I like his list and the emphasis he places on the liberty aspect of liberalism. That's becoming increasingly attractive to me and I believe it could win over some independents who are sick of both parties trying to impose various restrictions on their lives.

open-minded, goal-oriented, dedication to truth, liberty and the common good.

"There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not."

Robert F. Kennedy - 1968

Can't remember where I read this distinction, but it went something like "Liberty is the result of law, freedom is the goal of anarchy. Listen to Democrats and Republicans, one talks of liberty, the other freedom, one believes in a nation ruled by law, the other, assuming themselves to be superior, crave a rule by men."

Recent studies have shown that there are certain personality traits associated with a "conservative" political outlook, the so called RWA (right wing authoritarian) personality. John Dean's new book reviews the sociological and psychological findings.

From the point of view of "liberalism" the conservative type distrusts people to make their own decisions, thinks people are basically evil (man is born into a state of sin) and thus, need to be controlled. This leads to a belief in a hierarchical form of society, whether in government, religion or business. The belief that without the authority of a supernatural being people would not lead moral lives is a common example of this.

Liberals, on the other hand, believe in the innate goodness of people and expect them to "do the right thing" most of the time. This leads to various types of compassionate behaviors from charities to government support for the less fortunate.

The Libertarians take as their fundamental view of human nature the idea of selfishness and self-interest. Ayn Rand railed against altruism in her novels, for example.

Research hasn't shown that people can be shifted from one mindset to another. John Dean's conclusion is that the 23% of the population with RWA personalities should just be ignored by liberals trying to win elections.

Since Liberals operate on the basis of using logic to convince others of their positions and the Conservatives use the appeal to authority there is little chance that a reasoned set of arguments presented by Liberals will have any effect.

Right now we are seeing disaffected conservatives, not because they have changed their goals or ideals, but because they think the present regime has failed to address them effectively.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

One aspect of liberalism that I feel is crucial but mostly ignored is the liberal's view of government. Ever since Reagan declared from his CEO's perch that government is a corrupt and futile enterprise, it seems that practically all political discourse has cowtowed to Reagan's despicable declaration. The conservative's main staple is to erode civic trust in governenment, decrying the waste of our taxes invested in any government enterprise (save the military) while liberals kind of tiptoe around the notion of government-as-wastrel, acknowledging that yes, government probably is bad, but there still are programs that need our support.

But the question of what is the purpose and function of government, what would we citizens like it to do for us, pretty much the key question for a divided polity, is never raised in the face of the ever-popular "taxes and government are a waste" meme.

I believe Reagan's declaration was a declaration of war upon the traditional liberal view that government is a noble agent of the public will, good government is the principle agency of liberal objectives. In essence, a liberal agenda cannot be enacted without strong activist government, and the erosion of civic faith in government is a direct attack on the core liberal strength.

Sadly, it is easy to find fault in government, difficult to demonstrate how important government is in creating and maintaining the foundations of our humane society. We liberals may spend the rest of our natural born days articulating our values, but if we cannot stand up to the cynical demolition of our government by conservatives who would promote values of institutional cannibalism and economic anarchy, we will continue to find ourselves on the sidelines of a movement that is leaving our entire nation (minus the top 5%) and the world in increasingly dire circumstances.

Perhaps in the final view, this is an issue of faith. Conservatives have spent the past 30 years cultivating a faith in Christianity-based political machine. By denigrating government while mouthing Christian platitudes, conservatives reinforce the fervent wish of the faithful to be governed by divine agency rather than the corrupt human agency of government.

Yet, it is the express assumption of the democratic principles upon which our nation was founded that human agency through democratic governance is the system we choose. It is an article of faith that we accept the rule of the majority. A liberal believes that human governance in all its fallible glory is the key to vibrant democracy and healthy society. A liberal resurgence, I believe, will depend entirely upon liberals' ability to restore Americans' faith in the enterprise of government.

Ted Bucklin

The problem is not finding the proper definition. The problem is that Liberals are now acting like spoiled children, rather than the loyal opposition.

Liberal democrats are beginning to sound like rowdy students on spring break, shrieking and exhibiting themselves on camera.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller insists that the world would be better off if Saddam were still running Iraq.

Congressman John Murtha rushed to announce that our Marines were guilty of killing Iraqis in "cold blood" before they were tried.

Sen. Richard Durbin has compared our interrogators at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis, while Sen. John Kerry said our soldiers have "terrorized" Iraqi women and children.

It used to be that out-of-office chief executives kept relatively hush. Presidents Ford and Bush Sr. — both voted out of office — did not bray when President Clinton had his trials, personal and otherwise.

Not so now with Presidents Carter and Clinton. They repeatedly harp about the sins of the current administration.

And even at 82, Jimmy Carter almost daily carps over Bush's foreign policy.

