Call me splitting hairs, but I believe there needs to be a clarification on the word Liberal.
Let me go back in time, backwards. (I think that makes sense)
Definition of Liberal:
Today: means a progressive in favor of large government, the common good is greater than the individual good.
1930s: Communists, socialists, and although they were on the right side of things fascism was considered liberal.
1900-1930: Progressives, believed in large government and strong nationalism (border-line racists...no, they were racists.
1860s: Republicans, Lincoln. believed national government was more important than state governments. a growth in government overall.
1776-1790: Liberal meant small government, a republic. limited government. individual rights.
This brings up another issue I have. It is a little off the subject. I don't believe humans are progressing into a better being, and have really not changed much at all from the time we were cavemen (caveperson, sorry). But many people believe that humans are evolving into something better. You can see it in pop culture with movies about the future. You can read it in science texts and so on. If humans are evolving into something better, when will we get to be the best? Will there always be room for improvement? I bring this up, because I believe the idea of a Republic is the best form of government and there is really no need to improve upon it. But even if we do progress into something better, would we find ourselves in a few years or so progressing into some other form of society that is a better system? When does this progressiveness end? I guess is my question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ok i made a long post. it dissappeared and so me = pissed. Here's the cliff notes:
ReplyDeleteWords change. Its the nature of language. It has been documented and studied so it is no surprise that the word liberal as changed over a couple hundred years.
i think it is hard to deny that humans have progressed. even if you don't believe in evolution it is hard to deny that we have progressed. We have learned to make tools/fire, we have discovered the Self and we have huge leaps in understanding through anthropology, sociology, psychology and philosophy.
i apologize for the brevity and probably the smug feeling in the post but i wrote short and frustrated.
I hate it when that happens. I really hate it. and it always happens when you are writing some good things.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the changing words. It's what makes language so interesting. I just don't like labels especially in the political realm. There are not lefties and righties, just voters. I know it is dream land to believe that labeling could end. So I will have to deal with it, that doesn't mean I have to like it.
About the progressive thing. I know you disagree with me on this issue. I see it as our great debate. And since no one else writes on this blog, I feel I can dive into the subject for a little bit.
I agree that humans have discovered new tools and new ways of thinking. But is it not just new tools that do the same thing as old ones? It's a different means, but not a different end. The hammer and the nail were invented to keep things together. A nail-gun, although more sophisticated, does the same thing. So yes, the invention has progressed in a way, but the core of the issue has stayed the same. I read different philosophies and different religions, and there are some interesting points-of-view, however, those points-of-views are just the tool and not really changing the issue. Christianity believes humans are born with sin. Other philosophies suggest that humans are born good and society and environment make them bad. They are both trying to explain why there is evil in the world. Is one more evolved than the other, I really don't think so, since they are just different tools trying to explain the same core issue.
Now, humans once thought solar eclipses were a sign from god, but now we know that it's just when the moon gets in the way of the sun. I guess you could say that is progress, but is it really progress of humanity? The moon even without humanity would block the sun with or without our understanding of it. It may only mean that the masses won't get suckered into believing something as silly as a god blocking out the sun because they didn't pay the priests enough money. But is it not true that the masses still today get suckered into believing something silly. Such as a bad loan, or someone selling some quick-fix tool on TV (or maybe global warming, but I don’t want to get into that debate). So we as humans now know how the sun and moon work, but that doesn't stop humanity for falling for something foolish. So has humanity really progressed?
I truly look forward to your reply.
I think that the incremental changes in our understanding shift our thinking and that is what i am calling "progress." I don't actually like using the word progress because i think it has too many preconceptions tied to it. In any case, when the people first saw the moon they thought it was (i don't know, i'm making this part up) the face of an angel, then over time they thought it was another planet, then after further study the realized it is a satellite orbiting earth. With that understanding they realized they might be able to travel to it, and on and on. With each new realization opens a new door to the possibilities of what the human race can achieve and become. This is maybe a more practical example: when Obama became president some analysts were talking about how MLK's "Dream" finally came true. So now, with a black president, some black people who otherwise did not think they ever had a chance to become president have that door open to them. If nothing else just to dream. But with that door open they can consider all kinds of options that they once thought were implausible if not impossible.
