Liberalism and its inevitable demise

[bloodyminded]

As if there are no women and/or gays among conservatives. And there is nothing wrong with pointing out the truth, that these groups are oppressed in Islamic (and some other) societies. Embracing multiculturalism means tolerating cultures which include such oppression, even if our laws are nominally designed to prevent (or at least punish) overt acts of oppression from being carried out in Canada, it nevertheless allows this mindset to fester here. And multiculturalism is certainly a component of modern liberalism.

I was responding to a promiscuous generalization about "liberalism."

Betsy was perfectly, 100% clear i her blanket denunciation.

Any nuance to the view is added by you, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP.

More like failing to oppose such oppression where it is happening.

Mmm. And no conservative would ever do such a thing. It's a liberal weakness.

Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. There is certainly a variety of conflicting valid arguments here, such as the sovereignty of states, the best use of the West's resources, the desire to stand up for human rights, the security concerns, etc. One can certainly oppose Afghanistan based on valid reasons.

I agree. So there's no argument here.

[bloodyminded]

You keep saying "it's not true..." and yet you offer no other explanation as to why you think it's not true. Should I assume therefore that you repeat this mantra in order to convince yourself?

You made a wild claim, generalizing about what "liberals" think.

Talking of repeating mantras.

It's a nonsensical remark, and it it wasn't meant to invite discussion.

[bloodyminded]

Right. We should be in favor of individual liberty and equal rights for muslim women. Thats the exact definition of Liberalism.

The argument is over how best to do it.

Exactly, thank you.

Too many areguments take on the tenor of Christopher Hitchens' rejoinder, that those who opposed, for example, the Iraq War (ie the overwhelming global majority) were "objectively in favour of fascism."

These aren't meant as points of debate and discussion. Such ideas are meant to repudiate anyone who might see things even a little differently.

[betsy]

This is really just silly.

First of all you seem to suppose that liberal or conservative ideology is static or exists in a vacuum. Thats simply not the case. Both are reactionary ideologies, and both liberals and conservatives have shown over and over again a willing to depart from them in response to the "situation on the ground".

Actually liberals have never had much problem imposing their culture on others in the name of "liberty", and have a history of supporting intervention in the affairs of others to one degree or another, often to my dismay.

Same thing everyone else does... ignore parts of their ideology out of convenience or in reaction to real world events. Political ideology is not the panacea of directing human behavior. Thats the biggest problem with your assumption, and why generalizations like this always lead to such abject failure. 90% of people are "fair weather" ideologes at best.

In any case there COULD be a valuable conversation about part of liberal ideology that may have to be left behind in response to events and changes in society. But this isnt one... its nothing more than a sophormoric rant full of the same old rehashed crap.

We're talking about liberalism. And the examples I've given above are fact.

Can you explain why Sharia law has become acceptable in our Western world, under the noses and compliance of the feminist movement? Is homosexuality acceptable and not punishable by death?

Actually liberals have never had much problem imposing their culture on others in the name of "liberty", and have a history of supporting intervention in the affairs of others to one degree or another, often to my dismay.

Such as?

Why dont you ask women and gays who who they feel have fought for their rights... these rights are almost exlusive to liberal societies, and conservatives have opposed them every step of the way, right up to present day.

BUT, the liberals would not dare fight for the rights of women and gays in the face of Islam. Even the liberal media are corked when it comes to dealing with Islam.

I understand that there must be this fear...who wants to live like Rushdy or Hirsi Ali (with fatwa over their heads) forever in hiding from would-be assasin. What this tells me, Liberalism is only too willing to surrender its tenets/belief when faced with threats of violent aggression. The message this gives is that aggressive intimidation truly works.

Edited November 14, 2010 by betsy

[betsy]

No if a component of your culture is opposed to our constitution of laws you have to leave that part behind. If this wasn't true there would be Sharia law courts in Canada.