On college campuses, the old leftist intolerance of unwelcome free speech is back with a fury.

A guest spokesman for the Minutemen was shouted down at a recent Columbia University lecture. Earlier, Harvard's liberal president Larry Summers was forced out, after timidly questioning academic orthodoxy about the role of women in science and engineering.

What sends you Liberals over the edge into pathological hysteria? Let's see...

You guys have not elected congressional majorities in 12 years, and you won't in 2006, and you've occupied the White House in only eight of the last 26 years.

Your current unruliness seems a way of scapegoating others for a more elemental frustration — that you can't gain a national majority based on your core beliefs!

It's not the voting machines or Karl Rove or the right-wing machine. It is more entitlements, higher taxes to pay for them, gay marriage, de facto quotas in affirmative action, open borders, abortion on demand, and radical secularism — these liberal issues don't tend to resonate with most Americans.

What does it mean to be a Liberal? It could be said that our founding fathers defined this for us in the first and most profound documents of our republic, The Declaration of Independence. This statement should be dear to every American Citizen. Does it get more liberal than this, I ask you?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

What does t mean to be a Liberal? Perhaps to tackle this question, one should ask first, what is present day Neocon Conservatism? What is a Republican Neocon? Are Liberals the opposite of this? The terms Liberal and Conservative are obscure terms that have changed over time. For example, the Neocon movement took hold in the Democratic Party in the early 1970’s and was an extreme “Left” position of the Democratic Party. It was later adopted by the Republicans in the mid 1990’s.

The Nazi regime was considered to be “Far Right” and Conservative during its reign of power. It used distorted religious doctrine to define the uprising of a master race. Individuals were either inclusive of this definition or they were outside the norm of this definition, based on eye color, height, hair color and religious beliefs. Neither Hitler, Goring nor Himler were of these human characteristics; all alleged to have engaged in same sex relationships and were methamphetamine addicts. Needless to say, all were, in fact, also psychopaths. How then does once define what it is to be Conservative or Liberal?

I was recently at a business meeting where a man of African American descent was proclaiming himself a Conservative to a few people. He said to one man, you are one of the only Liberals I will have a conversation with. I kept my mouth shut; why bother to debate with such ignorance. While I do not consider myself to be either Conservative or Liberal, I was offended by such proclamation or righteous, virtuous and pompous arrogance.

Human beings have a profound necessity to define themselves and those around them. Everything needs to be categorized in a nice, neat package for them to understand their world, events, their universe and their spiritual understanding. Most, in fact, are void of spirit, contrary to their own self serving opinions but consistent with existence only in a physical realm. Let me take a "bow" to someone who feels himself so connected to his "crowd" and "party". May he be blessed with his misplaced feelings of "inclusion".

What does it mean to be Conservative? Is it fiscal responsibility? Well, let’s throw that out the window. Our public debt has reached the stratosphere. No one can understand the National Budget, compromising the very basis of the “Greenbacks” worth. We have a reverse yield curve between short term and long term interest rates, for which not logical explanation exists, other than the greed of those bankers whose bonuses are paid exclusively on an unsustainable, continuing growth model. Is this Conservative? If this is Conservative, then I am a Liberal. Is a Democrat to be equated to a Liberal? Is a Republican to be equated to a Conservative? Quite frankly, it appears to be every man out for them self and whatever position forwards their own self serving interest, then that is the position they take. I am an Independent. What does this make me, a Conservative or a Liberal?

In economics there is an expression called, Conspicuous Consumption. - a term used to describe the lavish spending on goods and services that are acquired mainly for the purpose of displaying income or wealth rather than to satisfy a real need of the consumer. In the mind of a conspicuous consumer, such display serves as a means of attaining or maintaining social status.

Like “Conspicuous Consumption”, there is also “Conspicuous Association”, although a definition of this is not readily available and has not been well defined in the psychological sense. I will therefore try to make an attempt here. While the Republican Neocon movement has not tried to create a master race, like the Nazi regime, it has attempted to divide American Culture between those who are “of the system” and those who are “not of the system”. It has attempted to tie those “of the system” to principles of virtue, righteousness, honor and integrity. Those who like to identify themselves with the far right, the Republican Neocon movement, “Conspicuously Associate” themselves with these virtues, when in actuality their behaviors and double standards are in direct contrast to such beliefs. Only recently has this become so evident and obvious in the public eye.

Is to be Conservative to be virtuous, righteous, honorable, and of integrity? Why then is there need for “Spin”? It is an insult to my intellect the “Trash Politics” I have witnessed over the past 30 days. How do some of these “Psychopathic Politicians” even look at their faces in a mirror without guilt? Are these people really “God Fearing”, “God Believing” or are they merely exploiting “God” in a failing attempt to control their physical world, and void of spiritual understanding and the freedoms all should hold so dear. The separation of “Church” and “State” must stand; there is no compromise for this in a free and democratic society. If not, then I am a Liberal.

