Here is the liberals' problem in a nutshell: More than 30 percent of Americans happily answer to the appellation "conservative," while 18 percent call themselves "liberal." And yet when questioned by pollsters, a super-majority of more than 60 percent take positions liberal in everything but name. Indeed, on many if not most issues, Americans hold views well to the left of those espoused by almost any national Democratic politician.
In a May survey published by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 65 percent of respondents said they favor providing health insurance to all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, and 86 percent said they favor raising the minimum wage. Seventy-seven percent said they believe the country "should do whatever it takes to protect the environment." A September Gallup Poll finds that 59 percent consider the Iraq War a mistake and 63 percent agree that US forces should be partially or completely withdrawn.
Source.
---------------------------------------------------------
How have they managed to turn "Liberal" into a dirty word at the same time as "selfish" and "greedy" people are permitted to call themselves "social conservatives" ??

Good points, Frank. And why do conservatives seem to be so much better-organized and articulate? For example, Fox News is virtually the "Republican Party Channel" while the liberal focus -- if any -- of other news organizations is diffuse at best. Another example: The liberal movement has tried to counter the likes of Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing bloviating broadcasters with Air America Radio (do I have the name right?) featuring Al Franken, Jeanine Garafalo, and other semi-celebs; but they all seem to hem and haw, unable to complete a coherent sentence and get their messages out. Surely the liberal left is not lacking in talent or brains -- what's going on?

Yes, I am much more liberal than I admit. My parents listen to Rush Limbaugh and I'm done having the arguments with them where I ask them to define what Liberal and Conservative mean because it seems to be used as "Evil" and "Good" rather than with any real meaning. I am done with arguments with them because they are more liberal than they admit too. They don't want abortion made illegal because they know that it will result in back alley abortion centers where women end up dying, but they don't support government funding of abortions... they may think that "liberals" want to kill babies but they don't think their daughter is liberal because they have more respect for me than the term liberal as defined in their minds allows. The reality is that the term itself is used to mask ignorance and hatred and it allows people like Rush to divide the country neatly when it is not evenly divided until people start throwing around terms like "Liberal" and "Conservative". It allows people who are vehemently Pro-Life to think of people who support Choice as Pro-Abortion... it's all ridiculous.

I don't think Conservatives even know what they are anymore either, but at least they have Rush to tell them that they're better than the liberal scum that's ruining America.

quote:

Surely the liberal left is not lacking in talent or brains -- what's going on?

Watch the Daily Show. It's not specifically "Liberal" but I think it is about the best response to Rush Limbaugh out there. Rush can spit fire but John Stewart cuts to the quick with a laugh and without making an ass out of himself or his audience... sorry to anyone who wears a Rush tie - what a bunch of dweebs.

Isn't it strange, then, that we have somehow managed to elect a congress and an administration that promises to act exactly opposite to the wishes of the majority. Don't we know what we're doing?

What I would like to know is just what is the liberal message??? It can't be that hard to articulate... ...can it???

quote:

Originally posted by aminator2002:
Watch the Daily Show. It's not specifically "Liberal" but I think it is about the best response to Rush Limbaugh out there. Rush can spit fire but John Stewart cuts to the quick with a laugh and without making an ass out of himself or his audience...

I like the Daily Show: it's usually very funny (and the best-selling book was good, too). Yet can a 30 minute show on Comeday Central influence the masses? Especially given that Stewart undoubtedly comes off as smug, aloof, and abrasive to those first tuning in.

I'd say that this is a pretty impressive list of liberals -- living & dead. Also add Mr.
Art Buchwald, Kurt Vonnegut, Jim Borgman, etc.
BTW, I happen to think Al Franken has quite a lot to say even with his dash of sarcastic wit as well as Bill Maher.
And count me in too -- even though I'm not in the same league.

quote:

Originally posted by Kelleygirl:
I'd say that this is a pretty impressive list of liberals -- living & dead. Also add Mr.
Art Buchwald, Kurt Vonnegut, Jim Borgman, etc.
BTW, I happen to think Al Franken has quite a lot to say even with his dash of sarcastic wit as well as Bill Maher.
And count me in too -- even though I'm not in the same league.

I take a look at this so-called "pretty impressive list of liberals--living & dead", I see some names, especially those who are dead, who might not appreciate having their name on this list.

For example, John F. & Robert F. Kennedy would disown Teddy. They wouldn't want to even be associated with that loser.

Also if Martin Luther King was still around, he wouldn't be in alliance with Jesse Jackson. He wouldn't have anything to with the NAACP or any other organizations that cater to the politics of African Americans. His philosophy got lost with them years ago.

