Posted on 12/04/2010 1:41:35 AM PST by The Raven
...
Liberalism's decline might appear, at first glance, to have begun with the 1961 inauguration of President John F. Kennedy—when historians noted the first glimmerings of what was to become liberalism's distinctive trait, overreach. Kennedy's soaring oratory was infectious and admirable and even impressed a later generation of conservatives. But it was a bit dishonest. There never was a missile gap with the Soviet Union, as he claimed, or any other cause for histrionics. On the domestic side, the oratory set in motion President Lyndon Johnson's catastrophic War on Poverty.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
There ideology is NEVER ENOUGH.....ask a liberal when they are finished spending money and they won't commit....
As history will show, the lies from the liberal JFK/LBJ start have grown bigger and bigger.
To prove that is true, it's necessary to first show that LBJ killed Kennedy in a coup that was necessary because LBJ was headed for jail for his many crimes. Once you understand that is true, it's relatively simple to see how the liberals have maneuvered into the position they are in today. Any lie can be told to Americans as they can no longer think independently. Convince the press and you control the country.
You'd have to be a credulous moron to believe this kind of pablum.
As long as there is a left wing media there will be a left wing. My assertion is the only way to destroy liberalism in this country is to put the media under direct attack. And that starts with having the cajones to do it rather than talk about it.
Both parties represent different faces of the status quo, and unfortunately that status quo represents death for our nation. It's no joke when we hear that there is a stupid party and an evil party, but stupid and evil does not make for good leadership.
Never mind China, we're going to get passed by Brazil and India at this rate. How can you have hope in a nation that elected Barack Obama?
Absolutely! We are in a battle to take BACK our country; from judges who overrule voters with trumped up rulings, politicians who say they're for conservative values yet vote contrary to those values, and from the MSM who will do anything to shut down those who would present the other side. We need to spot the enemies and infiltrators, and change the game; not roll over and pretend it's gone away. We need to recognize that 2010 was only a beginning of a long journey.
I agree it is far from dead, but it’s intent has been exposed.
However, they are already spinning in their predictable fashion.
Class warfare from dawn until dusk.
Liberals, once again, believed that conservatism was dead and that Americans want bigger goverment. It was the alternative media and the Tea Party that has temporarily stopped liberals in two short years.
Remember, FDR had over a decade to impose socialism because he had a compliant media on his side while conservatives were not united (no internet, no alternative media).
Among your several good posts on this thread, you have captured the essence of the problem with modern day America - too many of our countrymen are willing to sell all of us into slavery because of their utopian world view.
“As a political movement liberalism is dead. They do not have the numbers. They do not have the policies. They have 23 seats in the Senate to defend in 2012 (against the Republicans’ 10) and Republican control of state houses and legislatures will give them even more seats in the future. Liberalism R.I.P.”
Never underestimate the Fabian treachery of elitists and globalists within the GOP.
Like my tag line says . . .
Nevertheless, a very good article.
Among your several good posts on this thread, you have captured the essence of the problem with modern day America - too many of our countrymen are willing to sell all of us into slavery because of their utopian world view.
*******************
Until the education racket is brought to heel, and I mean hard, we will be fighting an uphill battle on this front.
Having said that, I'd also point out that "liberalism" as the political philosophy we know it really is dying in the United States . . . not because it's losing its appeal to the people of this country, but because it has bankrupted us and we can't afford it anymore. And if you have any doubts about this, just go and see how effective and popular New Jersey governor Chris Christie has become over the last ten months with his own big-mouthed, take-no-prisoners approach to fiscal matters in one of the most reliably liberal states in the U.S.
Thank you!
“How can you have hope in a nation that elected Barack Obama?”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Alas, the combination of willful ignorance on the part of voters and election fraud which allowed the election of Obama is the real terror, not Obama himself. Obama did not get a single vote from a clear headed voter who was also an honest American. The only people who voted for him with understanding of what they were voting for were the crooks who expected to benefit from a gangster government. The rest were muddleheaded simpletons regardless of how many sheepskins they may have had on the wall.
Perhaps an examination of this late-nineteenth century assessment of socialism might inform today's citizens.
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
I've done my part to defund it. No TV, no cable (except for Internet access ONLY), no liberal rags, no newspapers. We almost never watch movies in the theater.
If you have cable TV, you are funding the left.
Nope. I have 5 channels and one is local weather.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.