I will not be labeled an American Conservative, which path over the past 15 years more closely resembles Nazi Fascism. No, I am not part of the “in crowd”; I do not speak with a severed tongue, I have not mastered “Double Speak” or “Spin”. I do not exploit “God” for my self serving benefit. I do not exploit religious doctrine to divide the children of this world. I cherish the individual who can find him without necessity of “Cult Doctrine”. All know the difference between right and wrong and are given choices; so many, simply make the wrong ones. What then am I, a Liberal or a Conservative?

Hate and loath me for who I am, knowing that there are 10 people who live outside the boarders of a once great country who hate and loath each of you by this amount to the power of 10 for what you have done. A Country that can not live up to its own standards is in no position to rule the peoples of other countries under such hypocritical circumstance. Ultimately, the “Piper” gets paid my children, one way or another, with or without whatever “Bargain” you have made or however you wish to label yourself or others. What am I, a Liberal or a Conservative? What are you?

Divide and conquer is the motive of many of your leaders. On some levels it may not be a bad thing for the Republican Neocons to win the Midterm Elections. It will simply mean that the price tag will be that much more severe to all of us for equilibrium and balance to be achieved.

George W. Bush no more represents the Republican Party as a whole than Lyndon B. Johnson represented the Democratic Party some three decades ago.

In its purest form, the terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" stem from the power of the Federal government.

"Conservatives" seek to curtail all unecessary Federal spending. Tax and budget cuts are to be implimented with the notion that states ought to have the ability to assess their own individual needs.

"Liberals" seek to increase Federal spending. Increased taxation, especially on the upper class, is intended to fund social programs that benefit middle and working classes.

For other areas, such as honoring the Bill of Rights, both parties traditionally honor the liberty of the individual (with a few horrible exceptions for both parties). During the Antebellum period through the first half of the 20th Century it was the Democratic Party that had an horrendous civil rights record. From the Post-war era to the present it has been the GOP that lacks a progressive vision in terms of civil rights.

But just as Communism has always stalled out in the Socialist stage, Conservativism and Liberalism have never reached their purest forms.

There is always a Lyndon Johnson or George W. Bush to muddy the ideological waters.

Perhaps sticking to the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be a good start to advancing progress.

Ellen-

Am I wrong?

Do you believe that the Liberal policies of "...more entitlements, higher taxes to pay for them, gay marriage, de facto quotas in affirmative action, open borders, abortion on demand, and radical secularism — ... tend to resonate with most Americans."?

I suppose we shall find out Nov 8.

As long as we're putting things that way, will Americans vindicate War for Halliburton, imposed religion, and legitimized racism? How about untaxed atronomical wealth? How about giving away the store to insiders in Congress?

Let us know when you feel like discussing facts, not talking points couched in inflammatory terms. Hint---there is no death tax. The dead pay no taxes. The living pay tax on the increase in wealth.

Do you admire Alexander Hamilton? He knew the need for government revenue, and competent government. Time to re-read the Federalist Papers.

Liberals seek to increase Federal spending? Ridiculous. To me, a liberal is a communitarian. A liberal believes that that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. A liberal without children believes he benefits living in a neighborhood with educated children. A liberal believes the neighborhood is stronger if the old couple next door isn't forced to leave because they had to choose between their home and health care. A liberal rejects survival of the fittest and respects the dignity of the vulnerable. A liberal believes the are our responsibilities don't end with ourselves.

And this liberal doesn't believe there is anything liberal about forces "liberty" on people at the point of a gun.

Bluebell

Liberals do favor increased Federal spending for the creation and promotion of social programs and services designed to assist the middle and working classes. Social Security is a prime example. Also included in this is Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Welfare, and possibly universal healthcare in the future.

Conservatives do not necessarily want to cut these programs, but they would like to see some form of privatization which would present the public with a choice of services.

Another factor that muddies the water aside from "rogues" coming into office once in a while is the all-powerful Lobby. It has corrupted both parties beyond comprehension.

"Abortion on demand" and "radical secularism" are meaningless phrases, devoid of content. They refer to nothing of substance in our political debates. "Open borders" is an ambiguous phrase, but George W. Bush's "pro-amnesty" policy suggests that this is not a distinctly liberal position.

A majority of Americans support either marriage rights or equal benefits for gay couples. A majority of Americans believe that the richest Americans do not pay their fair share of taxes. They are simply worried about taxes being raised on middle class families, which no one is proposing. A majority of Americans suppport Social Security, a so-called entitlement program. A majority of Americans support stem-cell research and other basic science.

