I'm reading an account of liberalism written by Jonah Goldberg. He traces liberal ideology through various stages in history. To be completely open about Goldberg, I have to admit he is a conservative and certainly has a negative opinion of liberals. So take what he says with a grain of salt.

Despite his obvious bias, I do think he hits a few very good notes in his book. Below is a quote from page 132 (if you care to look it up).

Quote:

The German and American New Deals may have been merely whatever Hitler and FDR felt they could get away with. But therein lies a common principle: the state should be allowed to get away with anything, so long as it is for “good reasons’. This is the common principle among fascism, Nazism, Progressivism, and what we today call liberalism. It represents the triumph of Pragmatism in politics in that it recognizes no dogmatic boundaries to the scope of government power. The leader and his anointed cadres are, decision makers above and beyond political or democratic imperatives. They invoke with divine reverence “science” and the laws of economics the way temple priests once read the entrails of goats, but because they have blinded themselves to their own leaps of faith, they cannot see that morals and values cannot be derived from science. Morals and values are determined by the priests, whether they wear black robes or white lab smocks.

I bring this up not because I think all liberals want an unfettered government that can act at will based on good intentions alone. But Goldberg has hit upon a common mistrust of liberals shared by many conservatives. I hear this same theme from many conservatives. Goldberg has just articulated it very well.

I'd like to hear from the liberal members on this. How do you respond to this criticism? Even if it isn't true, perception has the same effect as reality. How can you convince your conservative friends your intentions are not to ride rough shod over their freedoms if liberals are elected to positions of authority?

RJ

__________________

I've read some of Jonah Goldberg's stuff, and I never saw the glimmer of genius or even the ring of truth, just ideological bullshit.
Comparing Hitler with Roosevelt, come on, that's pretty weak tea.
Liberals don't believe the government can make things perfect, they do believe the government can make things better.
If it wasn't for Liberals, the US would be a Socialist nation now, since the GOP has never been able to do much with the economy, besides screw it up big time.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

I honestly believe that both Democrats and Republicans want to make our country better. It's in the best interests of no one to destroy the country, which is a charge often leveled by both sides.

I just happen to disagree with what the Democrats will make the country better...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I think many of the labels have been turned upside down. I don't take anything from anybody with a "grain of salt". It's either true or untrue, it either makes you think or makes you approve of a subtle prejudice and not think.

I don't think liberalism or conservatism has really hurt America very much, but fascism has. If you look up "right wing fascist" or "left wing fascist", you'll see that the extremes have helped to create the poisonous environment that now exists in America, where even something like offshore drilling is turned into a left or rigth wedge issue, when in fact it's neither. And it's the general public's fault for falling prey to it over and over again.

Fascism exists in the Patriot Act, and it exists more recently in the way dissent is treated in America, particular by the leaders in Washington. Conformity to one ideology is a must, and everything else is unpatriotic and evil. And that's ridiculous. Remember when Ari Fleischer and Dick Cheney were saying things like, "People should watch what they say"? Fascism at work, since America is built on defending principles and moral values and encouraging liberty and individualism, not collectivism and blindly going along.

I agree with Goob; Comparing Hitler with FDR is pretty stupid.

Socialism and liberalism are words that have been made to seem evil in America, but look around, and you'll see some socialism in every direction, from the military to firefighters, police officers to public school teachers, municipal workers and so on.

I think it's ridiculous to discount any idea because of the label of it's origins, whether it's accurate or not. A good idea is a good idea no matter what the label is. The thought of privatizing grade schools or firefighters is crazy, since the objective would shift from the service to the public to the service of the shareholder.

So fascism is what I'm really concerned about, because it constantly is being pushed on the public by politicians who wish to legislate their opinions and values, rather than making laws that actually help American citizens prosper. Like stem cell research. It's just fascist to sit up on high and say "Nope, you either have to throw out the rest of the embryos or use them to create life. Case closed." That's ridiculous. People donate parts of themselves to research all the time, and in the case of a woman who is already pregnant, the idea of discarding so much valuable information against someone's will is just plain fascist. It might be the President's views, but they should not be the law of the land.

So this guys essential argument is:

Pragmatism recognizes no dogma, period. Pragmatism deals with what works and what doesn't, so does government. If FDR had recognized enough 'dogmatic limits to govt power back then, then today there wouldn't be any US government to have this argument about, because 90% of the people would have killed off the other 10% and put in something entirely different and almost certainly not nearly as good, but it would be something that would have at least tried to address the problems the US was then having.

You see, you can talk about your principles all you want. When people are starving they don't care. You don't go out and talk about 'dogmatic principles' to people who are rioting for food. You give them bread, or they behead you and go get some themselves. The King and the Nobles found this out in France in 1790 but many in America haven't figured it out yet. The conservatives in the US still think that me and Uncle Fred are just waiting for the proper signal to man the barricades with our 2nd amendment rifles and die defending the oil cos sacred right to charge $5 a gallon and big pharms ability to cut off my grandmas insulin.

[b]Why not?

And how does he derive the morals and values he uses to determine the "dogmatic limits" to government power?

There is nothing stopping labs from doing embryonic stem cell research. They just can't get government money to do it.

__________________
Hope is the opposite of audacity. It's passive, an excuse for inaction.

Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

“What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?”

“One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let's be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.

“The other kills her own food.”

Nor can a research lab get ANY federal govt money for ANYTHING AT ALL if they do it. Theoretically, if I sell centrifuges and sell one to a lab that does stem cell research, then the govt cannot buy any centrifuges from me, So yeh, it's pretty well frozen stem cell research in the US, though there is some. MD in particular, I believe, actually voted to make up withheld Federal money so as to keep really vital stem cell work from being withdrawn from Johns Hopkins.

It is very easy to find lots of sources listing all the 'factual' errors in Goldberg's screed.

Goldberg set out to write a 'hatchet-job' on the American left and that is exactly what he did. No surprise. No credibility.

__________________
You can visit my forum at www.discussionworldforum.com - new members are always welcome.

I'd like to see a few sources . . . .

I don't doubt there are counter arguments. But that's debate, isn't it?

RJ

__________________

Indeed?

So fascism has hurt the US?

Interesting comment.

Perhaps you would like to define the word "fascism" before you make this statement.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

How is pragmatism restricted to liberalism or fascism, or even bad?

Let's extend this argument to any democratic decision. I want X. Not everyone agrees with me. The bill I actually propose is what I think I can get away with. I could equally well say, "The similarity between the Bush tax cuts and Hitler's New Deal is that both were merely whatever Bush and Hitler felt they could get away with." The fact that both Hitler and Bush might have wanted to do more does not imply in any way beyond Goldberg's crazy insinuations that they have the same goals or same vision of the role of government.

does the original poster think it is a good idea to get his history lesson on a topic from someone who has clearly long ago decided to be an enemy of that topic?

shall we consult hitler on the history of the jews?

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

Why ask a question you already know the answer to?

aren't you the one assuming something here? just a thought.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

It actually depends on what level you are asking the question. I think it is safe to say that you believe he is choosing the author to reinforce his belief. So the obvious answer to the question would be something along the lines of "Yes, so long as it reinforces my belief". The question of how he justifies this view is less obvious and less interesting unless you either care about the psychological characteristics of belief justification or want to amuse yourself by laughing at others.