It's time to resell liberalism to this country.

[K-W]

The dream and goals of liberalism were sold to the American people. The labor unions god out thier message and sold the ideas of economic liberalism. The enviromentalists got out thier message to the country and sold the nation on conservation. The civil rights movement forced America to confront the race conflict and fored America to take a moral stand on it, and it took the right stand.

The labor movement in this country is a shell of what it was. And those lessons were learned decades ago.
It hasnt been cool to love the enviroment since I was a small child.
The civil rights movement is a part of modern history now.
The women's right's movement is facing the same fate.

The history of progress is the history of setbacks. True sociatal progress is a very slow process. We cant just win the war of ideas once and claim victory. We are going to have to win it, and our children are going to have to win it. And hopefully somewhere along the line it will be won for good.

It is we, the people, who are responsible for this. It is what we must make our fundemental goal. We need to sell our ideas to america. We need momentum. We need to take back our economy through scheer numbers.

We need a movement, we need people, we need to sell our fundemental ideas. If we do this the rest will take care of itself.

[bryant69]

1. Actually on the labor movement

The lessons were never learned. In particular the idea that workers have rights and should have dignity was never learned. Instead we have a Wall Street Journal that demonizes workers at every opportunity, and particularly union workers.

I do agree that we need to think about how to have a message and sell that message.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[K-W]

4. The lessons were learned. They were just forgotton.

There was a time when we had a very strong labor movement that was extremely influential in American Life. They won massive concessions from employers and changed the face of our economy.

[ecstatic]

2. forget labels, we need to resell common sense! nt

[cprise]

3. Civil rights movement is very liberal, but

...the labor union movement owed more to socialist thought. Liberalism doesn't provide a strong economic justification for policy, because it is mainly about freedom.

Interesting thread..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1418469

[K-W]

5. I think the labor movement was about freedom.

I dont consider economic freedom terribly different than political freedom.

[IrateCitizen]

6. No, the labor movement was about equality...

There has been a neverending struggle between "freedom" and "equality" ever since this nation is founded. In order for freedom to be maximized, equality must be ignored. However, if equality is ignored, then freedom is only available to those lucky enough to be able to buy it.

[K-W]

7. Your logic seems off.

So the labor movement wasn't about freedom because it was about equality. But the civil rights movement was about freedom... so it must not have been about equality?

In fact the civil rights movement was entirely about equality. Not for the sake of equality, but equality for the sake of freedom. And the labor movement, at its most radical, was about economic equality, not for the sake of equality, but for the sake of freedom.

But the labor movement wasnt about equality. It had its communists, but they were not the majority. The majority just wanted a bigger slice of the pie. Not an equal share. It was about giving workers the economic freedom to live better lives.

[IrateCitizen]

9. No, it isn't, because I stick to definitions in my explanation.

Yours is an exercise in rhetorical acrobatics that would be difficult to duplicate.

The labor movement was not about gaining economic freedom for the workers. If anything, it was about fighting the economic freedom of the capitalists in order to provide economic security for the working class.

Now, the workers may have experienced increases in their individual freedom as a result of this economic security. But it was gained at a slight loss of freedom for the capitalist class, who was no longer free to exploit the working class for profit quite so much.

In present-day terms, it is encroaching on the freedom of a company by telling them that they must control toxic emissions from their facility. But that infringement is necessary and beneficial, because it helps ensure the equality of nearby residents in their right to breathe clean air.

Exploitation, sadly, is a part of freedom. That is why the worst excesses of freedom must be tempered with some semblance of equality. But it is inaccurate to equate freedom and equality, because they are not at all the same thing.

[K-W]

10. Please explain your logic then.

You argued that the labor movement was not about freedom, but about equality. Explaining that freedom and equality are mutually exclusive.

So please, oh please, explain to me how the civil rights movement was about freedom. Because I think it is safe to assume that it was about equality.



