Progressives Gone Wild

[MrFanti]

Bill Maher has illustrated the extreme gap between Progressive Liberals and Classical Liberals - and right now, that gap is huge.

[Stavros]

Bill Maher has illustrated the extreme gap between Progressive Liberals and Classical Liberals - and right now, that gap is huge.

a) Who is Bill Maher?
b) do you have a link to his distinctions -I can't get any from google
c) what is the difference between a classical liberal and a progressive liberal
and
d) maybe you Americans are more interested in labels as some kind of fetish, or a replacement tool than an actual discussion about ideas in politics, the economy and society?

[MrFanti]

d) maybe you Americans are more interested in labels as some kind of fetish, or a replacement tool than an actual discussion about ideas in politics, the economy and society?

Unfortunately, Americans when they disagree instantly go the label/name calling route. And this is for BOTH Liberals and Conservatives.
Note that discussion doesn't mean that one party is inherently correct and the other is inherently incorrect.

And a problem with discussion is that each side doesn't listen to the other and instead keeps blasting away their point as if smash the other side into succession.

[Nick Danger]

a) Who is Bill Maher?
b) do you have a link to his distinctions -I can't get any from google
c) what is the difference between a classical liberal and a progressive liberal
and
d) maybe you Americans are more interested in labels as some kind of fetish, or a replacement tool than an actual discussion about ideas in politics, the economy and society?

a) Bill Maher is a liberal talk-show host who occasionally demonstrates that he is still a normal human being by saying something conservative.
b) Distinctions? Far as I know he has not been knighted but his ratings are pretty good.
c) A classical liberal wants more spending on social programs but realizes money doesn't grow out of the human anus; a progressive liberal is an angry teenager, or an adult with fetal alcohol syndrome. Sadly this is irreversible.
d) This, uh, sounds more like a statement with a question mark at the end of it than an actual question.

[MrFanti]

c) what is the difference between a classical liberal and a progressive liberal?

HUGE difference between the two. There are many reads out there that define the differences, an "internet search" will provide you with a myriad of results. That being said, here is one.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whats...ce-betw_b_9140
Many consider Carter, Kennedy, Bill Clinton to be "Classic" Liberals. To many, Obama is a hybrid between the Classic and Progressive Liberal.
The current US Administration is definitely Progressive Liberal IMHO.

Re: my previous comment about the divide between Classic and Progressive Liberals, here's on OpEd and the Liberal division....
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2021/02...hreat-liberty/

[Stavros]

HUGE difference between the two. There are many reads out there that define the differences, an "internet search" will provide you with a myriad of results. That being said, here is one.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whats...ce-betw_b_9140
Many consider Carter, Kennedy, Bill Clinton to be "Classic" Liberals. To many, Obama is a hybrid between the Classic and Progressive Liberal.
The current US Administration is definitely Progressive Liberal IMHO.

Re: my previous comment about the divide between Classic and Progressive Liberals, here's on OpEd and the Liberal division....
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2021/02...hreat-liberty/

Many thanks Mr Fanti for these two links, I have read them both. The article by David Sirota originally from 2005 actually distinguishes between a Liberal and a Progressive, so I am not sure that a 'Progressive liberal' is in fact a category. In both cases, I see differences that don't amount to much so I don't know why the distinction is made.

A further problem arises when he considers the anti-trust law know as the 'Sherman Act' of 1890. John Sherman was a Republican, and 103 years later, this is a key interpretation of justification for that law-

"The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherma...st_Act_of_1890

This seems to me to reflect also the way that Republican and Democrat parties have flipped since the Anti-American War of the 1860s, as I am sure these days it is not Liberals of any type, but Conservatives and Libertarians who would argue the State should never interfere with market forces, that the provisions of the Sherman Act be dismissed and the Act and any laws related to it repealsed. The Democrats, most obviously under FDR re-defined what the relationship could be, between the State and the Citizen, even if FDR was poaching ideas from the 19thc Republicans, and I think we can agree that LBJ was sufficiently influenced by FDR to use the powers of and money raised by the Federal Govt to address issues of poverty and to increase the extent of welfare as a compensation for 'market failure' in the US -and this, it seems to me, is where the dividing line was drawn, as the 'New Deal Administation' and its thinking dominated US domestic policy until the election of Ronald Reagan who said, as I am sure you know, 'Government is not the soution to the problem, Governmet IS the problem'.

