What is wrong with Liberal ideology

Since there has been just a little liberal bashing on this forum, I must ask this fundamental question: What is wrong with the basic liberal philosophy?

Why is the idea of a government taking care of social problems, providin safty nets to stop a large gap between the rich and the poor, which is a sign of hvaing a bad economy, and the strict standards on private enterprise.

Seeing as liberals are only trying to up hold the idea of the social contract with the people. The social contract is the idea that the people pay taxes and the government provides defense and the well being of the populous.

The Khaos Project

 

I'm pretty conservative, though not full out for the GOP. I'll just answer your questions from my perspective, as I cannot presume to speak for all conservatives.

Conservatives are not totally opposed to the idea of using the power of government to improve people's lives and do good things. We do think that there are certain functions that only the federal government can handle, such as national defense and interstate commerce regulation.

Where conservatives and liberals usually part ways is their basic view of government's role in people's lives. While liberals believe government can be a force for good in people's lives and that the more government helps people, the better, conservatives believe the opposite; that the best kind of government is the kind that has the least amount of participation and impact possible on the citizen's life, and that, if people rely on themselves, their families, and their local communities for support and assistance, instead of government, they will be freer, happier, and more economically productive and self-sufficient. Conservatives tend to be much more skeptical and distrustful of government, and loathe centralized economic and political power that makes people dependent, and potentially, slaves to govt. They see govt. as a necessary evil, but one that must be kept as small and as regulated as possible. Liberals are more trusting that govt. is mostly, but not always, a force for good.

Former President Gerald Ford summed up the traditional conservative distrust of Big Government quite well when he said, "A government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take it all away."

That's why liberals tend to put their faith in social programs sponsored by the government to solve a myriad of problems. These days, everything from boll weevil eradication to unemployment assistance to the policing of Internet child pornography has a federal program or agency overseeing it. Conservatives think most (but not all) problems are best left to the states and to local folks in their local communities to fix.

The liberal ideal of a "social safety net" to help folks out during hard times, while noble, often leads to unintended consequences that don't get addressed until the problem is huge. Conservatives believe (in many cases, rightfully so) that such programs encourage dependence on the government and complacency in personal economic activity. Take welfare, for example. What started out as a noble idea to help young, unwed mothers struggling to raise their children in poverty get by just a little easier, literally grew into a monster that crushed people's spirit and drive to work, encouraged generations of dependence on federal and state assistance as the only way to make it, and, some say, created an entirely new socioeconomic class of despised and impoverished "lower class" people hated because they were "lazy freeloaders." 30 years later, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was passed and the mess was finally cleaned up. While most conservatives are not opposed to a system of relief for people who really need it (like temporary unemployment assistance or disability benefits), we think programs like welfare that become train wrecks go a little too far.

Strict standards on private enterprise? No doubt, some are needed. What most conservatives object to is the open hostility liberals have shown toward business that has been going on for a long time. It has been a tendency of all leftist economic movements in the past (neo-liberalism, populism, socialism, and fascism) to attempt to punitively tax and control businesses and corporations to use them as sled dogs to pull the huge sled that is the welfare state. Conservatives don't see it that way. They see private business, big and small, as the best way to ensure people's livelihoods, INDEPENDENT of the state of course. Large, powerful, for-profit corporations who employ workforces and give them benefits acts as a good mechanism to limit the power of government. And while some taxes and regulation is necessary to ensure basic infrastructure and fair play, the less government interferes in the private business sector, the better.

Conservatives believe in the social contract just as much as liberals do. They just don't wish to make it nearly as intrusive and far-reaching. For conservatives, the role of the federal government should be small and limited to the powers delegated to it in the Constitution; constitutional justice, national defense, and promotion of the general welfare (not welfare state). The social contract is not a promise to feed, house, and clothe every citizen. The citizen must do his part to be a productive member of society. If all members of society are productive, that society's unmet needs grow smaller, and the need for taxes to pay for those needs grows smaller as well. People get to keep more of their own money for their own needs, and on and on we go as people become more free and self-sufficient.

This is what I believe as a conservative.