And Bill Clinton, yes he was definitely a liberal. But he didn't want to admit it. He preferred instead to label himself as a "new Democrat". Whatever the hell that is...

Then there is the distinguished Senator from my home state of Illinois. Barack Obama while he is a Democrat I do not see him as cut from the same cloth as the typical liberal. I forsee a time in his career he may very well want to publicly disassociate himself from the liberals who so dominate the Democratic Party base. So far from what I see he certainly ain't one of them.

quote:

Originally posted by Kelleygirl:
BTW, I happen to think Al Franken has quite a lot to say even with his dash of sarcastic wit

He's knowledgeable and witty, writes good books, and performs prepared material well. But his tv and radio broadcasts are painfully awkward to watch/listen to. His shows lack the smooth and assured manner (however phony and theatrical it may be) that "good communicators" like Rush (or Ronald Reagan!) use to deliver convincing messages to mainly uncritical and gullible audiences.

quote:

Originally posted by Professor:
that "good communicators" like Rush (or Ronald Reagan!) use to deliver convincing messages to mainly uncritical and gullible audiences.

"uncritical and gullible"...Hardly...

But if you want an example of "uncritical and gullible" I have the perfect example...Bill Clinton. The biggest disgrace to ever sit in the Oval Office. A snake oil salesman with the nickname of "Slick Willie" going all the way back to Arkansas. He could give a speech & his base would hang on every word, truth or lie...it didn't matter. Because those who followed him thought he was God.

Cheated on his wife & lied about it before a Grand Jury. Disbarred from practicing law in his home state for 5 years...eight years of scandal after scandal after scandal...not to mention the impeachment.

And his following never saw the light..."Uncritical and gullible!!!"

Go back fifty or seventy years. Were there in 1955 or 1935 policies which are now accepted as normal in America, policies which neither Republicans nor Democrats would decry or change now, but which back then would have been termed most definitely liberal?

If not,how about in 1905 ? It may be that the USA has become more 'liberal' over the years but what was 'liberal' or even 'socialist' then is not now so regarded. The word is now used for, well, even more liberal thinking

I disagree with even using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as employed in today's dialogs, simply because they represent a facile means of pigeon-holing individuals and thus avoid going beyond superficiality to the depths of a complex subject. With the exception of the relatively few "hard-liners" on both ends of the spectrum, I would bet that most people hold a variety of opinions on key issues: the role of government, abortion, Affirmative Action, foreign policy, religion, taxes, gay marriage, etc., etc.

"What I would like to know is just what is the liberal message??? It can't be that hard to articulate ...can it??? LR

".."good communicators" like Rush (or Ronald Reagan!) use to deliver convincing messages to mainly uncritical and gullible audiences" Professor,
_________________________________________

The above two observations may well explain the reason for the glaring disparity between the wishes of the majority and the actions of the government.

In my not-overly humble opinion, the reason is propaganda. Actually, in spite of what LR suggests, it is rather hard to articulate. Life is complicated, we are busy, we have to deal with many issues, there is so much to decide and so little time to devote to studying the complexities of modern existence. As a result, we tend to be less critical and more gullible than we like to believe. The people with the money, the corporate interests, the self-styled conservatives, are better able and more willing to spend money in the pursuit of more money, and to hang on to as much of it as possible. I submit that the time honored way to accomplish those goals is through the incessant drumbeat of the simplistic messages of propaganda. We think of it as advertising and have been convinced that it is what enables us to profit universally through lower prices. Does anyone seriously believe that the billions spent on advertising of prescription drugs makes them cheaper in this country than they are in Canada, for example? The same people who convince us that we are under threat from Iraq's WMD, convince us that we need to trade our car in for the latest gas-guzzling SUV, and that the cure for our struggle against gas prices is drilling for more at the expense of the environment.

The sad truth is that we have been sold a bill of goods. Sold down the river against our better judgement. We have been bombarded with simplistic slogans and sound bites. We have, indeed created more millionaires and billionaires, but millions of our fellow citizens have been left without adequate food, health, or shelter as a by-product of unfettered greed on the one hand and widespread apathy on the other.

"I take a look at this so-called "pretty impressive list of liberals--living & dead", I see some names, especially those who are dead, who might not appreciate having their name on this list.

For example, John F. & Robert F. Kennedy would disown Teddy. They wouldn't want to even be associated with that loser.