Indeed, in the more interesting article in Cato Unbound Kevin Vallier makes a strong case for the 'social trust' which he says is the essential ingredient that enables the US to hold together as a Union of 50 States, though he is reluctant to call it 'mass loyalty' -to the Constitution and its aims, let alone describe it as a Collective Understanding of what Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness means in practical terms

For this reason, he is naive when he says-

"Preserving religious liberty and expanding school choice are other ways of ensuring that our cultural choices are not imposed on those who disagree, but we must also respect the values of people who have diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. Conservative religious communities and progressive LGBTQ communities are here to stay. Let us make peace between them by preventing them from excluding the other from social life."

-because it is the so-called 'Christian Evangelists' in the US and their multi-million dollar backers who, since the emergence of the 'Moral Majority' in the late 1960s and early 1970s, have used political power to impose their views on US citizens and campaign to remove Constitutional rights from the LGBTQ citizens they regard as immoral and a threat to 'their' United States. At the same time as recognizing the damage done by the collapse of bi-partisan or Consensus politics, Vallier fails to admit that it is so-called Conservatives who have marched through the institutions to demolish Constitutional rights. His claim that the left is intent on capturing the education system is exposed as nonsense -if the left has been so influential in educating Americans, why has the two-party system endured? As for Race, it is noted by its absence, even though it has shaped the United States from Jamestown to today, and is the heartache that appears to have no soothing balm.

So I think Vallier has some valid arguments, but is too coy about calling out the people who have done so much to undermine the legtimacy of the US Constitution, the electoral process with the emergence of an aggressive 'State Power' replacing the legality of 'State's Rights'. They call themselves Conservatives, not Liberals.

But in US history, Consevatives supported the Monarch against the Revolutionaries, they sought to Conserve British America and the rule of King George. And where once, eg William F. Buckley, might have defined American Conservatism as the intellectual framework for a low-tax, minimal Govt country, the allure of absolute power by a man who has never read the Constitution let alone understood it, who has no idea what the 1776 Revolution was about, has been promoted by men and women who do know, but reject it and seek a new arrangement of power in which there is no civil society forming the basis of 'Social Trust' and the cycle of elections to the Presidency and Congress is replaced by what by any other name is a Monarchy with absolute powers.

Liberals, Libertarians, Conservatives -call them what you wish, but it looks to me as if the US is marching backwards, and too many of your fellow citizens like the view.

[filghy2]

Actually, if you Americans knew any history you would know that this is the definition of classical liberal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market, civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on limited government, economic freedom, political freedom, and cultural liberalism."

In typical American fashion, you have totally screwed up the meaning of the word liberal. This is what it means elsewhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy."

[Nick Danger]

Actually, if you Americans knew any history you would know that this is the definition of classical liberal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market, civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on limited government, economic freedom, political freedom, and cultural liberalism."

In typical American fashion, you have totally screwed up the meaning of the word liberal. This is what it means elsewhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy."

A lot of political words get transmogrified by the political media over time. Even the meaning of the word "Freedom" changes frequently. What's happening in American politics now is all just bluster and smoke aside from the one central dividing issue that hasn't changed much at all since the FDR administration - how much money do we put toward social (and now environmental) programs in this country? Now I'm not saying that's the most important issue in the country, but it is the thematic basis of Republican vs Democrat since the New Deal - the Republicans are going to cut programs, the Democrats are going to expand them, and as long as neither side goes too far, a delightful balance has been maintained.

But suddenly people are going too far. Obama went too far. Trump went too far. Biden is taking it to an unprecedented extreme and suddenly people are paying attention again. Pretty sure we're going to get a classical Republican president in 2024 - maybe Ron DeSantis. I know Trump has to be getting pressure not to run, at this point it's starting to look like any Republican can beat Biden. Time for a return to sanity.

