Proclaiming Liberalism, and What It Now Means
 

Proclaiming Liberalism, and What It Now Means

Liberalism is so broad that it is very difficult to agree on.

"but liberal intellectuals and writers are doing some soul-searching of their own. " Oxymoron, but anyway, the biggest problem with liberal base is that they never had one. There are very few things that they agree on, other than that they hate Bush.

That might be because we value individual freedoms. It's very hard to get hippies to march, much less goose step.;)

As for conservatives, there's a reason that terms like jingoism and 'dittohead' seem to apply to many members of the 'base'.

The best example of fractionalized liberal base can be seen at any of the WTO protests. It is like a county fair. No one agrees on anything and they all think that their issues are the most important. Although I do not support these issues, issues such as terrorism, gay marriage, immigration, religion seem to unify the conservatives. Just an observation. Terms like "jingoism" and "dittohead"( Rush L's boys and girls) {hardley representative} are as convient to the liberal left as much as the stuff the conservative right spews forth. Partisan Wars: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2354/

Self described conservatives keep telling me their priority is smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Guess that makes Bush a liberal.

No, that makes Bush an authorative capitalist, it isn't just left and right. There are 2 axis (economic and authority) so there are four broad categories that you can fall under. Some add a third axi but is rarely used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Here are some graphs:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 (Bush would be upper right)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W...tical-Quiz.svg

Not in this country, it's conservative or liberal and everyone will be plugged into one or the other... or be deported.

In this country, yes.

That doesn't make Bush a liberal though, it just makes him an outcast.

You would be hard pressed to make the President of the US an "outcast", even with ratings lower than mine.

Can I say I hope neo-conservatives become outcasts?

He's an outcast in the same way that a kid being sent to his room full of video games is being punished. Sure he's being shunned, but he still gets to do pretty much what he wanted to do in the first place.

The one idea the neocons have put out that absolutely no one can argue with is that democracies prosper best in the company of other democracies, and prosper ultimately in a world entirely full of democracies. Anybody characterizing this as fascism is either a liar or a liar's dupe.

Note that the article linked to above comments that domestic security depended on promotion of democracy abroad. Gee, that's just what the neocons say.

The people who object to such a fulfillment, of course, have base and sinister motives, owing to a lack of democratic sympathies. If they had the sympathies they should -- merely as human beings, say I -- they wouldn't be kicking up such a fuss about neocons.

So:

Long as you don't mind me telling you that on that score you're full of shit.:right:

Neo-cons lie about wanting smaller, less intrusive government and lower taxes.
For that alone, I want them gone. It is more than enough.
They want a police state, it is all they have tried to do, every time they get a bit of power.
There is NOTHING conservative about BushCo.

The one idea the communists have put out that absolutely no one can argue with is that communist countries prosper best in the company of other communist states, and prosper ultimately in a world entirely full of communism. Anybody characterizing this as fascism is either a liar or a liar's dupe.

And we said Soviets were bad because they had puppet states and were spreading their ideals?

You can't force another country to become democratic, it has to come from within. If they don't it will be a disaster.....like Iraq.