Also if Martin Luther King was still around, he wouldn't be in alliance with Jesse Jackson. He wouldn't have anything to with the NAACP or any other organizations that cater to the politics of African Americans. His philosophy got lost with them years ago." LR
--------------------------------------------

How fortunate that we have someone who speaks for the dead liberals

[

quote:

Originally posted by frankvan:

How fortunate that we have someone who speaks for the dead liberals

[

Mr. Frank-The past lives & works of dead liberals speak for themselves. All a person has to do is study a little bit & compare what they did to what is going on today. I stand behind my observation.

quote:

Originally posted by Lighteningrodd:

quote:

Originally posted by frankvan:

How fortunate that we have someone who speaks for the dead liberals

[

Mr. Frank-The past lives & works of dead liberals speak for themselves. All a person has to do is study a little bit & compare what they did to what is going on today. I stand behind my observation.

Mr.Lightening - Some of us may well be students of dead liberals. Others among us were contemporaries.

I think juan typed what I wanted to say. The only people I know who run around saying "I'm _____" are conservatives because they are terrified and I don't have a clue why it's necessary except perhaps that their low opinion of liberals sends terror through their veins that they might be mistaken for one. I never cared much for Clinton and I certainly don't care for Bush. I do not know what normal person would have beliefs that go strictly down a party line. I think key liberal ideals are : equal rights, social programs to provide opportunities, education, environment, right to choice for women, and gay rights. From what I can tell, Liberals do not want to reduce taxes at the expense of creating deficits and tend to reduce military spending. And liberals do not want to see any religion in government.

Death penalty and prison reform seem to be outside any particular party classification but that's the only issue that doesn't get politicized by the party system.

When Clinton was in office, it seemed that the Conservatives had no real stance on issues except to be against what Clinton was doing... same thing going on here different party.

quote:

Originally posted by aminator2002:
When Clinton was in office, it seemed that the Conservatives had no real stance on issues except to be against what Clinton was doing... same thing going on here different party.

ami-So why did many people not like Clinton??? While issues are always out there, Bill clinton could not just try to take care of business. What he always did was play a bunch of head games on Congress. Always creating a wrestling match on the issues. Actually his motive was to attempt to make the Republicans look bad. Always stretching issues out.

One perfect example was when he signed a bill to "change welfare as we know it". The bill was originally a Republican bill. But what he did was go through a wrestling match process, making out like it was his bill. After everything was said & done, he signed it. After much politicizing.

He always took credit for "balancing the budget". Never gave the Republican Congress an ounce of credit for helping to make it possible. Had his own party been in control of Congress, it would have never have happened.

Also there were some Democrats in Congress who found Bill Clinton to work with. One time I was listening to former Congressman Tim Penny (D)Minnesota, discussing how Bill Clinton done things. Congress would go through a process on any given bill, negociate & discuss with the Clinton Administration, have a bill made up & ready to present to him for his signature. What Clinton would do then would throw back a curve ball with something else that was not previously discussed.

So it was not just Republicans dislike for Clinton. Democrats as well. I will also point out this...why did so many Democrats in both Houses of Congress go over to the Republican ranks while Clinton was President???

quote:

[LR:]"uncritical and gullible"...Hardly...

I was referring to the entire populace as a whole, not just one demographic segment. "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." --HL Menken

quote:

Bill Clinton. The biggest disgrace to ever sit in the Oval Office.

There are plenty of recent presidents who qualify for that title, especially the current one (but I won't name names ). I voted against Clinton twice but I might feel differently about those choices today. Clinton's conduct may have disgraced the office of president, but it didn't disgrace the United States of America -- nobody outside the U.S. cared what he did with Monica, whereas the whole world cares about our government's involvement in, say, a botched war in Iraq.

quote:

[JR:] With the exception of the relatively few "hard-liners" on both ends of the spectrum, I would bet that most people hold a variety of opinions on key issues: the role of government, abortion, Affirmative Action, foreign policy, religion, taxes, gay marriage, etc.

I quite agree, and that's consistent with the findings in frankvan's post that started this thread, about closet liberals among self-identified conservatives.

Political parties refer to their stands on various issues as the planks in their platform. Individual voters, however, have broader "platforms" often with some combination of Republican an Democratic planks. Other metaphors come to mind: genetic alleles, fuzzy sets, Schroedinger's cat... . Important elections typically reduce to a single binary choice (A or B) that forces you to make some kind of composite or gestalt assessment of all your (possibly conflicted) feelings, then cast your vote. The two-party system in the U.S. is remarkably stable. Nader, Perot, and (in 1980) Anderson broke the monotony, but only as sideshows.

So even if many a true-blue (true-red?) Republican actually holds personal liberal views on various issues, as suggested by the Pew poll, once they cast that vote for the Republican candidate they have effectively voted against all the liberal ideas they support. How valid is this oversimplified interpretation? I can think of plenty of exceptions.

Colin Powell (back when he was a plausible future candidate) was said to be (something like) a "social progressive and fiscal conservative." Another mixed bag. I wonder how such a candidate would survive the political system, whether Republican or Democrat.