[Nick Danger]

And I'll also add that I think it's a genuine shame that Biden's puppet-masters have already blown their whole load on this padded infrastructure bill. He's not going to get his super-spender package through the Senate, no way, there may even be party defections over it, more than just Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema are going to step up to the plate and block this ridiculous spending spree now that Biden's approval ratings are in the dirt. And that's great, I consider the entire matter settled.

But what about all of Biden's other promises? Clemency for non-violent drug offenders? Decriminalize marijuana? Transgender rights? Eliminate the federal death penalty? End for-profit detention centers? Make Social Security solvent? Restrict SuperPACs? Change the pharmaceutical industry tax code to encourage domestic production? I mean it goes on and on, but the problem is, none of this shit was a priority for Biden, all he ever really wanted to do was pass as many trillions of dollars worth of Democrat-controlled spending as he could during his brief 2-year window of opportunity. Looks like he's gonna have to settle for $1.2 trillion, but ultimately he was simply the wrong man at the wrong time for the Democrats, and all of the positive cultural changes that might have come from a moderate liberal administration are going to have to wait until at least 2028. Probably much longer, Biden's effect on the public's perception of the Democratic Party is probably going to prove just as profound as George W. Bush's was for the Republicans. People are going to start distancing themselves from him now, and it's not going to get any prettier from here on out. Any more than he's going to get less senile.

[Stavros]

Actually, if you Americans knew any history you would know that this is the definition of classical liberal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market, civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on limited government, economic freedom, political freedom, and cultural liberalism."

In typical American fashion, you have totally screwed up the meaning of the word liberal. This is what it means elsewhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy."

Exactly this, and thanks. The problem, I think, is that the Political Culture of the US has evolved to a stage where language has been adapted to soothe public anxiety -because of the Cold War, for example Socialism became something associated with the USSR, as if (as in the UK) there was no American Socialism pre-dating the Bolshevik Revolution, which of course there was as many immigrants arrived in the US from Europe with their politics.

Bannon Deux Chemises promotes Fascism often without naming it as such -I am sure it was he who gave Trump Mussolini's slogan 'Drain the Swamp' though as Trump used to keep a volume of Hitler's speeches in a bedside cabinet, he may also have a fascination for the Italian -but never claim that the European war of 1939-41 was an anti-Fascist war, or the voters might scratch their heads and wonder why they are being asked to support it now.

The debasement of language under Trump is understandable at one level because he is so genuinely ignorant he doesn't know what a lot of words mean. To describe the Democrats as 'Far Left' or 'Radical Left' is so preposterous as to rob the terms of any meaning. Just as, when Trump uses the word 'freedom' he is referring to idolatry, of himself mostly.

It goes beyond the childish resort to nicknames Trump uses as a crutch, just as Socialism, even Social Democracy cannot be used so as not to frighten the voters, and woe betide anyone who criticises the military. It doesn't matter how many catastrophic mistakes the military makes and at staggering cost, accountability for successive failures does not exist -whereas there was root and branch reform after the Vietnam war- and one is left with the bravery of the service men and women in spite of the hopelessness of their cause as defined by politicians and the generals -and note the the most consistent critic of the military has been Donald Trump, not out of any strategic brilliance on his part, but only in reference to himself, on the basis he would never have made the mistakes, he knows more about the military than the military and so on, and of course, his obsessive need to insult and abuse Veterans and their families if they do not idolize him, as if he were a God. Has there ever been a President who so consistently and so regularly and publicy insulted and abused Veterans, Gold Star families, even the top brass?

So to God, and the fetish which makes it impossible to deny the existence of God and get elected to public office, not even to be sceptical, or critical of the so-called 'Churches' which in the US, have turned the Gospels according to Jesus of Nazareth into nothing more, and nothing less than a commercial opportunity- to watch those 'Evangelicals' is no different from watching teleshopping where you are assured this offer for those dinner plates will never be repeated. And to think these shameless frauds insist on imposing their bogus morals on Americans, invading their libraries and their bedrooms to wag their finger at the 'immorality' of a society which in reality does not interest them beyond its willingness to pay.