Now, I don't hate liberals or liberalism, nor do I think all liberals are traitors, hippies, commies, or nutjobs. There are different kinds of liberalism, just as there are different kinds of conservatism. I actually think CLASSICAL liberalism has many great ideas, and it is classical liberalism that we have to thank for many of the ideas our Founding Fathers had about what the government of this great nation should look like. But I just do not like any system that encourages too much dependence on or gives too much power to government, and most liberal/leftist ideologies, such as Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and Populism, limit economic, political, and personal freedom in too many ways.

Also, I don't like the way post-modern liberals and leftists, in their rush to "group hug" anyone who they think has been "oppressed," unthinkingly embrace any movement or group of people that is seen as the "underdog," no matter how far-fetched or wacky that group or their agenda is. This makes the post-modern Left look divided, hypocritical, and without a moral compass, especially when they are supporting unrestricted abortion, complete erasure of gender roles in Western society, and gay marriage on one hand, and on the other hand openly cheering for radical Al-Qaida/Taliban Islamic fundamentalism, the most oppressive political/social ideology this planet has seen since Stalin's U.S.S.R., to defeat and destroy America and Western civilization. And they have no loyalty anymore; they say the most awful things about their own country. To hear them speak, you'd think Bush was Hitler and America was Nazi Germany (and many of them really think that). I no longer really understand what liberals stand for anymore, if they stand for anything at all. I sure can tell they are angry though. At what, exactly, I don't know. This has to go deeper than President Bush.

It wasn't always like this. There was a time when, whatever difference conservatives and liberals had, they still believed America was the greatest nation on Earth and would stand by her and what she stood for through thick and thin. Those days don't have to be just a memory. It's not to late for liberals to realize the error of their ways and return to their Enlightenment and Progressive roots, instead of supporting every new misfit cause and freakish behavior that comes along simply because they wish to "F*** the system." I hope classical liberalism makes a comeback.

Till then, though, I don't want the freaks marching in San Francisco anywhere near the organs of state power in this country.

 

I couldn't agree more jetstorm.

 

@Jetstorm

I must ask, since you only give two things that the government can do, what is the most basic burden that a government must uphold?

Yes we do think that the government should play a positive role in peoples lives. This is becuase th government must in order to fufill it's basic burdens to the peope through the social contract.

What is the warrant for local communities are better agents. I would agure that the basic ideals of capitalism allows for happiness and freedom, but at a cost to morals and ethics. Since capitalism makes the goal of our life to earn money, and get things as cheap as possible, this enforces a mental framework that money is the number one value within life. This is shown by how materialistic we are. This becomes aparant when you look at case studies such as Enron and other corprarte scandles, or even to motives of robberies.

The only problem with this thought, is why would a government take away from you. That would go against the idea of the social contract, and which that point time comes, it is ok to rebel. In no liberal government has this happened, so it seems to be paranoia more then a logically fear.

Yes, and there are reasons why liberals put there faith in the overall government instead of local government, it is called history. If a local community has a mindset that might be detramental others for some reason, then who is going to stop it. At that point the federal government has to step in.

Now I have another question, why is the local community a better agent of action then the federal government in most instances?

That isn't true. What usuall happens is that small reforms within the system happen, but conservitives or special intrests get in the way and block reforms or make the problem worst. Most of the time it is special intrests, but conservitives still do it some times.

That just isn't ture. What that is a seterotype, that has been enforced by a number of groups. The truth of the matter is that 2.3% of the people witn te system are "freeloaders". The reason why it is thought that alot of people exploit the system, is because that is what you see in the media. What you don't see is that mother who is using the system as it is ment to. Sure there are people who are dependant on the system, but this is a SLIM minority.

It is like the apple example. If there are 2.3% bad apples in a basket, don't just get rid of the basket, weed out the bad apples.

Some sort of welfare is need to the masses. The reason for this is simply economic. The greater amount of poor within a country is a sign that, that country has a unstable economy. If you look at most ressicions or depression, the first indicators of these happening are a growing number of poor. So you have to have safety nets or else economic instability occurs, look at the 1920s for an example.

