[bdeaner]

I thought this was an interesting article highlighting the failure of liberalism in the age of terrorism. I'm interested to hear how others respond to it.

[hellinahandcart]

Can't you post the entire article here? I'd have to register with the NYT in order to read it, and I'm simply not going to do that.

[cardinal4]

The age of liberalism died at 0847 on 9/11. The continued dem/left/lib attacks on the right are being noticed by people who didnt pay attention to politics before. So Im encouraging all of the lib/dem attacks.

[hellinahandcart]

In an article called "The Case for Liberalism" in the December issue of Harper's, for example, George S. McGovern tries to revive liberalism as a loyal opposition in the face of possible war. He says its definition as a political philosophy is "based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man and the autonomy of the individual, and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties." In contrast, conservatism's function, Mr. McGovern argues, is "to cling tightly to the past"; it cannot be relied upon for "constructive new ideas" that might lead to a "more just and equitable society or a more peaceful and cooperative world."

Haha. Is George too old to run for office? It's hard to tell these days...

Someone should tell him that the left hasn't had a new idea in nearly thirty years, let alone a constructive one.

And this bullcrap about the essential goodness of man falls apart when confronted by real live evil. That's why a lot of former liberals have stopped listening to people like McGovern.

[Kay Soze]

Here's where liberlsisim falls apart:

"...political philosophy is "based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man and the autonomy of the individual, and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."

As long as there is no guarantee of the "essential goodness of man" I will continue to support my conservative values and in turn support my police depts domestic and international.

[guitfiddlist]

Somebody once said "The facts of life are conservative". And that is the most direct attack upon Liberals you can make. Do these hypocrites lock their homes and cars when they leave? Why? Don't they trust people? Do they walk down the street passing out THEIR bucks to screaming, urine-encrusted homeless drunks? No way. Just look at the so-called "Progressives" in San Francisco absorbing the inevitable results of their own pig ignorance. They're not so bloody "progressive" when it comes to their own personal worlds.

Today's liberalism or "progressivism" - or whatever silly-assed new word they use to avoid the stigma attached to the failure of the same Dimwit philosophy - cannot survive without a pathologically delusional hypocrisy.