You seem to have a strange definition of freedom. We are talking about freedom in the political philosophy sense, not freedom in the dictionary sense. We are not discussing freedom in the general sense of being able to do anything. We are discussing the kind of freedom that our nation was founded upon. The freedom to live and persue your life. That is exactly what the labor movement was about. It was about raising the quality of life of workers. It was about escaping from the incredible control that employers have on employees through collective action. It was about labor getting a larger share of the economic output of the economy.

Only in America could someone confuse the political concept of freedom with the freedom to exploit.

[IrateCitizen]

11. Like I said, I stick to definitions -- I don't change them as it suits me.

The civil rights movement was about equality, and through that equality came an increase in freedom among those who benefitted from it. But that increase in equality, and freedom for those who were fighting for their equality, resulted in a DECREASE in the freedom of other groups -- particularly whites in the South, who had benefitted tremendously from the denial of freedom and equality to the Black population.

Likewise, you say that the freedom to exploit should be eliminated from the conversation. It can't be, because it is still an aspect of freedom. It's an ugly aspect to be certain, but it's an aspect of freedom nonetheless. Any libertarian will tell you so, as well. And if they don't, then they're being dishonest, because the freedom to exploit is a very real part of their philosophy.

I didn't say that freedom and equality are mutually exclusive. What I did say is that equality is achieved by limiting the freedom of some, in order to increase it for others. That is essentially what happened through the labor movement. But it cannot be denied that the increase in freedom that workers gained through economic security was achieved through limiting the freedom of the industrialists to maximize profit by exploiting workers.

I'm simply trying to maintain consistency in my definitions, because I think it's important to be consistent in them. It makes it easier to make a point, IMHO. If you don't think that consistency in definitions is important, that's entirely your choice. However, don't be surprised when it becomes difficult at times for you to explain your position or point of view, especially to those who may not have the same perspective as you do.

[K-W]

13. You have to put words in context.

I havent changed any definitions.

You are using a definition of the word freedom that is absolutely useless in this conversation. Are we also discussing the freedom to turn purple? You can use freedom in a general sense to discuss the ability of someone to do ANYTHING. Thats fine, but that doesnt relate to what we are talking about here.

We are talking about a particular concept of freedom based on the ideas of natural and human rights.

So now you are saying the civil rights movement was not about freedom, it was about equality, because they gained freedom by limiting others' freedoms.

Yah, Im the one confusing definitions here.

[cprise]

16. Name one country with a successful Left party

...that is not explicitly socialist.


As for freedom vs equality, they are sometime at odds. Other times there is common cause, such as when liberals support the freedom of workers to organize. But it doesn't go much beyond that... liberalism doesn't provide an ideological framework for collectivism, social responsibility or egalitarian economics.

That's why the liberal American school of thought was so easily hijacked by Right-wing economics-- the over-emphasis of "freedom" and "liberty" meant that all our slogans could be turned right back against us. The economic ideas borrowed from socialism could not be defended because no one knew how, or those that did were marginalized as communist sympathizers.

Liberalism promotes equality in the eyes of the law, and is about equalizing the economic oppurtunities for people when it comes to non-economic factors: race, nationality, religion, sex, sexual orientation; When it comes to class however liberals fall short. Advancing equal opportunity for people raised with less resources is another animal.

I would like an answer to my initial question if anyone can provide one.

[K-W]

19. Explicitely socialist?

Lost of them. Explicitely socialist is a pretty extreme standard.

Are there strains of socialism and ties to socialism in all leftist movements, yes. Are there successful parties on the left who dont explicitely embrace socialism, of course. The democratic party is one of them. Liberalism is a difficult ideology because it is a compromise. It says that extreme inequity is wrong but it doesnt say that equity is, in itself right. It isnt socialism.

"That's why the liberal American school of thought was so easily hijacked by Right-wing economics-- the over-emphasis of "freedom" and "liberty" meant that all our slogans could be turned right back against us. The economic ideas borrowed from socialism could not be defended because no one knew how, or those that did were marginalized as communist sympathizers."

