Posted on 05/12/2008 5:31:32 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
Another read, another BUMP-TO-THE-TRUTH!
Thanks, PG.
^
What a thoughtful and intelligent post, I’m saving it, thank you.
Bookmarking
Ah, but don’t forget the word “progressive”, which has come to mark (among other things) the most reactionary elements in the communities, the NIMBYs resisting progress and change.
Ah, but don’t forget the word “progressive”, which has come to mark (among other things) the most reactionary elements in the communities, the NIMBYs resisting progress and change.
Indeed.Voting for socialist policies is never an intelligent, fully-informed decision. Journalists and official Democrats continually obfuscate the implications of their programs.
^
liberal In the original sense the word described those of the emerging middle classes in France and Great Britain who wanted to throw off the rules the dominant aristocracy had made to cement its own control. During the 1920s the meaning of the word changed to describe those who believed a certain amount of governmental action was necessary to protect the people's "real" freedoms as opposed to their purely legal - and not necessarily existent - freedoms. This philosophical about-face led former New York governor Thomas Dewey to say, after using the original definition, "Two hundred years later, the transmutation of the word, as the alchemist would say, has become one of the wonders of our time." In U.S. politics the word was used by George Washington to indicate a person of generosity or broad-mindedness, as he expressed distaste for those who would deprive Catholics and Jews of their rights. . . . In its present usage, the word acquired significance during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who defined it this way during the campaign for his first term: ". . . say that civilization is a tree which, as it grows, continually produces rot and dead wood. The radical says: 'Cut it down.' The conservative says: 'Don't touch it.' The liberal compromises: 'Let's prune, so that we lose neither the old trunk nor the new branches.'
currently, one who believes in more government action to meet individual needs; originally, one who resisted government encroachment on individual liberties.
Safire's dating of the change to the 1920s is congenial to my thesis that the word change happened in a relatively short period of time - hence logically would have required the active support of the chattering classes - rather than a gradual social evolution. It also, as my thesis suggests, dates the change to well after the founding of the Associated Press, and late enough for socialists to have been disillusioned over the difficulty of getting Americans to accept socialism under its own name. But also before the inauguration of the FDR Administration, which my reading suggested would have to be the case since FDR himself used the word so unselfconsciously.
I must however admit that http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=liberalism&searchmode=none suggests a much earlier date for the change:
. . . But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change," which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823.Caveat lector.
Another great read cIc. Thank you. Bookmarked!
Excellent. Thank you for pinging me on this, I appreciate it.
(Also...great tagline there. I would vote for that man in a heartbeat, but I suspect he is much too pragmatic and sensible ever to consider it!)
BTTT
Add to that "human rights" as opposed to "individual rights".
OUTSTANDING c_I_c!
BUMP-TO-THE-TRUTH!
Seriously, though. The word has been hijacked. It's like something right out of Orwell. Control the language, Control the thought.
The left is really good at hijacking words. Another biggie that comes to mind is the word “marriage.” For several years, I've been thinking about compiling a dictionary of liberalspeak. I've never gotten around to doing it. I'll check out Safire’s dictionary.
Fortunately, the technological stranglehold the media had on information has been weakened by the Internet.
A real thought inspiring essay.
The public worldview is manipulated through the use of language, and in particular a series of deceptive labels.
Socialism is service to the self disguised as service to others. In this way it is an inverted form of a large part of Christian doctrine (though not the most important part).
I often wonder about the extent to which lies and corruption are intentionally perpetrated by leftists in the media or in government, or by sympathetic members of general society.
For example, does Nancy Pelosi secretly think to herself how great it will be when we are finally a Stalinist society, or does she merely follow leftist path because it best expands her own personal power while diminishing everyone else’s? I have come to believe that most political leaders and media types don’t fully realize that their actions will lead us to the hell of totalitarianism (although most are probably conscious that they don’t care, which is almost as bad). I think the collective result of having many self-serving leaders is an inevitable fall into the horror of communism.
And self worship I believe is the primary motive for the individual who supports leftist politics. Every sociopolitical issue on the left has a narcissistic payoff. I believe our descent into the hell of totalitarianism is indeed precipitated on all levels by indulgence in that tricky and elusive sin, pride. Like you say, “the conceit of journalistic objectivity is profoundly subversive of democratic principle.”
Exactly. Ownership is simply credit for something. Ownership of money is nothing but pure information - the intrinsic value of a $10 bill is no different from that of a $1 bill. Socialism is simply the negation of the credit that people have which is reflected in their ownership of land, things, stocks, and money. Socialism negates the recognition of credit which individuals have earned or otherwise been given (as, by inheritance).Like you say, “the conceit of journalistic objectivity is profoundly subversive of democratic principle.”Maxine Waters inadvertently blurted out the truth that the Democrats want to "socialize" the oil companies on the pretext that politicians will provide more gas and oil, and demand less credit for it, than the oil companies are willing to. Not than the oil companies can, of course - no sentient being could possibly be dumb enough to believe that - but than the oil companies, in their greed relative to the virtuous politicians, are willing to do.
Puncture the ridiculous pretensions of "liberal" politicians to superior virtue, and there is nothing else to liberalism. That is however impossible while the people accept the conceit of journalistic objectivity. It seems to me that there is a solution to that conundrum - legal action against the Associated Press. SCOTUS held back in 1945 that the Associated Press is a monopoly. They did not apply an adequate remedy for the evils which I attribute to the AP, but that does not mean that another suit could never do so.
The first thing to go must be McCain-Feingold, which is probably to blame for the pathetic field of Republican candidate which culminated in the victory of John McCain in the primaries.
Yes - and since you cite that sentence back to me, it does sound somewhat like a tagline, doesn't it!
Words fail my desire to thank you for your contribution to the needed discourse of these troubled times.
I would note, in passing, that no one, to my knowledge, has proven that the Swift Boat Veterans wrote anything that was not true. Yet, as you have correctly noted, the unthinking public is convinced that they lied, an example of the much abused power of the press.
no one, to my knowledge, has proven that the Swift Boat Veterans wrote anything that was not true. Yet, as you have correctly noted, the unthinking public is convinced that they lied, an example of the much abused power of the press.
Yes . . . and if you were able to challenge them over it, their response would, likely as not, be to conduct a poll showing that a majority of people think the SBVT had been unfair to Kerry. What such a poll would prove, however, is simply and exclusively how much invidious influence AP journalism has managed to exert.
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.