Apparently, listening to an interview of Melanie Phillips, there is Sharia law in England. In Europe, it's only Denmark and another country that had the balls to tell immigrants that they have to live by their societies' law.

Sharia Law almost got accepted by McGuinty in Ontario.

[bloodyminded]

Can you explain why Sharia law has become acceptable in our Western world, under the noses and compliance of the feminist movement?

Where?

Is homosexuality acceptable and not punishable by death?

But none of us thinks it should be. The argument usually generated from this point is either that 1) Such draconian measures are not supported by most Muslims; 2) our policies do not appear to be having the effect (nor the design, in my opinion) of ameliorating any of these sorts of problems.

So, once again: The United States, Canada, the UK, et al are not engaged in trying to stamp out oppression of women and homosexuals.

That is not our policy.

BUT, did the liberals would not dare fight for the rights of women and gays in the face of Islam. Even the liberal media are corked when it comes to dealing with Islam.

It is not a "liberal media."

I understand that there must be this fear...who wants to live like Rushdy or Hirsi Ali (with fatwa over their heads) forever in hiding from would-be assasin. What this tells me, Liberalism is only too willing to surrender its tenets/belief when faced with threats of violent aggression. The message this gives is that aggressive intimidation truly works.

Of course it works. The terrorists explicitly wanted us to attack Islamic countries; that was one of the chief purposes; and it worked very well, didn't it?

Yes, of course aggressive intimidation truly works. How do you think countries achieve their power and pre-eminence? Aggressive intimidation is one of the primary reasons for the current global order of rule by the Western powers.

We didn't become powerful because God rewarded us for our decency, you know.

Edited November 14, 2010 by bloodyminded

[betsy]

No its more than that. Heres the title...

Liberalism and its inevitable demise

Well, isn't it obvious?

Liberalism wouldn't want to impose its own culture/laws/morals/values on any group....which poses a conflict when one particular group is aggressively bringing and imposing its own culture/laws/morals/values that are against the very philosophy of liberalism.

As we see it unfolding now, liberalists are bendind backward....appeasing...hoping that these will suffice and calm the radicals.

If liberalism cannot uphold its own philosophy...it's kaput!

[msj]

Put me down as voting for this thread being bogus from the very beginning.

First we would have to agree with what Liberalism is which could take 160 pages.

Then we would have to agree on what the arc is/was to get to a peak in order determine how we are going to get to the demise.

Don't get me wrong: dictatorships come and go, but I really don't think the liberal ideal of individual liberty and equal rights (whatever their inherent contradictions) are going to go away as popular ideas.

The idea of separation of church and state would be an excellent idea for many countries in the middle east, for example.

But that would probably require more liberalism in that region - you know, things like democracy, constitutions, free and fair elections - things that liberals, and even conservatives, like but those theocracies don't like.

[bloodyminded]

Well, isn't it obvious?

Liberalism wouldn't want to impose its own culture/laws/morals/values on any group....which poses a conflict when one particular group is aggressively bringing and imposing its own culture/laws/morals/values that are against the very philosophy of liberalism.

As we see it unfolding now, liberalists are bendind backward....appeasing...hoping that these will suffice and calm the radicals.

If liberalism cannot uphold its own philosophy...it's kaput!

So let's get this straight: liberals are forever imposing their destructive ideas upon society: same sex marriage, abortion, the abolition of the very sexy death penalty, equal rights for women; and simultaneously, liberals won't impose anything on anyone, which is their big problem, and bend ovber backwards to accomodate everything.

Does that about sum up your philosophy of "liberalists"?

Edited November 14, 2010 by bloodyminded

[dre]

We're talking about liberalism. And the examples I've given above are fact.

Can you explain why Sharia law has become acceptable in our Western world, under the noses and compliance of the feminist movement? Is homosexuality acceptable and not punishable by death?

Such as?

BUT, the liberals would not dare fight for the rights of women and gays in the face of Islam. Even the liberal media are corked when it comes to dealing with Islam.