You are just blaming the victim. All language can be spun. The fact that propagandists can abuse the concept of freedom to manipulate the people doesnt make talking about freedom a mistake. We could have phrased it any way you want, they would have found a way to spin thier ideology to accomidate it.

The one point that I do agree with you on is that the left became unable to defend economic liberalism. It was a result of efforts by the right wing to marginalize, purge, and villianize leftists. It became impossible to defend economic liberalism because doing so sounded 'Red'. The fear of russia allowed the republicans to scapegoat the left. It was very effective and we are still trying to recover.

[IrateCitizen]

27. The Democratic Party is NOT a party of the left...

It is a party of the center, at best -- of the center-right, at worst.

A true left-wing party would openly champion workers over corporate interests. The Democratic Party of today clearly does not do this. And it only has, historically, when forced to by outside groups or forces spinning out of control.

I suggest you check out Mark Hertsgaard's book, In The Eagle's Shadow -- How America Fascinates and Infuriates the World. He dedicates the better part of a chapter to this. In it, he talks to a business executive in Holland who just voted for the most right-wing candidate in his recent election, because he's the most "pro-business", but hopes that Al Gore is elected President of the US. When Hertsgaard asks him how he can reconcile this, the man laughs and explains that both the Democrats and Republicans are further to the right than any of the parties in Holland.

[K-W]

30. When did I say I was talking about todays democratic party?

I am saying we need to return to things that caused the democratic party to shift left in the past, which is grassroots movements centered around spreading liberal issues.

That is what I am saying. The democratic party right now is nominally leftist. Which is a huge problem. Right now liberal values are barely represented in our government.

The reason the democratic party was once further to the left is that votes pushed them there. The power of the labor, enviromental, civil rights, women's rights, etc movements to raise money and influence voters created a political niche in liberal reforms that led to politicians making liberal reforms.

If people make wise votes on the issues, the politicians will have to make wise decisions on the issues. As long as people go to the ballot booth and dont hold politicans accountible for making the right decisions, politicians will continue to make the wrong decisions.

In US politics it isnt important to have a party that reflects your ideology. It is important to have a party that that feels accountible to your ideology to keep thier jobs.

[IrateCitizen]

33. If a return to the past is your goal, you can leave me out...

It's not that I don't respect or appreciate the tremendous advances made by liberalism -- because I do. Rather, it's because liberalism was borne out of an era that has little or no likeness to the world we live in today. Also, liberalism, for the most part, precipitated its eventual decline through its embrace of some rather virulent anti-communist tendencies during the Truman years and on forward. This allowed the right to eventually draw a thread between liberalism and socialism/communism, and the entire population already believed that communism and socialism were evil, and would therefore believe that the right was the only true "American" political outlet.

I suggest you check out the Editorials page, and the thread entitled "Is Liberalism Dead?" It's an interview with former Sierra Club president Adam Werbach, discussing his "Nov. 3 Theses" and the birth of a new progressivism on the left to revive Democratic politics.

[K-W]

36. Since when is learning lessons from our past returning to it?

Youd like to throw the baby out with the bathwater in a reactionary irrational dismissal of all that came before simply because it didnt work perfectly?

"liberalism was borne out of an era that has little or no likeness to the world we live in today."

That just isnt true. The world has not changed much at all, and not in ways that effect liberal ideas. We still have almost the exact same economic arrangements. We still have almost the exact same social arrangements.

I dont advocate returning to the mistakes of the past. I am pointing out that whether you like it or not the only way to create reforms is to win over masses of people to our cause. Just like our predecessors did.

You can look for a magic bullet in some magical new world if you want. I am going to recognize the reality that liberal reforms came from movements of people working very hard for a very long time before finally building enough popularity to force our political system to adress them and that we must do the exact same thing if we want reform, or even to protect those reforms.

