics. I think for myself and I speak for myself.

Michael Kinsley comes to mind...

The spirit of Liberal thought is to seek change to promote equality.
Conservatism is to keep the "status quo".

The first is merely a point of methodology-a conservative would create conditions by means other than judicial fiat in order to create an undeniable brand of equality; liberals believe it can be legislated.

As to your last, Conservatism's motto is more aptly if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

Elite liberals such as Kinsley believe in applying new paint to old, sub-standard surfaces, and ignoring the infrastructure altogether.

In a society that oppresses some while touting freedom for all, I certainly can't support the "status quo".

Well, that's fine, then; when would you like to schedule the referendum?

Do your duty as a liberal, and tell the courts to feck off.