Is liberal politics good for the country?

[mspart]

The founding of our country was based on liberal politics.  It was against tyranny.   It was against autocratic rule.   It was for the rule of law.   It was for representative governing.  

But after they were done, what were those that wanted to to remain as established called?   Federalists or conservative.  

Now I move to unions.   The original case for unions was to get people out of working to death for no pay.  A laudable goal, though sometimes violent.   They pretty much achieved that fairly quickly.   Then what were the unions supposed to do?   Stay liberal and fight the institution or go conservative and keep the gains made?   They went for change.   They needed more money, they supported candidates and gave them the workers money.    So now we have unions that are political as well as economic.   Union bosses make tons of money.   Is the role of unions complete?  If so, they are not needed.   But they think they are needed.   Currently they are demanding more and more pay until they run themselves out of a job.   Airline and auto workers and long shoremen are examples.  Fast food workers area also an example.   Machines or cheaper labor do their work.   The liberal policies of unions are not a benefit to the workers 100%

Now back to government.   We have a functioning government and society.   Everyone wants that to continue.   However liberal philosophy is opposed to "stay the same" kind of thinking.   So keeping the gains made is conservative and has ho place.   So they keep wanting more change.   Pretty soon the change becomes crazy and liberals wonder what happened to their party.   Liberals don't have a party that has gone further to the left into socialist and communist thought.  Authoritarian thought which we have experienced.   So what is a "classic liberal" to do?   they do not like the craziness, nor are they comfortable with conservative thought but are more comfortable with it than the crazy.   I believe a lot of people fall into this camp.   They want to feed the homeless and those that are poor.   But they do not want to feed the illegal immigrant nor house them, nor have them here.   They want welfare services for those in need, not for those who could work but choose not to.   Etc.   

Currently we have a far left where all of these things are ok.   We have a conservative thought that recoils at the things that are going on.   Where does the "classic liberal" go? 

Is there such thing as too much liberal in a society?    Does there come a point where societal change is not good.  I think there is this question being asked and answered in the latest election.   There was a repudiation of the crazy for the not so crazy or conservative leanings.  

My sincere hope is that the crazies wake up and figure out their crazy talk is wrong headed and decide to stop changing society to match their inner crazy.   I'm probably delusional in this wish but there you go.

To sum up, I think there is a point where liberal thought gives way to crazy leftist thought.  It is at that point that liberal thought has run its course.    

mspart

 

[Caveira]

These people think so 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTYkrX5QN/

[Offthemat]

The nomenclature for leftist is slippery.  They claim ‘liberal’ until it becomes toxic, and then they switch to ‘progressive’ like when Hiliary  claimed to be a Wilsonian progressive and Margaret Sanger progressive.  Both were deeply flawed, intensely racist individuals.  The basis for this liberal progressivism is Marxian, and Orwellian, in that it is not progressive at all, but is in fact regressive to individual liberty. 
 

While classic liberalism is based on individual liberty, the Marxian model is based on conformity in order to support the collective.  Individualism is seen as non-conformity and subject to discipline.  
 

As far as unions go, they have their ups and downs.  They were important in establishing fair labor standards but they went overboard.  A union welder told me he got in trouble for turning his machine on to start work one morning.  He was told that they had a machine operator who would do that and he was taking another man’s job away by turning it on himself.  Another union man said that it was his goal to see to it that the company didn’t make any profit.  
 

Some union apprenticeship programs are excellent.  Apprentices come out, money ahead, highly skilled, capable of doing excellent work.  When locals have the right attitude and can send these tradesmen out, they are the preferred competitors, as the quality of their work proves to be economical over time. 
 

With labor laws as they are, there’s no place, or need, for public sector unions.  Teacher, police and fire, air traffic control, etc.  Civil service jobs included. 

[RockLobster]

8 hours ago, mspart said:

The founding of our country was based on liberal politics.  It was against tyranny.   It was against autocratic rule.   It was for the rule of law.   It was for representative governing.  

But after they were done, what were those that wanted to to remain as established called?   Federalists or conservative.  

Now I move to unions.   The original case for unions was to get people out of working to death for no pay.  A laudable goal, though sometimes violent.   They pretty much achieved that fairly quickly.   Then what were the unions supposed to do?   Stay liberal and fight the institution or go conservative and keep the gains made?   They went for change.   They needed more money, they supported candidates and gave them the workers money.    So now we have unions that are political as well as economic.   Union bosses make tons of money.   Is the role of unions complete?  If so, they are not needed.   But they think they are needed.   Currently they are demanding more and more pay until they run themselves out of a job.   Airline and auto workers and long shoremen are examples.  Fast food workers area also an example.   Machines or cheaper labor do their work.   The liberal policies of unions are not a benefit to the workers 100%

Now back to government.   We have a functioning government and society.   Everyone wants that to continue.   However liberal philosophy is opposed to "stay the same" kind of thinking.   So keeping the gains made is conservative and has ho place.   So they keep wanting more change.   Pretty soon the change becomes crazy and liberals wonder what happened to their party.   Liberals don't have a party that has gone further to the left into socialist and communist thought.  Authoritarian thought which we have experienced.   So what is a "classic liberal" to do?   they do not like the craziness, nor are they comfortable with conservative thought but are more comfortable with it than the crazy.   I believe a lot of people fall into this camp.   They want to feed the homeless and those that are poor.   But they do not want to feed the illegal immigrant nor house them, nor have them here.   They want welfare services for those in need, not for those who could work but choose not to.   Etc.   