ReplyDeleteIn short, i think that the technological advances and the anthro/social discoveries that we make give us a better understanding of how we as humans function and where our place in the universe is. And the better that we understand those thing, the greater our chance for further discovery and "progress."
this is not relevant to the particular post but fits in the politics blog. I just finished a book by Justice Breyer called "Active Liberty." In the last paragraph he mentions an interesting quote by Pericles: "We do not say that the man who fails to participate in politics is a man who minds his own business. We say that he is a man who has no business here."
ReplyDeleteI was on the subway and there was this guy who was trying to hit on this Russian girl visiting new york. And he said, I don't really care about politics, I don't wote or anything. And he said it in a tone of voice, to say that it was cool how he wasn't into politics. It annoyed the hell out of me.
ReplyDeleteApathy is today's political cancer. Schumer (d-ny) openly said the "American people don't care about pork and how we in congress spend our money" (not a direct quote but very close) I was out-raged that he said that. And a few others were too, but when I would tell people that he said that, they would say "well, it's kind of true" and laugh. It had no effect on them.
I hear people say, that they have a right Not to vote. And that is true, but what is the agruement for not voting. The only one I can think of, is if the people boycott the vote and voter turn-out is really low, say 30% vote for the presdient. That president really has no poltical "capital" even if he/she won 80% of the vote. but to not vote, just because he don't care or you don't believe in the system is just plan stupid, and they have no business here.
wow that was kind of a rant. sorry. I just feel the American people are fat. They are fat and not awake. And whats even worse, is they don't care that they are fat and not awake.
I fear for Liberty.
I couldn't agree more Scott. People of course have the right not to vote, but to do so just without making any kind of informed decision really bothers me. And most of the time its pure laziness and ignorance. They don't want to get up and go vote at, oh no, a complicated voting machine. Yet millions vote for American Idol every Wednesday. And these are usually the people who are the most passionate about hating the government. Change happens slowly in this country because the people don't forcefully demand it. If there was 85% the system would get better, because someone would have a mandate to actually get rid of these pompous windbags. More later.
ReplyDeletei was talking to a friends roommmate the other day and she wanted to talk about something controversial so we talked about abortion. We didn't have the same views on it which i thought was what she was looking for, a discussion. So when she said that she believes that a fetus is a life i asked why. It was harmless. i didn't ask in an attacking tone, i asked because we were discussing and i wanted to know her reasons. She said she doesn't have to have a reason to believe something. I think thats the stupidest thing on earth so i said that was ignorant. Then she got really mad but thats fine. I don't care if she doesn't' agree with me but at least have an educated opinion. Don't vomit someone else's opinion on me, an opinion who know nothing about.
ReplyDeleteIt looked like it was rant hour so i took my chance.
Thanks for the post Dan. Welcome. Nathan, Dan. Dan, Nathan. I would say the two of you have the same ideas, but maybe different reasons for coming to those ideas so please feel free to debate.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Dan that it is laziness for the most part and that maybe they feel embarrassed that they don't know the issues. If the people would only realize that they are pretty much on the same level as the officials in government they would vote more. There seems to be this view that officials in government Must know what they are doing and Must be more educated than the rest of the public. That is not the case. Some of the officials in government have no idea what they are doing. But Dan, do we want fast swift changing government? The founding fathers believed in slow moving government. (except for slavery and civil rights, but could one argue that swiftly changing the laws of such obvious ideals create havoc among the citizenry?) I find that Obama keeps saying he has political capital, but he won almost with the same percent as Bush in 2004. It brings up a good question on, how swift should change occur in government?
It annoys me how people can say they "believe" something without really coming to a reason why they believe it. In a way it is what Dan said, how people are just lazy. A child believes without questioning. One of the reasons I started the blog was to question my hypothesis on Republics. I think its always a good practice to question our beliefs every now and then. Socrates, (or was it Aristotle?) went around the city of Athens and went up to random people and started asking them “why”. “Why are you walking today?” “For work” “Why are you going to work” “I need to have money to survive.” And so on until he got the person to say “I don’t know”. Then he had them. It’s an annoying strategy, but very effective I think. Why does she believe abortion is wrong? And if her answer is “I don’t know” then you and her will see how foolish her belief is. It is founded on nothing, but hear-say. (for some reason this is sounding like a sermon, so sorry. I’m just thinking out-loud.) I found in most people, when it comes to politics, have really no idea why they believe this or that. Because they do not ask themselves; why. I feel there are some basic political theory questions that everyone should answer. Almost like a creed of what they believe and why. We have touched upon this one, but the idea of power of the majority should be one of them. (that is tied with the court system, great point earlier there Nathan. It changed my view of the courts.) Maybe something about the clash between Liberty and security. But that’s kind of abstract.
