Being "liberal"... what's it REALLY mean now a days?

Without any government, as per the thinking of Thomas Hobbes, nothing is possible due to the war of all against all. In the sense of "small govt vs large govt," it seems that liberals generally favor more government than conservatives do.

I see the framing that way, but I don't think it's describing real preference differences in a useful way. If conservatives were pro-BLM, anti-IP, anti-drug, for less-restrictive immigration policy, etc., they could plausibly be described as supporting "small gov't" on principle, and it would make sense (though there would still be issues, IMO). But given that they're on the "big gov't" side of all of those issues, it sounds like opposition to opportunity-enhancing policy and consumer/worker/environmental protection is just euphemistically described as "small gov't" principles because it polls better.

What appears to be the consensus among these people is that businesses should answer to the government to a large extent to the end that the government should be able to tell those businesses what to do, holding them to some sort of "moral" standard based on the "collective good." This stems from a fear that these businesses will do something to harm these posters, and these posters should be able to push back via governmental control and voting. You don't really see conservatives make these same claims about businesses, so this is pretty unique to liberalism in this regard.

See above.

In that same capacity, I see a lot less conservatives push back against police and military leadership. But you also see more conservative posters make claims about willing to engage police in armed conflict if the police were an agent of the government to do things like confiscate personal weapons, so this is where things become more complicated.

Well, what we see is conservatives express devotion to real-world authority and willingness to rebel against hypothetical and impossible authority.

You simply don't hear this willingness to embrace what is effectively violent revolution from liberals, so I don't think "abuse of authority" and "lack of authority" is an appropriate breakdown. There is something else there. Maybe it's about collectivism versus individualism to some extent?

Again, I disagree. Corporations are collectives. I really think the authority vs. anarchy fears are the best descriptor.
 
Men gave too much power to Women => Emotions became more important than logic.
 
I see the framing that way, but I don't think it's describing real preference differences in a useful way. If conservatives were pro-BLM, anti-IP, anti-drug, for less-restrictive immigration policy, etc., they could plausibly be described as supporting "small gov't" on principle, and it would make sense (though there would still be issues, IMO). But given that they're on the "big gov't" side of all of those issues, it sounds like opposition to opportunity-enhancing policy and consumer/worker/environmental protection is just euphemistically described as "small gov't" principles because it polls better.

Well, what we see is conservatives express devotion to real-world authority and willingness to rebel against hypothetical and impossible authority.

Again, I disagree. Corporations are collectives. I really think the authority vs. anarchy fears are the best descriptor.
People like things that are easily condensed. Both of the major parties seem to agree that expanse of federal power is a good thing, so those of us who want to seem it limited are not really left with any good options. Bummer...

Well, that's not really true. Impossible authority would be like alien overlords, but an overreaching tyrannical government is absolutely something that could happen. The question is if it happens, how would it happen? Would it happen overnight, potentially causing a massive upheaval? Or would it happen inch by inch, getting buy-in and normalcy over time? I think those are very different situations that might manifest.

I'm not talking about collectives, whether they be tribes or businesses. I think it's this idea of "society." Conservatives seem to think that things like drugs are inherently bad for society, so they must be stopped. Liberals seem to think that things like overly powerful businesses are bad for society, so they must be stopped. It's nuanced, perhaps somewhat like pornography. "I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it."
 
I can see that we are getting nowhere here. I'm asking you to look at the world through their eyes, not your own. When people feel like they've been forgotten in DC and that everyone else is the priority except them, they get pissed. And when they get pissed, they throw a hand grenade into the political process because that seems better than the status quo. That is what happened in 2016. These are people whose interests deserve to addressed just as much as anyone else in America, and it's worth listening to them and trying to understand where they are coming from.
You're not wrong but what does someone say to that? If people have a distorted view of reality and vote based upon that how do you try to court their votes?
 
You're not wrong but what does someone say to that? If people have a distorted view of reality and vote based upon that how do you try to court their votes?
Include them in the political process. Make their issues into American issues, same as anything else. "Your industries are either moving overseas or dying, but here is what we want to do to revitalize your areas by bringing in additional industries, education, etc." That seems like the right approach for a proactive government. Whether or not you want the government to get involved at all is a different question, but most people seem to favor that sort of thing. Create incentives to bring in new businesses and such.
 