Currently we have a far left where all of these things are ok.   We have a conservative thought that recoils at the things that are going on.   Where does the "classic liberal" go? 

Is there such thing as too much liberal in a society?    Does there come a point where societal change is not good.  I think there is this question being asked and answered in the latest election.   There was a repudiation of the crazy for the not so crazy or conservative leanings.  

My sincere hope is that the crazies wake up and figure out their crazy talk is wrong headed and decide to stop changing society to match their inner crazy.   I'm probably delusional in this wish but there you go.

To sum up, I think there is a point where liberal thought gives way to crazy leftist thought.  It is at that point that liberal thought has run its course.    

mspart

 

To claim you know liberals and can lay out what they want is equivalent to saying that
     you know half the country and can lay out what they want.

The same can be said for conservatives.

Both sides have many layers/gradients on multiple issues and they often don't match up in or out of party.

That divide is one of the most ridiculous oversimplifications ever made - yet it is almost universally believed.

The divide is a failure. And the truth here is that the two-party model needs to check itself and change from the strategy of at-each-others-throats all the time. The media also needs to check itself and stop referring to politicians as L or R when they really should be referring to them based on what they have to say. The media oversimplifying everything into L or R just drives it further into dysfunctional norm.

Team red vs team blue has got to go. We don't need a R/B scoreboard, we can't keep fighting R vs B all the time.

We need to encourage knowledge and conversation on the actual issues. Not simple, they aren't easy.

That's the only path that can actually make America great. 

[headshuck]

We hear about Rinos, republicans in name only. Why isn’t there a Dino?

[Bigbrog]

I almost fell off my chair as I actually agree with RL on a lot of what he/she just said.

[jross]

A classical liberal can't reasonably identify as liberal because the word liberal means different things to different people.  

[jross]

The legislative government should do the following:

• Each piece of legislation should be voted independently without being bundled with other unrelated issues
• Legislators must provide written explanations for their votes, where the vote and reasoning are made public
• The legislative calendar, debate times, and outcomes should be not only accessible but also user-friendly and promoted to the public.
• The public can directly vote on issues to be considered by the legislature
• If the issues voted on by the public are not addressed or voted upon by the legislators, the legislative leaders can be impeached

When the publics interests are addressed with transparency, the government is accountable to represent its people.  Now people understand the impact their representatives have and can vote them out.  

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, jross said:

The legislative government should do the following:

• Each piece of legislation should be voted independently without being bundled with other unrelated issues
• Legislators must provide written explanations for their votes, where the vote and reasoning are made public
• The legislative calendar, debate times, and outcomes should be not only accessible but also user-friendly and promoted to the public.
• The public can directly vote on issues to be considered by the legislature
• If the issues voted on by the public are not addressed or voted upon by the legislators, the legislative leaders can be impeached

When the publics interests are addressed with transparency, the government is accountable to represent its people.  Now people understand the impact their representatives have and can vote them out.  

Those are great ideas.  The way they vote in secret in the middle of the night…. Half the time not even having time to read the bills should be criminal.   And 100% each item should be voted on as opposed to smashing 494848 things together.  

[Husker_Du]

9 hours ago, RockLobster said:

To claim you know liberals and can lay out what they want is equivalent to saying that
     you know half the country and can lay out what they want.

The same can be said for conservatives.

can you give us the bullet points of the liberal agenda / priorities?

it shouldn't be that difficult

[RockLobster]

9 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

can you give us the bullet points of the liberal agenda / priorities?

it shouldn't be that difficult

Read back that post that I made and you quoted, Du.

What I posted was exactly the same for both liberals and conservatives. (Hint: It's already in your post.)

[Caveira]

9 minutes ago, RockLobster said:

Read back that post that I made and you quoted, Du.

What I posted was exactly the same for both liberals and conservatives. (Hint: It's already in your post.)

I don’t think you know.  Is it possible you are deflecting?

[RockLobster]

4 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I don’t think you know.  Is it possible you are deflecting?

Of course I know.

Are you claiming it is deflection?

Are you suggesting deformation in the direction transverse to the longitudinal axis under load?

Don't mistake it for elongation, that'd be a rookie move.

[Caveira]

29 minutes ago, RockLobster said:

Of course I know.

Are you claiming it is deflection?

Are you suggesting deformation in the direction transverse to the longitudinal axis under load?

Don't mistake it for elongation, that'd be a rookie move.

I’m suggesting you don’t know.  Or don’t want to type them.   More you don’t want to type them.  

[Husker_Du]

18 hours ago, RockLobster said:

Read back that post that I made and you quoted, Du.

What I posted was exactly the same for both liberals and conservatives. (Hint: It's already in your post.)

i'm not sure i understand unless you're saying that the democratic party doesn't have a plan or list of objectives. in which case....cmon. the election was less than a month ago and they ran on XYZ.

not sure what you're trying to do here.