There needs to be strict standards in order to stop grave abuses on the masses. In the early 1900s people roited because of the lack of standards. This movement within the US caused minium working age and minium age laws to take into effect of a wider and more enforced scale then ever before.

Facism can be both conservitive and liberal by the way.

Well, you need to have corporate taxes in order to pay for funding for enforcement of these standards. You need some way to fund these saftey nets, becuase a country needs them to creat economic sabilty.

Like Walmart for example. All is good, except they are so for profit that they pay as little as they can with as little benifits as possible, forcing the burden of healthcare on local government. This then creates a need for welfare on it's own. The government is there to meet the basic burdens and to do that you have to be strict to ensure socitial well being.

Yes the social contract is the burden on the government. If the general well being of the people, this then means that there has to be some way to keep that well being up, and the government is the only way to ensure that.

Nethier do liberals, I know of no liberal who think we should feed, or house every citizen. It would be nice, but the pesn has to want it.

The key word in that is "if". Even "if: all members were productive, there are still unseen events that requires a safety net. But the problem is, is not that everyone isn't productive per say, it is that there are alot of unseen events with a market economy.

Facism isn't just liberal.

I think that maybe econmic freedom is some what limited, but to the overall good of the country. I don't see how you have a warrant to your claim that is will limit personal or political freedoms in a democracy, which most liberal countries are, expect for communism.

I can only say that SF is a little out there and isn't true for all liberals. As for myself, becuase I am from Oslo I want to move back there, not for a hate of America, but for a urge to get back to my heritage.

I can't support anyone who supports Al-Qaidi, for who thinks USA is Nazi Germany. But Bush does have some small problems, but that is another debate.

The Khaos Project

 

What scares me of today are some liberals that want to be friends with everyone including terrorists.
They have the peace at any cost mentality and I would say that is why WW11 started
along with September 11.

JFK would be quite surprised just how far left the left has gone!

I want to point out also that my wife is a veteran and she was miss diagnosed
by a VA doctor and there are many cases of this in VA' s that we're aware of.

I also would like to bash the post office because of the poor performance in our area, they spend way too much money for so little.

We had a problem getting some mail delivered and called the post master several times and never heard anything back.
Our mailman is too busy listening to his walkman and we sometimes get the neighbors mail and they sometimes get ours.
It doesn't happen often but it does happen from time to time.
Yet again, call postmaster and nothing happens.

I'm totally against government running anything that private enterprise can do
better!

 

Khaos

Welcome to the board. Without getting into political idealogy, I'll simply answer your question about liberal-bashing. It's an election year, and many left-wingers, especially those in the media, are taking every shot they can at Bush, and a lot (most?) of it is unfairly done by spinning facts.

It's ashame, but probably 90% of Americans don't even know the basic beliefs behind either party. They just vote based on what letter (D or R) is behind a candidate's name. It's refreshing to see people finally talk politics without making unfounded and unfair personal attacks on candidates.

Personally, I don't subscribe to any political idealogy, because I try to remain a free-thinker. "Don't drink the Kool-Aid!".

PS I had no idea where Oslo was, so I Googled it, and kept getting images of statue orgies. What's up with that?

 

It's simple. There are no liberals like H.Humphrey, etc. anymore. The liberals of today are socialists and communists in disguise

 

Nothing is wrong with it.

Sure beats taking from the middle class and transferring to the politically connected.

Bechtel and Halliburton- NO RISK, NO BID,

 

@Ectopic Tiger

I don't think you can say that JUST liberals do this, both sides do. You can not claim that conservitives are saints, when you have people like Rush supporting your side. Both side spin and boths sides take shots, it is the name of the game. Don't say that one side is better then the other.

HAHAH.... wow, I never thought the capital of Norway would be anything close to statue orgies, wow...

The Khaos Project

 

What I wanna know is why everyone thinks JFK was such a great president. I can't think of anything really important he did during his shortened term, except for establishing the peace corp., the Bay of Pigs Fiasco, and almost starting a nuclear war with the U.S.S.R. If anyone can answer the question of why he's considered such a great president please let me know.