Include them in the political process. Make their issues into American issues, same as anything else. "Your industries are either moving overseas or dying, but here is what we want to do to revitalize your areas by bringing in additional industries, education, etc." That seems like the right approach for a proactive government. Whether or not you want the government to get involved at all is a different question, but most people seem to favor that sort of thing. Create incentives to bring in new businesses and such.
There are already retraining programs for workers in the coal industry but they've been reluctant to take them because the jobs aren't as good as their coal jobs of yore. In a way its a sense of entitlement to a certain standard set by the coal industry that is no longer sustainable and Trump has aggravated it by telling them he can bring it back when he can't reverse the long term trends against coal.
 
There are already retraining programs for workers in the coal industry but they've been reluctant to take them because the jobs aren't as good as their coal jobs of yore. In a way its a sense of entitlement to a certain standard set by the coal industry that is no longer sustainable and Trump has aggravated it by telling them he can bring it back when he can't reverse the long term trends against coal.
Resistance to change and to accept something lower is natural. I think it is going to take time and some serious will to change, and I’m not entirely sure that’s a burden that is fair to shoulder on the American taxpayer. I think people there need to realize that coal is dead, and it should be time to jump into a field like IT. There are several data warehouses out that way that would probably pay good money.
 
Resistance to change and to accept something lower is natural. I think it is going to take time and some serious will to change, and I’m not entirely sure that’s a burden that is fair to shoulder on the American taxpayer. I think people there need to realize that coal is dead, and it should be time to jump into a field like IT. There are several data warehouses out that way that would probably pay good money.
Right they should accept that coal is dead but the fear of change and the sense of entitlement to the standard that coal jobs set has lead them to buy into the snake oil of a conman. Obama was already pushing retraining jobs so its not like the Dems ignored them completely, the problem is the Dems weren't telling them what they wanted to hear like Trump was. Its hard to reach voters like that.
 
giphy.gif
 
People like things that are easily condensed. Both of the major parties seem to agree that expanse of federal power is a good thing, so those of us who want to seem it limited are not really left with any good options. Bummer...

I don't think that "expanding federal power" ever comes up. The question is only how that power is used. I also think that more tyrannical exercises of gov't power are normally done at the state level, though I am concerned about what's happening with the FBI, and generally the way the GOP at the national level is working to abuse law enforcement, both in the defensive sense and the offensive sense (we've already seen frivolous investigations of a presidential candidate and I think it's certain that if they remain in control, that will be the norm going forward, possibly with an increase in effectiveness).

Well, that's not really true. Impossible authority would be like alien overlords, but an overreaching tyrannical government is absolutely something that could happen.

OK, not literally impossible, but I think "gun grabbing" can't happen in an imaginable America.

I'm not talking about collectives, whether they be tribes or businesses. I think it's this idea of "society." Conservatives seem to think that things like drugs are inherently bad for society, so they must be stopped. Liberals seem to think that things like overly powerful businesses are bad for society, so they must be stopped. It's nuanced, perhaps somewhat like pornography. "I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it."

People support laws that they like. That's nothing new. But when trying to accurately describe different mindsets, I think fear of authority for the left and fear of anarchy for the right works pretty well. As well as any simplistic formula like that can anyway.
 
Right they should accept that coal is dead but the fear of change and the sense of entitlement to the standard that coal jobs set has lead them to buy into the snake oil of a conman. Obama was already pushing retraining jobs so its not like the Dems ignored them completely, the problem is the Dems weren't telling them what they wanted to hear like Trump was. Its hard to reach voters like that.
That's a really loaded way to say it, but the bold piece is generally true. But is that unreasonable?

The problem has to be viewed holistically. When you turn on the TV and hear election cycle after election cycle about how every other segment of America deserves some kind of help or piece of the pie, and no one ever mentions you, you start feeling neglected. And when the best that the government can do is say, "Alright, listen here, you bunch of racist rednecks. Your jobs and way of life are over, but here's a retraining program so that you can make 70% of what you used to. Now shut up and take it," you definitely feel like the system is rigged against you. I mean, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you want to believe when a candidate says that they are bringing all the things that you used to have back?
 
Bleeding heart Liberals have been around a very long time....

It's people who think and lead with compassion rather then logic.

Basically they have no balls to stick up to anyone.....
 