I understand that there must be this fear...who wants to live like Rushdy or Hirsi Ali (with fatwa over their heads) forever in hiding from would-be assasin. What this tells me, Liberalism is only too willing to surrender its tenets/belief when faced with threats of violent aggression. The message this gives is that aggressive intimidation truly works.

We're talking about liberalism. And the examples I've given above are fact.

No theyre not. Theyre sophormoric talking points.

Such as?

The entire world around you. Liberals support state intervention into everything from personal behavior, and person rights to the economy. They are traditionally much more acceptant of these ideas than conservatives. They also have a rich history of supporting the spread of democracy by force. Read about the Kennedy-Johnstone era for example. Or the invasion of Yugoslavia. Liberal western governments have probably been behind more foreign intervention that conservatives... all under the guize of "spreading liberal democracy".

Thats the problem. Youre trying to make generalizations but neither conservatives or liberals as a group hold monolithic opinions. Liberals can describe everyone from a hard core anti-war protester, to the guys that started the vietnaam war, invaded yugoslavia and Serbia and put "peace keeper" with automatic weapons in dozens of foreign countries.

Its really only in the last 15 years that conservatives have embraced the liberal policy of intervention. And as with liberals even THAT fails as a generalization. Many conservatives are staunchly opposed to any kind of intervention and propose an almost isolationist policy.

I understand that there must be this fear...who wants to live like Rushdy or Hirsi Ali (with fatwa over their heads) forever in hiding from would-be assasin.

You understand nothing. Liberals are not afraid of reprisal from the muslim world for our treatment of muslims. They are afraid that as a kneejerk reaction to some of the problems caused by muslims that we will surrender some of our OWN INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

[betsy]

Right. We should be in favor of individual liberty and equal rights for muslim women. Thats the exact definition of Liberalism.

That's why I'm saying LIBERALISM is not upholding its own philosophy! You see liberals demonstrating left and right for every cause on the planet...EXCEPT for the gays and the women that need help the most under the thumb of Islam!

Liberalism actually offers a false hope for Muslim women who migrated to western societies such as UK thinking things would be different now that they're on western soil.....only to find that a UK-sanctioned Sharia Law is alive and well in England and they're back to square one!

Edited November 14, 2010 by betsy

[dre]

Liberalism wouldn't want to impose its own culture/laws/morals/values on any group....which poses a conflict when one particular group is aggressively bringing and imposing its own culture/laws/morals/values that are against the very philosophy of liberalism.

Why do you keep repeating this? Its a brown bag full of horse-shit thats already burning on your doorstep.

Liberals have been imposing their own values on others since the beginning of time. They have supported literally hundreds of thousands of little laws, rules, and regulations that govern others and place restrictions on their personal behavior. Apparently you havent even read the junior conservative handbook because according to Conservatives today Liberals support way too large a state that does way too much intervening, and imposing, and a government that is way too powerfull and intrusive. Which one is it?

You need to move beyond this vague mumbo jumbo and rookie generalization, and get specific. Which policy is it that you think liberals are against. What is it that you propose we do, and then we can talk about why "liberals" may or may not oppose it.

Edited November 14, 2010 by dre

[dre]

That's why I'm saying LIBERALISM is not upholding its own philosophy! You see liberals demonstrating left and right for every cause on the planet...EXCEPT for the gays and the women that need help the most under the thumb of Islam!

Liberalism actually offers a false hope for Muslim women who migrated to western societies such as UK thinking things would be different now that they're on western soil.....only to find that a UK-sanctioned Sharia Law is alive and well in England and they're back to square one!

That's why I'm saying LIBERALISM is not upholding its own philosophy! You see liberals demonstrating left and right for every cause on the planet...EXCEPT for the gays and the women that need help the most under the thumb of Islam!

