Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
To be clear, the policies of liberalism are the expansion of civil rights, voting rights, and the expansion of the safety net.There's various terms. Neo-liberalism. Radical liberalism. Progressive liberalism. Woke liberalism. Whatever one wants to call it, it's something many don't want to see flourish.
I apologize if I misled.Thanks for the insight.
I thought Obama was far more moderate than say, H. Clinton or Pelosi.
Maybe I'm wrong?
The expansion of civil rights, voting rights, and the expansion of the safety net is the classical stance, but it has morphed into something else lately.To be clear, the policies of liberalism are the expansion of civil rights, voting rights, and the expansion of the safety net.
I agree that many have not wanted these policies to succeed. Taht has been the case for almost 100 yeas.
You said "Woke" is not liberalism...at least not classical liberalism. And I agree. It's something that's morphed from that.No, as I said this is a completely different ideology, not just a different syntax.
Nope. "Woke" is morphed from Marxism.You said "Woke" is not liberalism...at least not classical liberalism. And I agree. It's something that's morphed from that.
You’re fine. I think I’m following you just fine.I apologize if I misled.
I agree. Obama is indeed a centrist, much more so that Hillary or Pelosi. As a centrist, I don't have negative feelings toward Pelosi. She was NOT known for her independent leftist policies, but rather for her abilities to be able to lead the House.
I would say liberalism--or rather Progressivism--started with the Republican Party in 1854 and flowered in the late 1800s into the early 1900s. Theodore Roosevelt pulled the Progressives out of the Republican Party in 1912 to form the Progressive Party (also known as the "Bull Moose" Party). Those progressives had infiltrated the northern Democratic Party by the 1930s.I strongly disagree.
Liberalism as a US political movement started with Roosevelt and was essentially defined by Humphrey in his 1948 speech at the Democratic convention. Humphrey kicked the communists out of the coalition and formed his Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in MN. Followers of Humphrey have been called liberals for my lifetime. Yes, we are big tent, with views that have always been pro-market and have also supported the expansion of the safety net (including the ideas of Sanders). Our obvious successes have been Clinton and Obama (considerably on the right of most Democrats). Today's examples are Federman and Emmanuel.
The liberals have been a solid majority of the Democratic Party since WWII. We can argue when the far left took over as majority of the Democratic Party. Perhaps, liberals were still in the majority in 2004. Certainly, Obama was a centrist, working the Bush administration, the bankers and the corporations, and deporting more than anyone since Eisenhauer.
And all forms of liberalism are mutually exclusive from Marxism?Nope. "Woke" is morphed from Marxism.
Classical liberalism predates Marxism--there is no connection. Critical Theory has direct links to Marxism...it's nothing but Marxism without the economics. The creators of Critical Theory (the Frankfurt School) explicitly state their derivation from Marxism.And all forms of liberalism are mutually exclusive from Marxism?
The boomers in power have demonstrated they have less than zero interest in what takes place after they leave office feet first.And if Biden has announced in his 2023 State Of The Union that he was not running and that he welcomes turning over the country to the next generation. we'd be asked whether the fractured Republican Party can survive.
===========
==========
MY DIMINSHED HOPES ARE FOR
a Democratic House majority and then a non-MAGA Republican who quietly is our president for 8 relatively quiet years. I now would find ANY of the presidents since Reagan more than acceptable in place of any that I see as possibilities. I just want to see us restore our role as a world leader (in science, security and diplomacy). I want us to have a forward going budget that provides for needs of the people, including medical care for all. HOWEVER, I am fine with states and local governments having the vast amount of the power over spending priorities.
"Woke" is not liberalism...at least not classical liberalism. "Woke" is Critical Theory ideology, based on Marxism. It's a wholly different thing from what the Democratic Party was even as late at the 2004 election.
What do we call it when we want to acknowledge and perhaps change actions and laws we have made through history that have held a class of people down?You said "Woke" is not liberalism...at least not classical liberalism. And I agree. It's something that's morphed from that.
The expansion of civil rights, voting rights, and the expansion of the safety net is the classical stance, but it has morphed into something else lately.
What current class of people are are being held down? And what are they being held down from doing?What do we call it when we want to acknowledge and perhaps change actions and laws we have made through history that have held a class of people down?
Talking about "permanent" anything in politics is the province of born-yesterday people. We've heard the exact same thing from both parties before, in circumstances essentially no difference from this. It never pans out.When a faction of a party caters to a minority of the population (even it's own party) so far to one end, how can they ever hope to be a majority?
Please cite an example of what you are referring to. Thank you.Talking about "permanent" anything in politics is the province of born-yesterday people. We've heard the exact same thing from both parties before, in circumstances essentially no difference from this. It never pans out.
After Obama over Romney. After Bush 2. People say this whenever the voter sentiments seem to sway hard. It never lasts. Things will go wrong. Voters will get unhappy. The party in power begins to look bad. When has this not happened?Please cite an example of what you are referring to. Thank you.
fair enoughI would say liberalism--or rather Progressivism--started with the Republican Party in 1854 and flowered in the late 1800s into the early 1900s. Theodore Roosevelt pulled the Progressives out of the Republican Party in 1912 to form the Progressive Party (also known as the "Bull Moose" Party). Those progressives had infiltrated the northern Democratic Party by the 1930s.
The Democratic Party has been Progressive from then up to around 2008, at which time it became the party of cultural-Marxist Critical Theory, with Sanders being the last Progressive hold-out.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?