I’m going to take a leap here and assume that this girl was a Christian. It’s frustrating when Christians use the Bible to explain their political philosophy. On issues like abortion and gays and evolution, I always try to base my beliefs on secular reasoning for political theory. Religion is great, (that’s a debate there) but it shouldn’t (and even Jesus was for this) be included in politics. Politics are of this world, while faith and religion are of the next. There is no need to mix the two. When Jesus said “give to Caesars what is Caesars” he wasn’t really talking about taxes. He pretty much was saying “I don’t give a crap about Cesar and Rome, because I’m thinking only of eternity not the present.” Religion and politics are almost of two different universes. So when Christians, Jews, Muslims and other religions try to throw their thoughts using their sacred texts into the political mix it only messes things up. I’m just thinking out-loud.
But three big ideas came out of this, that should have received their own posts. First, what should be the speed and rate of change in government? Second, is there a place for religion in government? Third, we should come up with a set of questions to ask ourselves and others to gain a better understanding of our political philosophy. This should help with voting and participating in government.
Great comments.
good post there scott and hello dan, mucho gusto. i guess i'll start with the random stuff. You're right, it was ol' Socrates. #2, yes that girl was a christian. And what is more annoying is she prides herself on her political aptitude and awareness of issues. Maybe thats why i was so dumbfounded when she said she doesn't have to have a reason to believe something. Or maybe its just becuase it goes against my whole worldview. moving on...
ReplyDeleteFirst, i agree that government should be slow moving. It can be terribly frustrating at times when it feels like the government is a ways behind the mood and views of the nation. But think we have an example of the government being to quick and rash with Prohibition. So i think in general, a slow moving government is beneficial.
Second, i believe that religion has no place in government. I think think that it is fine for people to practice religion as long as it does no harm to others. And i think there in lies the problem. Government by nature affects the entire people of a nation so when you mix government and religion, you are putting onto people something they have not agreed to bear. I'm sure we're all familiar with the views of several of the founding fathers on how religion and government don't mix.
Nathan, I don't know how you got mixed up with a bad seed like Scott, but a pleasure to meet you all the same.
ReplyDeleteYou both bring up an excellent point about government moving slowly. I agree that for most issues, most of the time that slow change is a positive rather than a negative. However, there have been times in our history when that hasn't been to our best interest. Slavery, women's right to vote, civil rights, etc etc etc. I don't advocate rapid government change for every hot button issue, but I'd like to see more smart change on issues like education and medical care. You figure out those two issues and the rest might seem a whole lot easier. Obviously, more people voting doesn't neccesarily mean that we'll get the right change or that all our problems will be solved. But it would be a nice change for someone in Congress or the White House to have an actual mandate for change rather than just rhetoric.
I've been reading this book on America from 1815-1848 and it's really incredible to see the affect religion had in every walk of life. You had the Second Great Awakening which spawned all sorts of new religious sects and organizations. For better or worse, religion has been apart of our national framework since the beginning and probably will for the rest of time. I don't begrudge anyone believing in anything, I just don't want it forced on me. That's what upset me most about Bush's presidency. You had a president represented the extremist view of less than a third of the population thrusting his views on the country and the world. And doing it under the guise of smaller government and compassionate conservatism.
Computer crashing.....more later.
here here, dan! AS for the quick change, i feel like the value of a slow moving government is obviously going to come with some drawbacks and those examples you gave i feel are some of the unfortunate consequences. Maybe i am just being complacent in that assessment and should always be looking to improve the system and it effectiveness.
ReplyDeleteSincerely,
Nathan
I did not expect that view from you nathan. I think a slow government, at times maybe wrong, still creates a needed stability for the society.
ReplyDeleteNathan and I talked about health-care in the post Nature's Rights (Part-one), dan. I came up with an idea for health-care and would like your thoughts. I agree that the government needs to fix that and education, before it can really fix anything else. To be honest I have little to no faith that the government can.
i'm full of surprises!
ReplyDelete