If you have some kind of stigma against calling it liberalism, and youd rather repackage it as progressivism, fine. Knock yourself out.

[cprise]

32. Where is your answer?

"Lost of them. Explicitely socialist is a pretty extreme standard."

It must be easy then... so why didn't you answer?


Truth is even the Japanese Democratic Party describre themselves as "social-democrats", a moderate form of socialism. Tony Blair is a member of the Christian Socialist Movement!

You have bought the propaganda prevalent in this country that socialism = extremism, resulting in a backward understanding of politics. But ask yourself why the European countries are classified as "social-democracies" while the US is not. It is because the former embody a social contract of universal human rights that provides for the general welfare of their citizens; that they are deserving of it simply for being human. This is a direct result of the influence socialism wields on the continent, and socialists are a part of their elected power brokers.


"You are just blaming the victim. All language can be spun. The fact that propagandists can abuse the concept of freedom to manipulate the people doesnt make talking about freedom a mistake."

Where did I say that advocating freedom is a mistake?

[K-W]

34. I answered your question.

Almost all leftist parties are not explicitely socialist. Do you know what the word explicitely means? Social-democrats arent explicitely socialist.

Party structures are based to a large part on the structure of the government. So it is pointless to compare parties in europe to parties in the US. They arent the same. Our system is not based on ideological parties. It is based upon regional representation. This has created a different kind of ideological party, broker parties that design thier ideologies to appeal to somewhere over 50% of the nation. Unlike an ideological party in many european countries that is pushing a particular ideology because even if they dont get a majority, they can get power in the government.

Look we probably agree to a very large extent on the horrible misinformation about socialism and liberalism in this country. But there is a destinct difference between socialism and liberalism even though both are leftist ideologies.

"Where did I say that advocating freedom is a mistake?"
here:
"That's why the liberal American school of thought was so easily hijacked by Right-wing economics-- the over-emphasis of "freedom" and "liberty" "

[IrateCitizen]

35. There's a difference between "over-emphasis" and "advocating"

Do you deny that right-wing economics, such as that advocated by Milton Friedman, Fredrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and the rest of the Austrian and Chicago schools flunkies ties their policies almost extensively to the words "liberty" and "freedom"?

Additionally, do you deny that they decry any attempts to foster equality as an affront to the forementioned "liberty" and "freedom", and therefore to be denounced and opposed at all turns?

If the root of liberal thought is equality, then why not champion that idea?

[K-W]

37. Because that idea is wrong. But yes, I am loose with the word liberal.

I know I am not being true to the pure ideological tradition of liberalism. I am using the word as a catch all to describe the leftist traditions in the United States that are largely tied to a quest for equality as well as a quest for freedom and liberty but is not devoted to any absolutes therein.

Its just hard to find a word to define a constantly shifting construct.

[cprise]

51. How can we reach agreement

... when you are trying to re-define social democracy as something seperate from socialism. The world will not revise its political history just to suit the conceits of America's second-rate power brokers.

You still haven't answered my question by naming a country. Instead, you try to redefine a term to suit an arrogant and unrealistic American liberal disconnect from the Left around the globe. And I dare say you did so without so much as Googling the term to check your facts.


"So it is pointless to compare parties in europe to parties in the US."

Always the same answer here: Don't compare European 'X' to American 'X'. I don't think your explanation holds: American parties are ideological, its just that liberals have denied the framework that produces the best economic policies on their laundry list. The result of this denial is that Democrats have no clear economic philosophy or vision of their own.


"Where did I say that advocating freedom is a mistake?"
here:
"That's why the liberal American school of thought was so easily hijacked by Right-wing economics-- the over-emphasis of "freedom" and "liberty" "

You shoe-horned my complaint about over-emphasis into a black/white stance.

[rman]

52. how about "equality" as in "freedom for everyone"

i don't think equality and freedom are mutually exclusive.

what's the point of freedom if it means freedom for a few only?
wouldn't more equality there mean freedom for more people?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. i agree. we have great policy but terrible marketing.