I don't think that "expanding federal power" ever comes up. The question is only how that power is used. I also think that more tyrannical exercises of gov't power are normally done at the state level, though I am concerned about what's happening with the FBI, and generally the way the GOP at the national level is working to abuse law enforcement, both in the defensive sense and the offensive sense (we've already seen frivolous investigations of a presidential candidate and I think it's certain that if they remain in control, that will be the norm going forward, possibly with an increase in effectiveness).

OK, not literally impossible, but I think "gun grabbing" can't happen in an imaginable America.

People support laws that they like. That's nothing new. But when trying to accurately describe different mindsets, I think fear of authority for the left and fear of anarchy for the right works pretty well. As well as any simplistic formula like that can anyway.
Of course it does. States rights is regularly something that people like to talk about. The role of the federal government is something that can and should be debated.

Any situation where the government completely abuses its powers is not something that happens overnight. It's a battle of inches, but as you pointed out, federal powers are already being abused in a manner that undermines a free American society.

The more I think on it, perhaps it is a fear of powerlessness on the left versus a fear of constraint on the self? It's an interesting psychological question for sure.
 
That's a really loaded way to say it, but the bold piece is generally true. But is that unreasonable?

The problem has to be viewed holistically. When you turn on the TV and hear election cycle after election cycle about how every other segment of America deserves some kind of help or piece of the pie, and no one ever mentions you, you start feeling neglected. And when the best that the government can do is say, "Alright, listen here, you bunch of racist rednecks. Your jobs and way of life are over, but here's a retraining program so that you can make 70% of what you used to. Now shut up and take it," you definitely feel like the system is rigged against you. I mean, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you want to believe when a candidate says that they are bringing all the things that you used to have back?
Sure, I've already conceded that but where do we go from there? Should the Dems also peddle snake oil to these people? Can they not handle the truth? What else is there to do for them? They're being offered training for industries that have a brighter future and those industries have also received subsidies. The Dems also support a stronger social safety net which would help communities anchored to failing industries. Its not a red carpet but its hardly neglect either.

Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate did not help matters and perhaps the Dems as of late wink and nod to urban leftist concerns too much but it didn't take a genius to see through Trump's smoke and mirrors surrounding coal and what he could do for these communities and that's only become more apparent since he's taken office.
 
Sure, I've already conceded that but where do we go from there? Should the Dems also peddle snake oil to these people? Can they not handle the truth? What else is there to do for them? They're being offered training for industries that have a brighter future and those industries have also received subsidies. The Dems also support a stronger social safety net which would help communities anchored to failing industries. Its not a red carpet but its hardly neglect either.

Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate did not help matters and perhaps the Dems as of late wink and nod to urban leftist concerns too much but it didn't take a genius to see through Trump's smoke and mirrors surrounding coal and what he could do for these communities and that's only become more apparent since he's taken office.
Maybe retool the job training programs? I don't have a good answer right off the cuff, but that seems like the best approach if anything is to be done.
 
Maybe retool the job training programs? I don't have a good answer right off the cuff, but that seems like the best approach if anything is to be done.
The problem isn't the job training because people from other industries take up the offer, the problem is the coal towns are so wedded to coal that they don't want to leave it behind. I really don't know how to describe the problem other than its an issue of entitlement. They feel entitled to the jobs of their fathers and while that's understandable its not going to help these communities move forward.
 
The problem isn't the job training because people from other industries take up the offer, the problem is the coal towns are so wedded to coal that they don't want to leave it behind. I really don't know how to describe the problem other than its an issue of entitlement. They feel entitled to the jobs of their fathers and while that's understandable its not going to help these communities move forward.
I think there is a cultural attachment to coal, but I don't know if that's all that's acceptable to those people. Perhaps what was being offered just wasn't acceptable for some reason. I don't know, you'd have to spend some time in the area, talking to people. At the end of the day, you and I are just guessing.
 
I think there is a cultural attachment to coal, but I don't know if that's all that's acceptable to those people. Perhaps what was being offered just wasn't acceptable for some reason. I don't know, you'd have to spend some time in the area, talking to people. At the end of the day, you and I are just guessing.
It wasn't acceptable because of the high standards these communities have as a result of how good the coal industry was to them. But they're not the only ones who have to face poorer circumstances than their fathers. I guess you could say they need to pull themselves up by their boot straps and stop waiting for Trump to bring coal back.
 
Back
Top