Liberalism or Progressivism; Ideology of the US Democratic Party

[Rukentuts]

Gary Johnson is so authoritarian and far-right that he received the highest rating out of all of the 2012 candidates from the ACLU.

Do I need to post the pretty picture again?

Gary Johnson puts business' freedom way ahead of yours or mine. It's why GOP-lites love him.

[Nakura Chambers]

No offense, but that is one of the major things I can't understand about americans (and, again, I'm not on an America bashing rampage). Why the hell do you guys think that laws that were created two and a half centuries earlier have a remote chance of being relevant and just in a world so different than then one they were created in? I mean, I always hear stuff about the founding fathers and everything in American politics, why is there never some guy standing up and saying 'Hey guys, you know those those people we've raised to the status of deities in the national mind? Yeah, they lived 250 years ago. We're very grateful they could lay foundations on which the country could develop, but maybe their ideas aren't relevant anymore. Maybe we should rewrite the Constitution at some point so that it fits the millennium. And, to be honest, who gives a shit about what they wanted the country to be like? It's not theirs anymore, it's ours.'

Seriously, I really don't get it.

America was founded on the principles of classical liberalism. That was, is and always will be our national ideology. The Constitution isn't "outdated" or "useless," it's every bit as important today as it was 200 years ago. With our civil liberties constantly under siege, we need the Constitution now more than ever.

Also, there are plenty of European constitutions that are just as old (Norway comes to mind). Newer isn't always better, especially going by some of the new constitutions we've been seeing pop up in Europe (France, Germany, Hungary, etc.).

[noralya]

America was founded on the principles of classical liberalism. That was, is and always will be our national ideology. The Constitution isn't "outdated" or "useless," it's every bit as important today as it was 200 years ago. With our civil liberties constantly under siege, we need the Constitution now more than ever.

Also, there are plenty of European constitutions that are just as old (Norway comes to mind). Newer isn't always better, especially going by some of the new constitutions we've been seeing pop up in Europe (France, Germany, Hungary, etc.).

But why DOES it have to be the national ideology? France was created on a monarchist ideology. I'm bloody well glad some people 200 years ago started chopping heads off (yeah, there was the Terror and everything but it set things in motion) to change that. How can centuries old mandates be taken at face value and the questioning of their validity be seen as sacrilegious? Or rather, I mean: how can that be healthy? How can that be a good thing? Why is questioning the 'status quo', as said above, a bad thing?

[Nakura Chambers]

Do I need to post the pretty picture again?

Gary Johnson puts business' freedom way ahead of yours or mine. It's why GOP-lites love him.

Do you have any proof of that?

Especially when the evidence is stacked so heavily against you, given that Gary Johnson has staunchly opposed corruption and the corporate influence in politics.

[noralya]

Do I need to post the pretty picture again?

Gary Johnson puts business' freedom way ahead of yours or mine. It's why GOP-lites love him.

Gary Johnson is insane. It was actually scary the amount of normal sounding people that rooted for him just because he didn't bash gays. As if that gave him a free pass to go on with all the other bullshit untouched and unquestioned.

[Underverse]

As far as I'm aware classical liberalism and conservatism are much easier to equate than classical liberalism and modern liberalism. Why? Because the term is as outdated that the ideology. Classical liberalism was a response to government infringing on freedoms. Modern liberalism is a response to corporations infringing on freedoms.

[Rukentuts]

Do you have any proof of that?

Especially when the evidence is stacked so heavily against you, given that Gary Johnson has staunchly opposed corruption and the corporate influence in politics.

If the sky in your world is pink I'm not going to convince you otherwise. You can keep cherry-picking on policy and ignore the macro-picture if it makes you feel better.

- - - Updated - - -

Gary Johnson is insane. It was actually scary the amount of normal sounding people that rooted for him just because he didn't bash gays. As if that gave him a free pass to go on with all the other bullshit untouched and unquestioned.

Most people that call themselves "libertarian":

1) Aren't.
2) Are batshit crazy.

[Nakura Chambers]

But why DOES it have to be the national ideology? France was created on a monarchist ideology. I'm bloody well glad some people 200 years ago started chopping heads off (yeah, there was the Terror and everything but it set things in motion) to change that. How can centuries old mandates be taken at face value and the questioning of their validity be seen as sacrilegious? Or rather, I mean: how can that be healthy? How can that be a good thing? Why is questioning the 'status quo', as said above, a bad thing?

Because there is nothing wrong with classical liberalism and the vast majority of Americans support it. Republicans and Democrats alike support classical liberalism, even if their politicians do not.

[Rukentuts]

Because there is nothing wrong with classical liberalism and the vast majority of Americans support it. Republicans and Democrats alike support classical liberalism, even if their politicians do not.