So true enough, your strawman does not resonate with Americans. your strawman resonates with no one, because it does not exist. Have some courage, fellow American, and take on the real issues. If you believe in objective truth, if you believe in reason, then use it, not this spun-up spoon-fed rhetoric. I've had many productive conversations with conservatives who know how to reason and are genuinely curious about what I believe and what I want for this country. I am equally curious about the worldview of these genuine conservatives. You should follow their example.

I see threads like these as part of an ongoing opportunity we have to define what liberals believe, or what a liberal "coalition" shares in its core values.

so it'd be best to focus on our goals. issues like federal spending are secondary. if the goal is the common good, hope and responsibility that transcends self-interest, then the question is simply how we promote that. a government program is a mechanism, nothing more.

Kiwi,

You have a plagiarism problem. What you wrote, without quotation marks or attribution, comes directly from a Victor Davis Hanson article, Liberals gone absolutely wild!

This is the second time that you have been caught.

What sends you over the edge into pathological plagiarism? Let's see...

"...it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship." GWB, 6/29/06

I, too, would love to see state governments have the opportunity to take more responsibility. Personally, I typicaly vote Republican for Federal contests and Democratic for state contests. In theory this would allow for curtailed Federal spending matched with increased state spending. This has hardly been the case recently though. Bush has been far from a "conservative" when taking into account his superfluous and wasteful spending habits.

His "Ownership Society" meme has a good premise, but lacks viability simply because its aim of allowing private businesses to compete for services has a track record of corruption. The Prescription Drug plan, which allows participants to choose a private carrier OR remain on the government-run plan, has more potential because it has a status-quo safeguard.

Privatization of services has potential so long as the "government option" remains on the table.

I'm in the top half, well up into te top quarter, with pre-tax income of over 100K, and I am aware that without the rest of the population I would not have that income. I'm also aware that the majority of government actvities benefit me more than the bottom half.

Let's look at the Defense budget. It serves almost exclusively the large money interests, since military force is used predominantly to protect or guarantee "state interests." Anyone with a position in stocks or bonds is the primary bebeficiary of the Defense budget which acounts for about half the bidget.

OK, there are those entitlements. Consider what happens to welfare payments. They go entirely for food and rent. So entitlement dollars end up in the hands of agribusiness and landowners. How about Medicaid? Once again, it goes into the coffers of hospitals and pharmaceuticals after being called a "payment" to the beneficiary.

A little test to determine the value of your wealth---take it to a desert island and see what it will build, or whether you can eat it.

The rich contribute and receive. Perhaps you think you could do fine without courts, police, army, nurses, firemen, water engineers, official record-keeping, agricultural services, weather services, research services, diplomatic services, standard-setting bodies, etc.

Also remember that when the population of a country decides your wealth is meaningless (i.e. revolution) you are at their mercy. Join the country and don't be selfish and whine about taxes. It's unseemly.

And let me speak as a member of the hard-working middle class. My wife and I work day and night to make ends meet, and I believe we make significant contributions to society. I work in a science that benefits the general population, despite cuts in federal funding and demogoguery on critical stem cell research. My wife and I have a child on the way, and my health insurance company is telling me that they will raise my premiums to $7000 a year to cover my wife and child. I do all the right things- work hard, save money, own a house, we have no credit card debt. But its a struggle to make this happen and I'm very concerned about long-term financial pressures like our federal deficits, skyrocketing tuition, health insurance.

And the way, the statistics you cited are irrelevant. If you pay the lion's share of taxes, its because you own the lion's share of this country's wealth. Families like yours have profited the most from the relative peace and prosoperity in this country. Which is fine, I don't aim to be a millionaire, I think it's good that we have incentives to move our economy along. But people don't earn money on their own, their work relies on the work of many others before them and those beneath them.

So you get no pity from me, brother. If you're in the upper echelons you're doing just fine, taxes or not.

Tom, Chris, I see that I began with a faulty premise.

I assumed you guys wanted to succeed and secure prosperity.

If you don't care about those issues for your families, that is fine. It doesn't make you bad people but it does explain why you believe the government can better spend your money than you.

Of course, I agree we absolutely need the rule of law, but can't we keep government regulations and taxes to a minimum?

You just cannot trust anyone but yourself to take care of your family. The government may really want to help and provide security and medical aid, but it can't. It isn't properly motivated.

For example, when everyone was complaining in 2003 that Bush invaded Iraq primarily for the benefit of Halliburton, I didn't whine about how wrong that was, I bought the stock. (It has tripled since then, and you could have done the same).

By the way, give me a little time and I would own the "Desert Island." I am assuming the desert island would not be burdened by the EPA, ADA, OSHA, Engangered Species Act, affirmative action quotas and the other millions of confiscatory obstructions to success.

See the difference in our thinking? You are not wrong and I am not right, we simpy think differently. One way leads to dependency and the other to prosperity.

This information is very useful!Thank you!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v blog, opensolaris iscsi target howto