[NightShadows]

I used to be really liberal, and still of am, but I've had enough life experiences to where I am starting to think that a lot of liberal ideas are way too idealistic and there's probably not that much of a chance that they'd work out very well in reality.
Mostly that there's far too many people in the world who are self centered, and kind of greedy and often times I think this is why it doesn't work out in reality. It seems like there are all together not that many who can stand strong against things like corruption, and eventually do not give in themselves, despite whatever their original intentions may have been.

[quetzalcoatl]

I'm a former liberal of the trade union variety. I did not become a 'conservative', which is just another variety of liberal.

You are on the right track when you criticize various agendas for being unrealistic. However, a far more immediate problem (which almost no one looks at) is the viability of systems we already have in place. Our political systems continue to degrade. Increasing numbers of our population are falling into poverty and despair. Levels of extreme inequality threaten our political stability.

Yet people simply assume this pattern can continue indefinitely. I do not consider this realistic.

[MistyTiger]

I used to be really liberal, and still of am, but I've had enough life experiences to where I am starting to think that a lot of liberal ideas are way too idealistic and there's probably not that much of a chance that they'd work out very well in reality.

Or maybe one day there will be a movement where some of the idealistic ideas will start to become more realistic.

I never thought there would be such a thing as Obamacare but Obama brought it out. And it has helped so many millions of Americans. If he only he had had more time, it could have been further improved.

Mostly that there's far too many people in the world who are self centered, and kind of greedy and often times I think this is why it doesn't work out in reality. It seems like there are all together not that many who can stand strong against things like corruption, and eventually do not give in themselves, despite whatever their original intentions may have been.

It is nearly impossibly to rid the world of greed. There are those who are driven by ambition, jealousy and it does not help that the greedy are often rewarded for being greedy. Greed is encouraged, sadly. Psychologists would call it positive reinforcement.

It is shameful that corruption is allowed to happen and that it is not deterred. Maybe someday there will be a solution found to prevent corruption from happening.

[NightShadows]

So despite this being a sub-forum specifically about "conservatism" there's no point in either being a liberal or a conservative?

I wouldn't say that's a bad thing, but at times this kind of desire to remain ambiguous gets taken to many continually on-going situations, which I think are used to only either bury the hatchet further; or denying it from even existing, which is kind of audacious.

It's true, greedy, avarice, prejudice, and power are all parts of the "human condition" and that's exactly he point, it's something you can't altogether stop from existing or curtail and somehow impede in a drastic or sustainable manner. In all honestly, the largest farce to me is all supposedly well meaning individuals condemning the likes of capitalism, but still just as willfully continuing on with it in secret; as if such things are even rightly justifiable by human means. Capitalism is not anymore unnatural or natural then many other human conceptions and ideas we have either created or utilized for our own means, but it is certainly a very real and unfortunate and on-going agent and accomplish to human greed, lust for power, and inequality; which I do not think is something that can really be rightfully denied from it's expression, either.


I'm not really conservative in that way I guess, that's just more of the same nonesense, in allowing big business to take it's course and being against social benefits, but I suppose that's not what my main concern was focused on. What is considered "liberal" and "conservative" have often many times changed over the centuries of our countries histories; it's almost a dead horse I suppose. I do not think it matters much, no.

[Hong Wu]

OP: Me, sort of. I was told I was a liberal my whole life and it took me awhile to remember that I wasn't.

Not many people really like "conservatism". It suggests that there is an attempt to conserve, which is to say that there is not enough to go around, or that new things are not being generated, or that whatever is being conserved can run out.

I personally assume that the prevalence of the term is a recognition of the fact that the west is dying. People are protesting against having to learn about western history or literature (even in things like English literature majors) and the genetics of some of the major groups, such as Germans and Swedes, could disappear entirely. At the rate we are going there will be nothing left of the west in 100 years.

There is a sliver of hope though because now that classic liberalism is basically a part of conservatism and is also under attack by the hordes of the modern left, the right can benefit from both the traditionalist dialogue and the classic liberal underdog dialogue. The left has no unified talking point besides its dissection of western Christianity and that is not very much since they have already mostly obviated Christianity in the places they have a grip on.

This brings me to a post I was thinking about making, how history could be viewed as an issue of who controls the writing.

In the early days the monks/scribes, protected by the warrior kings, controlled the writing. These guys liked traditionalism and duality, so that is what we got. Obviously I am simplifying this a bit but bear with me.
In the more recent era of the printing press, the merchants and the gossipers controlled the information flow. So we got liberalism.
Today, no one controls the information flow. The MSM is already dead, its only purpose is to provide a veneer of legitimacy for people on the internet like Zag who want to use certain kinds of talking points. No one under forty who is off psychiatric medications accepts their legitimacy and the demise of the "old white people" is also the demise of controlled liberal media. It'll be interesting to see where things go from here but it won't be western people controlling everything, that's for sure. Their leaders will be busy pitting all of the different groups in the west against each other.

This is the ultimate goal of "multiculturalism", people would normally evolve to resist the many little poisons that are introduced into our lives but by bringing in populations that have never been exposed to those poisons before, the evolution of resistance can be slowed and an equilibrium of chaos can possibly be achieved by clinging to the racist dialogue without ever actually trying to bring the people together.