Is that why only the Green Party was actually liberal on that pretty picture?

I'm really sick of people regurgitating terms of which they have no idea.

[Sunseeker]

Everyone should be progressives (little "p") because we should all be trying to make progress towards a better world.

Progressives (with a capital "P") are a specific ideological group that are not Democrats or Republicans, who believe in Progressive-ism.

Liberals aren't specifically Democrats or Republicans either, since you can be "liberal" on all sorts of matters.

I'm a Democrat because I generally agree with Democratic policies. I'm a liberal because under that header, I like to advocate for the policies that benefit the most people with the least restriction.

[Nakura Chambers]

Gary Johnson is insane. It was actually scary the amount of normal sounding people that rooted for him just because he didn't bash gays. As if that gave him a free pass to go on with all the other bullshit untouched and unquestioned.

How is he insane exactly?

[Rukentuts]

How is he insane exactly?

The fact he cannot even comprehend how shit ties together more than 5 seconds away.

Of course that's just more like stupidity as opposed to insanity.

[Khaza-R]

How is he insane exactly?

Because he doesn't agree with him.

[Underverse]

Because there is nothing wrong with classical liberalism and the vast majority of Americans support it. Republicans and Democrats alike support classical liberalism, even if their politicians do not.

Classical liberalism leads to the same end (limitation of freedoms), but it's by corporations instead of government. Not sure about you, but I'd rather have my freedoms limited by someone who is interested in helping me, than by someone who is interested only in profit.

[Nakura Chambers]

Is that why only the Green Party was actually liberal on that pretty picture?

I'm really sick of people regurgitating terms of which they have no idea.

I see you're using that word again, I don't think it means what you think it means. Supporting massive government infringements on our civil liberties isn't liberal. Nevermind their overreaching economic and environmental proposals. There's a reason the Greens are so marginal and Stein didn't even come close to securing the votes that Johnson did.

[Underverse]

I see you're using that word again, I don't think it means what you think it means. Supporting massive government infringements on our civil liberties isn't liberal. Nevermind their overreaching economic and environmental proposals. There's a reason the Greens are so marginal and Stein didn't even come close to securing the votes that Johnson did.

That reason is that the republican party is more crazy than the libertarians. The democrats don't have that problem, so people don't need to flee the party to join the greens.

[Redfingers]

The US democratic party is neither liberal nor progressive. It is a center-moderate party in a country with an extreme right wing.

The US democratic party is the right wing flipped analog of the Girondins to the Jacobins.

[Rukentuts]

I see you're using that word again, I don't think it means what you think it means. Supporting massive government infringements on our civil liberties isn't liberal. Nevermind their overreaching economic and environmental proposals. There's a reason the Greens are so marginal and Stein didn't even come close to securing the votes that Johnson did.

Yeah, you didn't even look at the graph.

*sigh*

And Stein didn't get nearly the votes being the Dems aren't the ones with an identity crisis.

The US democratic party is neither liberal nor progressive. It is a center-moderate party in a country with an extreme right wing.

Bingo.

The Dems are only slightly less authoritarian and slightly more liberal (but still decently conservative).

[Nakura Chambers]

Classical liberalism leads to the same end (limitation of freedoms), but it's by corporations instead of government. Not sure about you, but I'd rather have my freedoms limited by someone who is interested in helping me, than by someone who is interested only in profit.

First off, you don't honeslty think that the government is interesting in helping you, do you?

And secondly, you're conflating classical liberalism with anarcho-capitalism. In fact, I think you'll find that all throughout the ages, classical liberals have argued that the government does indeed have a role in society. From John Locke and Thomas Hobbes to the Founding Fathers to Robert A. Heinlein to Nigel Farage. Classical liberals have always argued that all forms of tyranny must be fought against, be it from government or from banks/corporations.

[Underverse]

First off, you don't honeslty think that the government is interesting in helping you, do you?

And secondly, you're conflating classical liberalism with anarcho-capitalism. In fact, I think you'll find that all throughout the ages, classical liberals have argued that the government does indeed have a role in society. From John Locke and Thomas Hobbes to the Founding Fathers to Robert A. Heinlein to Nigel Farage. Classical liberals have always argued that all forms of tyranny must be fought against, be it from government or from banks/corporations.

The government is interested in helping me, but it would also be more interested in helping me without corporate interference. But let's assume that the government is neutral; it doesn't want to hurt or help. It's still better than the motive being purely profit.

I'm sort of conflating the two, yes, because classical liberalism will lead, in a free market society, to a watered-down form of anarcho-capitalism. Perhaps good intentions, but a bad outcome under these circumstances.

I do agree that tyranny should be fought against. But when you start defining tyranny as anything you don't agree with, you're no longer arguing against tyranny - you're arguing against opinion, and maybe fact.