This entire premise is just obejctively false. Why dont you tell us what it is you would like to see done about the oppression of gays and women in Islam, so that theres a substantive point to debate instead of this hogwash?

Liberalism actually offers a false hope for Muslim women who migrated to western societies such as UK thinking things would be different now that they're on western soil

Thats an outrageous claim that requires evidence. I know muslim women here in the west and Id hazard to guess that theyre lives ARE VERY MUCH DIFFERENT than those of their counterparts in conservative orthodox muslim nations.

[bloodyminded]

And in fact, this is one of my objections to blanket condemnations of "liberals." Just who are we talking about here? What sort of liberals, and which policies, ideas and philosophies?

If I start arguing about Chretien and Clinton, for example, it doesn't take too long to understand that many conservatives will come to their defense in the face of my criticism; that Establishment liberals often have more in common with conservatives than they do with me. I don't view "liberals" as somehow "my team" and so am more likely to defend them than I am likely to defend specific conservatives.

This whole conversational direction is an unruly, unhelpful mess.

[dre]

And in fact, this is one of my objections to blanket condemnations of "liberals." Just who are we talking about here? What sort of liberals, and which policies, ideas and philosophies?

If I start arguing about Chretien and Clinton, for example, it doesn't take too long to understand that many conservatives will come to their defense in the face of my criticism; that Establishment liberals often have more in common with conservatives than they do with me. I don't view "liberals" as somehow "my team" and so am more likely to defend them than I am likely to defend specific conservatives.

This whole conversational direction is an unruly, unhelpful mess.

And in fact, this is one of my objections to blanket condemnations of "liberals." Just who are we talking about here?

OH OH! I can help

Shes talking about a simplistic caricature of liberals thats exists only in her head. Probably the result of angst over western liberal society not jumping on board with the muslim-bashing xenophobic element thats gained popularity since 911.

You dont have to thank me

[bloodyminded]

OH OH! I can help

Shes talking about a simplistic caricature of liberals thats exists only in her head. Probably the result of angst over western liberal society not jumping on board with the muslim-bashing xenophobic element thats gained popularity since 911.

You dont have to thank me

I thank you for not insisting that I thank you.

And yes, the caricature notion is my view as well, one I've noticed on several threads around here.

[dre]

I thank you for not insisting that I thank you.

And yes, the caricature notion is my view as well, one I've noticed on several threads around here.

I would ask her once AGAIN.

What substantive policies is it that you think Liberals are not supporting that they SHOULD support in order to stay true your caricature of liberal ideology?????

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT????

[Michael Hardner]

That's why I'm saying LIBERALISM is not upholding its own philosophy! You see liberals demonstrating left and right for every cause on the planet...EXCEPT for the gays and the women that need help the most under the thumb of Islam!

You need to think about this more. There is no contradiction here. Tolerance of religions and cultures and gay-positive and woman-positive attitudes aren`t contradictory.

If you don`t understand that, you need to think on it awhile. It`s not just liberals that can balances these views, either. Conservatives can also do so.

[Moonlight Graham]

How can liberalism continue to survive and flourish when it conflicts with its own philosophy and its own tenet ensures its own demise?

Liberalism believes and enforce that every culture and religious belief must be equally tolerated and accepted, and that no moral values/culture be deemed superior and imposed over others.

Liberalism cannot even impose its own value of equality and tolerance, since by doing so it breaks its own philosophy that no culture/belief should be imposed on others. So when faced with this kind of threat....what's a liberal supposed to do?

Liberalism is about equal rights, but it is also about individual rights/freedoms. There is a dichotomy within the ideology of liberalism, a struggle between the equality of people vs protecting individual rights.

We live in liberal democracies, and we must decide the rules we live by and what rights to protect. At some point, we must chose which rights go above others. Does the right of a person to murder whomever they want go above the right of people to be free from violence? No. We take away a murderers rights, and lock them in jail to protect other people's rights which we judge as more important and more to the benefit of society.