[Drlee]

I used to be really liberal, and still of am, but I've had enough life experiences to where I am starting to think that a lot of liberal ideas are way too idealistic and there's probably not that much of a chance that they'd work out very well in reality.

Give me some examples of liberal ideas that are too idealistic. What might they be?

[NightShadows]

The Communist Manifesto for one, ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Another way that I am not quite "liberal" is that I am not a Luddite, but I am sort of a naturalist; amongst other such things. It makes then to at times "conserve" but what that means is not always easy to define I think.




Ahahahahahahaha

[Godstud]

I've heard that as you get older you become more conservative, but I think that if you are well educated and informed, you tend to become more liberal. I have.

As a result, I am not upset by most conservatives, since most are pretty reasonable people. There are always some, however, on both sides of the spectrum, who are nuts.

Everything in moderation.

[Decky]

Liberalism is a disease. It makes no sense for anyone on less than £1,000,000 a year. Either go socialist or go home.

[Godstud]

How do I change, Decky? How?

[Decky]

I would say unionise to start with but since your job is lounging around in a tropical paradise I guess I can see why you are happy enough with the status quo.

[Godstud]

As soon as I get some employees, I'm going to unionize!

Right now, my household seems to be run under a cooperative federalism.

[Decky]

I heard it was more of a matriarchy.

[Godstud]

I am fighting the good fight, and holding out, so far.

My son works for nothing, at least, and usually backs me, so the matriarchy is having some problems.

[Truth To Power]

Liberalism is a disease. It makes no sense for anyone on less than £1,000,000 a year. Either go socialist or go home.

It is socialism that is the disease: a form of mental illness that, like capitalism, makes its victims unable to understand the difference between land and capital. But the capitalist is actually less ill, because he at least understands that capital must be provided to the production process by its owners. The socialist thinks it is available unconditionally, like land.

[Thunderhawk]

I'm fine with the general direction that liberalism points, both the original economic-minded definition of liberal (a moderate version of what Americans would now call Libertarians) and the modern redefinition of being socially progressive. I had recently moved away from viewing myself as a liberal as I saw the label attracting and being attached to too many positions I disagreed with. Upon some time and thought, I now see that the 'liberalism' I grew up with and agreed with is transitioning into something else. I suspect the SJWs are to the Liberal cause what the Tea party is to Republicans and what the Nazis were to Nationalism - off shoots that did/are overtaking their progenitor. Even if those offshoots die, they will forever taint their parent ideology. I also think this is natural variation and growth of ideas/labels. The authoritarian streaks and huge government being part of Liberalism has moved Liberalism towards something I dont like, and that those characters are now normal I view as a taint on the label. The virtue signaling and mob mentality that is becoming a social norm leads me to believe most (all?) labels will change/mutate quickly as trend setters and their followers can be much more pervasive and influential, shedding moderates or gaining the disaffected of other groups.

The thing is, I expect this change of 'Liberal' to continue and in ten years I expect it will have moved so much from the ideas I hold that I will wholly detach myself from that label. Libertarians have some appealing ideas (the individual rights and protections, tolerance of independent thought) that are becoming absent in Liberalism, so they have a draw. But they too have their extreme ideas which will stop Liberals from joining their camp in large droves. I suspect a modern socially responsible Conservatism (old school Conservatives who view the changes upto ~2000s as what they want to conserve) will come about to fill the void of old school Liberalism.

For the time being I will continue to call myself a Liberal, and try to turn back the tide.
I wonder if this is how 2nd wave Feminists feel as they see the 3rd wave redefining their label.

[AFAIK]

I never thought there would be such a thing as Obamacare but Obama brought it out. And it has helped so many millions of Americans. If he only he had had more time, it could have been further improved.

The Affordable Care Act is a conservative measure designed to keep the for profit health care system in place for another generation before it is replaced by a single payer system as you Americans call gov't services. It was originally a Republican policy and Mitt Romney implemented it when he was governor of Massachusetts. The Overton Window then shifted to the right and he abandoned the policy during his presidential bid.

Obama ran as a progressive but he governed as a conservative.

[Godstud]

I thought that Republicans were happy with Obama. He kept their torture prison, Guantanamo, open, didn't he?

[MistyTiger]

I thought that Republicans were happy with Obama. He kept their torture prison, Guantanamo, open, didn't he?

He did indeed. And he kept the Patriot Act alive, despite many liberals who were calling for its elimination. Yet you conservatives are such ungrateful baby snowflakes. I guess he just wasn't white enough for you, despite his Ivy League education. He can mingle with the rich snobs. Or maybe white conservatives are just jealous that their sons and daughters his age did not have a clear shot at the presidency like he did. Sour grapes!

[Thunderhawk]

Give me some examples of liberal ideas that are too idealistic. What might they be?

The Progressive side of Liberalism has a belief that everyone is equal, but some people deserve special treatment. Questioning that special treatment means you support unfairness.
High levels of openness and tolerance leads to forgiving actions that should have consequences, leading to unaccountability and a soft moral base.
Here in Canada I see Liberals foisting social and economic responsibility onto government and other people, routinely virtue signalling, but are rarely wiling to take action or responsibility themselves.
There seems to be an increasing focus on groups over individuals.