I'm perplexed: In what way do you regard Donald Trump as a "liberal?"
Of course, I guess that would depend on which definition of "liberal" you ascribe to. And "liberal," as an English word, has undergone amazing transformations since its original coinage, (1) by John Locke, great British Empiricist philosopher, and Father of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the upshot of which was to compel the British Crown to recognize the "liberty interests" of the British common folk: Their natural, thus inalienable, right to life, liberty and property that any legitimate, just sovereign is REQUIRED to respect, and protect.
In short, John Locke's political philosophy was based on the individual person, as the natural bearer of inviolate rights by virtue of his human birth. The corollary is: No just political authority can transgress these natural rights of unique human persons.
But just as the word "marriage" has been totally redefined, its meaning actually inverted, in recent times, it seems the word "liberal" now means precisely what it didn't mean, in John Locke's time.
(2) By the time of LBJ's Great Society, such an understanding of "liberal" — referring to the key liberty interests of individual persons — had begun to mean something else entirely.
The modern understanding of the word "liberal" was transformed under LBJ (maybe even earlier, by FDR) to mean, not pertaining to the natural rights of individuals, but to the "natural rights" of different classes composing the whole society. Which are positively conceived as always in a kind of Darwinian competition with one another.
But at the end of the day, the goal of this definition of "liberal" is to make the "rich" pony up for the "poor," so to "equalize" social outcomes. All of this, I gather, in the spirit of Robin Hood....
[But as the late, great Maggie Thatcher (RIP) observed, the fundamental problem with socialism — which is what the definition of "liberalism" has been transformed into in recent times — is that, sooner or later, you're going to run out of rich people. And then — WHAT???]
Under LBJ, "Liberal" was redefined to mean citizen compassion for the plight of disadvantaged minorities. One is "liberal" if ones shows that "one cares" about these poor, abject people who cannot even stand up on their own two legs, let alone provide for their families. Government must step in, to address their needs.
The problem with that is the government, if it commits monies to such projects, is not spending its own money: It has no money of its own to spend. What it spends is a direct levy on taxpayer wallets. And my sense is a whole lot of my fellow Americans are utterly sick and tired, maybe even furious, about the ways the federal government is spending our money, mostly against our wishes and judgments.
Which brings us to category (3): What does Obama — and the next generation of American politicians he's trying to promote — think "liberal" means?
Certainly, it is not category (1). And category (2) is doubtful. Though it is fashionable in the MSM to regard Obama as a "liberal" in the sense of category (2).
Omigod, he's gone way past category (2). He finds it wanting, in need of "updating." Though sheltered by the word "liberal," he is engaged in a most illiberal enterprise: the destruction of the United States of America, the sheer betrayal of the American People.
In his view, a new world of "justice" cannot be established unless and until an anarchist operation has been successfully conducted and concluded, against all the forms and mores of the American "status quo." Then — and only then — can a new reality be established, a "reality" constructed in his own image, in his own interest and in the interest of the narrow class that supports him.
Polite company continues to label this abject radical a "liberal." Maybe a socialist. But under category (2), these two amount to the same thing.
So, dear Catherine of Aragon, where do you fit The Donald into these three categories of "liberal?" I'd say, (1), if any of them.
Beyond that, methinks he is one of the most "illiberal" persons I have encountered in recent times.
So, could that make him a conservative?
Betty boop, you are much more thoughtful poster than those one liners from people suffering from DTS. They are not worth responding to.
Betty....Trump has been a proponent for single-payer government funded healthcare which is a socialistic step to the left of Obamacare.... He’s also been a supporter of abortion, ....has advocated an assault weapons ban,.... and has even floated the idea of forcing the rich to forfeit 14% of their total wealth to reduce the federal debt.
His history is well worth be concerned about....He donated ‘heavily’ to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns, and to the Clinton Foundation. ...Not to mention that though he has stated he gave to all political parties a closer look tells us his financial support for Democrat House and Senate candidates has far eclipsed what he’s donated to GOP candidates......According to public campaign disclosures, 21 of Trump’s 30 political donations have gone to liberal Democrats and political action committees. Only seven went to Republicans
Trump’s been a liberal for the last 2 decades and a few months ago, he has an epiphany where he does a 180 degree turn overnight. I’m simply not convinced....
LOL, no, I’m not talking about the classical definition of the word.
Trump’s liberal history is well documented. We’ve been posting it nonstop here on FR. If you really don’t know about it, then you haven’t vetted your candidate. At ALL.
Why, in July, he admitted that many of his positions are those of a Democrat. That’s fine with you, is it?
I’m perplexed: In what way do you regard Donald Trump as a “liberal?”
other liberals do not see liberals as “liberal”...
they see them as conservative.. not “a conservative”
but taking the conservative approach to matters.
to them being liberal is NOT radical.. it’s conservative..
being “a conservative” to them is radical..
It’s bizarro world exactly..
Omigod, he’s gone way past category (2). He finds it wanting, in need of “updating.” Though sheltered by the word “liberal,” he is engaged in a most illiberal enterprise: the destruction of the United States of America, the sheer betrayal of the American People.
Democrats have been betraying the American people for over a hundred years... maybe two hundred..
It’s not new totally normal for them to do it...
Yes....... ALL OF THEM.. even the ones in the armed services.. that died..
Simply; To BE a democrat is to be a Traitor.. (in some respect)
Stalin had his useful idiots too... SOoo he used them..