[jarab]

12. There are fewer buyers ...

Advertise all you want, but the type of liberalism often espoused on this board has gone the way of the dodo.
The product called liberalism - and especially extreme leftist liberalism - has met a marketplace which is attuned to a more conservative message. It'd be easier to sell Grit magazine.
The product must be changed or marketed wholly differently. First off, the "term" liberal must be done away with - it's tainted.

And it's a shame, too. We can embrace liberalism all we want as individuals or small groups, but we will not ever be supported by a majority party, and therefore we will not get the hot topic issues to fall the leftists' way through legislation.
Sometimes pessimism has a measure of truth, sadly.
mho.

...O...

[K-W]

14. Luckily the truth isnt that bad.

The right is ideologically bankrupt. They have a piecemail ideology formed by mashing disperate ideologies and issues together. Nobody is looking for a more conservative message. There is no such thing as a conservative message, only a message given by someone who is a part of this backlash movement.

If the right was presenting an actual ideology, and Americans agreed with the actual ideology, and that ideology was how the Republicans ran the government, I might agree with you.

But they got where they did by lying and manipulating. Bush's supporters think he is pro enviroment!

The majority of the American people still want to protect the enviroment, still want quality jobs, still want to be protected from corporate abuses as well as governmental abuses, still want healthcare, still want quality education. And the republicans know this and promise all those things. The republicans run on a platform of conservative issues spun as fitting with liberal ideals.

They havent changed. They always want the same things. The right has just sold them on a sour message through a massively funded propaganda machine where only messages that reinforce thier viewpoint get through to people.

[cprise]

22. The Left is piecemeal, too

But the pieces fit together on the Left *AND* the Right better than you think.

For instance on the Right, Christian fundamentalism and corporatism may seem incompatible to one of us. But they're not. The former expects the world to end, and the latter doesn't want the responsibility of keeping the world livable. The former sees ministering to the poor as the church's territory and government programs as a violation of that role AND that economic survival should be a matter of divine providence, and the latter thinks that the state is robbing them and giving the proceeds to undeserving people who should be looking for charity instead. There is a huge overlap of interest there.

If the Left here had its act together it would make common cause between maximum freedom for the individual, and responsibility to society in proportion to one's wealth and power.

[K-W]

25. I dont think the right fits together at all.

Yes, there is a vague, 'small government' connection between the christian right and corporations. But that is a result of them overgeneralizing thier own positions. The fact is that the two groups have entirely incompatible goals.

[IrateCitizen]

28. I agree with you on this

One of the areas in which you see convergence between right and left is in objecting to marketing methods -- particularly the direct marketing to children.

The problem is that groups on the right blame the decline in "morality" brought about by the left, and groups on the left blame the growth in corporate power encouraged by the right.

Trouble being, they both are partially right. The left is at least right on the source -- corporate power. Both of them are right on who helped bring it about -- caving to corporate power has largely been a bipartisan affair over the past 25 years.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. The trouble is, that "our" salesmen are degrading the product.

Thanks to Clinton and the DLC, the politicians keep trying to move to the right in hopes that mimicking the right is the way to victory. A fallacious theory on the face of it, made obvious in the last 3 elections.

The Democratic Party is making itself more and more irrelevant as it becomes the party of accomodation rather than opposition.

That's why I'm switching to Green.

[K-W]

20. Since when does the establishment lead reform?

Since when does building a movement start from the top?

WE need to convinced our fellow Americans that our way of approaching government is better. If we do that, our fellow Americans will run and vote for people who have our ideas in democratic primaries and general elections.

Then people who agree with us will be in power in the democratic party.

This is how it works. We need to convince people to vote based on our ideas. If we can do that it doesnt matter whether we use the democratic party or have a new party. And if we cant do it, we can start a million new parties, we will never get any power.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. I agree. The real problem being that there is no movement.