We have a problem today where many people do not see that we still must judge other cultures/religions that value actions which infringe on an individual's liberty/rights which we have already established as vital to our society. Liberalism is NOT about believing that every culture/religion should be equally tolerated. I would think it's clear for those living in Canada or the US that freedom of a person to practice a religion/culture that believes in raping one's own babies and grandparents, and then eating their genitals, would be against other individual rights we would judge important to the betterment of society.

But this doesn't seem clear to many. ALL rights cannot be protected under liberalism because some contradict each other, as they always have. We who live in liberal democracies must continue to make judgment calls on which rights trump others. This is not always easy, but it must be done.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Melanie_]

I would ask her once AGAIN.

What substantive policies is it that you think Liberals are not supporting that they SHOULD support in order to stay true your caricature of liberal ideology?????

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT????

Betsy wants the Catholic Church to decide what is and isn't moral, righteous, and acceptable in Canadian society.

[dre]

What substantive policies is it that you think Liberals are not supporting that they SHOULD support in order to stay true your caricature of liberal ideology?????

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT????

Still waiting... What do liberals have to do to stay true to your caricature of liberalism?. Use force to stop muslims from abusing their wives? Put cameras in their homes? Not allow them to live in the west at all?

ABANDON THREAD! ABANDON THREAD!. Looks like even the author and people who intitially defended the assertions in the OP got the hell out of dodge, and I cant say I blame them.

ABANDON THREAD!

[Sir Bandelot]

I suggest, the OP is generally correct although not nice to think about, and some of you who disagree with it don't understand liberalism, and are actually not as liberal as you think you are...

Edited November 15, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[dre]

I suggest, the OP is generally correct although not nice to think about, and some of you who disagree with it don't understand liberalism, and are actually not as liberal as you think you are...

And I suggest the reason your post is one sentence long and doesnt even ATTEMPT to support any of the assertions in the OP with any sort of cogent argument is because those assertions are objectively false, and that you HAVE no cogent argument to support them.

[Sir Bandelot]

If you read my earlier post you'd see what I was talking about. Liberalism and conservatism is a personal choice, and most of us are composites that include one and the other. Society generally sways from lening towards one, then as problems begin to arise, toward the other. Extremism is the problem, on either side. And what I said was, we are now swinging away from a culturally liberal period that more or less peaked in the 1980's and is now in decline. Don't forget this is "philosophy". The evidence is all around you. Even our "liberal" leaders are conservative now.

Liberalism shall soon enough be known as "the L word"...

(in case you can't tell, that's a joke)

[dre]

If you read my earlier post you'd see what I was talking about. Liberalism and conservatism is a personal choice, and most of us are composites that include one and the other. Society generally sways from lening towards one, then as problems begin to arise, toward the other. Extremism is the problem, on either side. And what I said was, we are now swinging away from a culturally liberal period that more or less peaked in the 1980's and is now in decline. Don't forget this is "philosophy". The evidence is all around you. Even our "liberal" leaders are conservative now.

Liberalism shall soon enough be known as "the L word"...

(in case you can't tell, that's a joke)

Your assertion that libralism peaked in the 80's is highly debatable. If you look at whats happened in the last few decades youll see that liberals got almost everything they wanted (reproductive rights (abortion), invitro fertilization, stemcell research, womans rights, gay rights, expanded welfare state, more secularism, and less inhibitions on science, limits on immigration).

But the real point is that those ideologies are not absolute theyre relative and reactionary. Both conservatives and liberals believe different things today than they did a hundred years ago. Both have had to evolve to remain relevant. To predict the "demise" of either shows a total lack of understanding about what the ideological political spectrum IS and how it works.

I guarantee you that liberals and conservatives will exist as long as human civilization does. Theyll just be squabbling over different things. Liberals will still be advocating a wreckless march forward and conservatives will still be trying to put on the breaks, regardless of what the point of reference is.