At the moment, there is no imperative for the people to move to the left. That will change as the bodybags become more numerous and the bills come due.

"We", the liberal/left in this country aren't going to create a nation where people vote for politicians who agree with us. Events will provide that motivation. The politicians will go where the votes are. Right now the majority of the American people are more or less content/apathetic to let things slide.

What's being forgotten by everyone is that the "American People" and their government are not the deciding factors in world events. Our government is responding to world events by lashing out in an effort to preserve itself and it's shaky hegemony. In doing so it has made this country a dangerous, dying, rogue nation, that preys on the rest of the world.

Who we elect, is becoming more and more irrelevant as the two parties merge into one corporate entity dedicated to protecting "our vital interests", i.e., domination of the world economy. As it is, we are over extended and dependent on foreign resources and labor that are becoming less willing to support our need for SUV's and all the other goodies that we adore.

Everyone likes to talk of the "pendulum" swinging. But, it's really the tide of history that makes change. The tide is against us. Our empire is crumbling and the politicians sure as hell won't save it.

[K-W]

29. I think things are more hopefull than that.

The ideas that we fight for didnt spread easily and they certainly wont spread easily for us, but we have a big head start.

We dont have to convince the majority that Black people are humans or even that they are underpriveledged. We just have to remind them and convince them that we can, as a nation aknowledge this, and do something about it while still making life better for average white americans.

Think of it this way. The case was made for America to improve itself and to a large extent it tried to. All of the causes on the left were at one time fairly popular, even peace, which is always a hard sell to the general population.

The right has convinced people that liberal ideas are either unrealistic or lies designed to further a secret liberal agenda.

We need to start from the beginning again and teach the ideological foundations of our ideas and then teach our ideas again. We need people to understand that the right is dead wrong about our ideas. That we can have progress and prosparity, and that we can improve the lives of the underpriveledged without anyone else falling off the boat.

[IrateCitizen]

31. Starting from an impossible premise...

We dont have to convince the majority that Black people are humans or even that they are underpriveledged. We just have to remind them and convince them that we can, as a nation aknowledge this, and do something about it while still making life better for average white americans.

This paragraph of yours jumped out at me for several reasons. First, it fails to focus on a more pertinent (but largely undiscussed) issue -- class -- in favor of placing things in a racial context. This is a difficult thing to recover from, because we do have a large and vital black middle class in this country, and conservatives can always point to them to make your points irrelevant. Perhaps the more important fact, something that is common among all racial demographics in this country, is that the gap between the rich and the poor is booming. People have been told that if they work hard and play by the rules they'll succeed -- and it's being shown to be an outright lie.

Furthermore, implicit in your "lifting all boats" approach is the idea of simply increasing production or output in order to make life better for everyone. Have you ever read John Kenneth Galbraith, specifically The Affluent Society. Galbraith pointed out the fallacy of this approach back in the 1950's. Personally, I believe that the ascendancy of the conservative movement with Ronald Reagan in the 1980's was the result of the egalitarian post-war boom coming to a close, and the country having to decide between the rich giving more up in order to maintain an egalitarian spirit, or the sacrifice being placed on the shoulders of the working class so that the rich can keep and expand their fortunes. We all know which path the nation chose....

In order to effectively advance progressive ideas, we need to set about shattering several myths. First is the idea that class doesn't exist in the US. Second is the idea that significant class mobility is possible to most Americans. Third is the idea that an economy is always about increasing production. Fourth is the concept that private enterprise is good (because it supposedly satisfies consumer wants) while public enterprise is bad (because it addresses needs outside of the context of consumer wants).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. We're going broke. The bills are in the mail.

I like your analysis, but disagree to the extent that "class" in America is the problem. I certainly agree that the wealthy are enjoying the passivity of the working classes here, but, as I see it, the real "problem" (if it is a problem), is that the rest of the world is fighting for the same resources and labor that we are. They are no longer content to live in dire poverty to support our greed. The fight over class isn't here, in this country, but in the developing nations. As China, Korea, India, Vietnam, Brazil, Chile, etc, improve their economies, their underclasses will demand a better distribution of wealth. Right now, the western corporations are enjoying the use of cheap labor and cheap resources found in the developing world. To keep that available, we are resorting to force to protect our "vital interests". Bush is defferring payment on the expense of doing so by borrowing from the very nations that we are competing with. At some point they're going to call in their tabs so they can meet the demands of their underclasses.

The "poor" guy making $25,000 per year here may be pissed off, but that is nothing compared to the anger and frustration of billions of people around the world that slaving away just to keep their families in rice and beans to keep Nike's bottom line in the black.

They, the starving class, around the world, are the "movement" that's going to force change. Not a bunch of politicians in a country that opposes that change.

[K-W]

42. Yes, but who is getting the wealth that the US gets?

Since a tremendous amount of that wealth goes to the elite few in our country, you still need to look at it in the context of the US clas structure as well as the international class structure.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Indeed. The wealthy few are the prime suspects.

But, try convincing the average working guy in this country that his best interests lie in curbing the power of the corporation that's paying him a "living wage" while preparing to move overseas and pay some other guy a poverty wage. The "realistic" recourse is to ally himself with the poor guy overseas, but that would mean threatening his own income.

Catch-22. You have to somehow convince the guy here that's making widgets for Acme Widgets at $9.00 an hour that he needs to get together with the guy overseas that Acme Widgets is paying $1.00 a day to produce the same widgets, instead of sending his kid off to kill that guy.

Could happen, I suppose, but I'm not terribly optimistic about it.

[K-W]

45. We dont need to sell that exactly.

We just need to convince workers that we can build a domestic economy that gives them a greater share of the wealth while still reducing our economic burden on the rest of the world, that is not only immoral, but is tearing our economy apart. We just need to make providing for the people the goal of the economy rather than producing massive amounts of profit.

The point of an industry should be to provide products and services for people, not to produce massively profitable companies that exploit both thier workers and the consumers(who are, of course, basically the same people.)so that the wealthy people who own the company can become even more wealth and own even more things.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. It seems our only disagreement is on methodology and timing.

As of yet, the American people are not ready to accept the fact that being "Number One" is downright suicidal. Until it really begins to hurt the average person, they are unlikely to see where their interests lie. Until such time as they have to actually feel the pain, and see that they are really being affected by this country's rapaciousness, they are content to watch mindless TV and worry about the Super Bowl.

Decadence is word no longer fashionable, but I think it's going to make a comeback. The wealthy are undoubtedly decadent. But, we, as a society, have bought into that same decadence.

However, all that aside, I have chores to do.

Nice talking to you.

Keep up the struggle. Never surrender.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy." - Gandhi

[K-W]

40. You misunderstand.

I didnt fail to focus on class. I just used black civil rights as an example. You are reading far too much into my choice of examples. The black middle class doesnt in any way address my points, it certainly doesnt make them irrelevent. I have no clue what made you think that was the case. The fact that some black people are able to succeed economically does not in any way change the fact that black people have less opportunities specifically due to thier being black.

Yes, class is the single most important issue and one that represents the interests of the vast majority of americans rather than a select few. It is, however, not mutually exclusive with working to break down the barriers that are based on skin color.

"Furthermore, implicit in your "lifting all boats" approach is the idea of simply increasing production or output in order to make life better for everyone."

Im sorry, I didnt meant to indicate that I supported that approach, I dont. I meant the boats of all working class people. That we can fight for equality between races while at the same time making all working class people's lives better at the expense of the very few who have taken advantage of thier power to exploit our system.

I agree completely with your last paragraph.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. The right has convinced an insignificant number of Americans.

Again, the change that you desire isn't going to come from the American people or their discontent. It' going to be dictated by the discontent that we, as a nation, liberal or conservative, have aroused around the world.

We have been led to believe that Osama and his religious nationalists are the problem. A problem that can be fixed if we just kill enough of them. Osama is the miniscule tip of a very large iceberg of discontent around the world. To use the overused phrase, we are rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

As I see it, the only way that we can survive the calimity, is for the American people to become willing to voluntarily give up some of the power and wealth we have before it is taken from us.

Alas, an unlikely prospect as long as we insist on being Number One and use muscle instead of brains to preserve ouselves.

[K-W]

43. That is what I am saying.

The only way we can change things is to convince our fellow Americans to change the way they think, vote, and act.

We have to teach them that they can have a sustainable high standard of living without having to be #1 and with significantly less exploitation of the world. That we dont need to be the only superpower in the world to protect our basic quality of life. That the only thing we are really protecting is a US and international class structure that puts most of us in positions of extreme powerlesness.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Who is the "we"?

The original part of this discussion was whether "leaders" make things happen or does events. I believe that events decide history. In this case, if America continues to demand that the rest of the world supply us with our wealth, there is going to be a reaction. A reaction that is already under way.

While I agree with you, whole-heartedly, that we don't "need" to be exploiting the world, etc, I find little hope of "we" convincing anyone of that. Rather, I think that the course of events will do the convincing, with little regard for what we do, or who we elect.

However, I must say, that having a discussion, rather than the usual backbiting one-upsmanship, is refreshing. Thanks.

[K-W]

47. But doesnt history show us that popular movements can be events?

I guess I just dont see, in history, a narrative that supports your view. I see lots of cases of people having a large influence on things. I see popular movements that have had a huge impact on things.

Certainly more people are frustrated by events beyond thier control than actually succeed to make a difference, but the only way to have the right movement at the right time for events to work out is to just keep trying until it happens.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Being an admirer of Tolstoy and Gandhi.

I have come to agree with them that "leaders" are really followers. "Popular Movements" are certainly events. But, they are driven by the needs of the populace. The "leaders" emerge in response to the event. Unfortunately, most "leaders" become corrupted. Thus we end up with Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, even Bush. Most people cling to the notion that a "strong" leader is the answer. It's only in the revolutionary phase that the "people" are actually in charge.

History is a bitch.

[K-W]

50. I think we agree here.

I think that if we as individuals work towards a popular movement it will make the possibility of that movement happening more likely.

I certainly never meant to say that if we do it, it is garunteed to make things better. Just that it is our best chance as far as I can tell.

And I definately do agree that leaders are by far and away overated in how much they cause the things they are leading.

And thank you for the discussion as well.

[RealLiberal4U]

17. Many Liberals Are Not Consistent

Take for example, gun control. The genuine liberal position is one that realizes the existence of the right to keep and bear arms.

However, too many, the liberal position is one that does not recognize this right.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Since when?

When has "keeping and bearing" arms become the "genuine" liberal position?

[K-W]

23. Thats not true.

It is the destinct minority that believes guns should be prohbited.

Liberals believe that the right to bear arms is a right in the constitution(some dont think it should be), and support that right, they just believe that the we need to weigh the public interest with that right. Just like we do with all rights. I cant yell fire in a crowede theater. Rights can and are moderated by the public interest.

So if there is a compelling interest to limit, control, regulate, etc weapon ownership, the right can be infringed. It is a judgement call left up to the supreme court to make, whether the public interest is strong enough to temper the right.

[rman]

53. the liberal position is about strict regulation of gun ownership,

which is not the same as 'no right to own a gun'.

[info being]

21. What would a "Liberal World" look like in 20 years?

That's the vision that has to be sold. I truly don't think we know exactly what we want.

[noiretextatique]

24. "the vision thing"

is exactly what has to be sold vs. "we will try our best to save some crumbs for you...so be grateful!"

[calimary]

38. Check out the Frame the Debate Group here on DU.

Emphasis on Berkeley professor/linguist George Lakoff. He's got the mechanics pegged for this.