Liberals versus Leftists

[Neo-Scholastic]

Sorry for the word wall. I'm trying to give as much nuance and qualification as possible.

I have been listening to Prager for a couple of years now and have been largely puzzled by his insistence that liberalism and leftism are entirely different positions. That is why I searched for and found this article. In the OP, I noted that his assessment seemed accurate but not precise and here is why.

I saw the liberal position presented by Prager as “classical liberalism” as opposed to the type of liberalism that I believe now goes by the name progressivism, largely because in the 1980’s liberalism became stigmatized and identified with maligned “tax and spend” policies. Consequently, it became more popular to call oneself “progressive”. IMHO. As such what Prager presents as liberal principles I think should properly be called conservative. And I think most people would reject the principles he defines as leftist, I know I most certainly do.

My initial opinion however does not seem to fit with the replies by AF members who I believe would identify themselves as liberal or progressive. It seems that pretty much everyone, except those holding the most fringe opinions, would agree with the liberal position as understood by Prager. To me that means that the defining principles laid out by Prager as “liberal” are basically meaningless.  I think the same about the term “progressive” which basically just means advocating for social reform, with which most people agree is a good thing, but seems only to have been adopted by people who would vote for Democrats.

The differences must lie elsewhere.

This is why I said in the OP that Prager may be accurate but it is not precise. Conservatives and liberals would both agree with the opinions Prager attributes only to Liberalism. So the difference is not in the general opinion but in the purposes, means, and results of those we call right-wing, left-wing, conservative, liberal or progressive.

For example, I favor regulations that serve common interests and safety of the general public such as anti-trust laws, pollution control, and building codes, but I generally oppose regulations implemented as means of social engineering with goals like redistributing wealth or that grossly distort the market place, like rent controls, protectionist tariffs, subsidies and tax breaks, etc. I’m not philosophically opposed to government control/ownership of specific infrastructure and industries but state-owned centralized functions are universally inefficient, easily twisted to political aims, and prone to corruption. The conservative matra is smaller government, but I don’t think that is necessarily true. The main issue for conservatives is really to decentralize and widely distribute power to the greatest extent possible, not only to state and local governments, but to community organizations, private businesses, professionals, families, and individuals. It seems to me that progressives generally are distrustful of private entities ability to self-govern and attempt to centralize power in the name of the public good.

I would like to point out to CL et al. debating about whether it is right and proper to consider one’s own country the best that the article did not say that anything about considering one’s own nation the best; but rather, that nationalism is a virtue. I would say that America is the “best” place for American’s to live, Germany is the “best” place for Germans to live, and France the “best” place for the French to live; but only because of cultural norms, attitudes, shared language, and the unique sensibilities of each. Otherwise, the general values of liberty, freedom, and equality, are so broadly similar that living is one place is not all that different from another (IMHO) despite how those get expressed in their respective bodies politic. I have no problem with an Iranian who is very proud of his Persian heritage, the political struggles of his people, and the beauty of his countries and literature, the unique richness of the language. But it’s probably not the “best” place to live by any objective standard.

And I do not see anything wrong with a nation trying to preserve its national identity. I think it is laudable for the French to explicitly promote their language (in part because I think it is beautiful) and I think it is sad to see Dunken Donuts in Paris, not in itself. It is after all a kind of ethnic food, i.e. American, in the same way that I enjoy a good taco. But it isn’t inappropriate to recognize when something is lost when there are fewer frommage shops. Many many good and noble things were lost during Manifest Destiny and those should be remembered. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that it is better to live in a technologically advanced society than in a stone age culture. Organic change cannot be helped but I don’t understand people who what to recreate the countries they left in the countries to which they’ve moved and bring with them the very things they are moving away from.

So while like all countries, the US has moments of shame and historic failures, it should still be a source of pride. I think today’s Germans should be proud of their country, despite the Holocaust, and the Japanese despite its Imperialism. Prager makes a very good point. If you love your wife, it doesn’t mean she is perfect, but you don’t want to fundamentally change her into something else.

[Amarok]

We can play the simplistic straw man game too. 

Conservatives- Institutional and cultural racism doesn't exist  anymore and is not cause of minority  suffering . Minorities are lazy and culturally inferior and thus to blame for their struggles . And the majority white leadership of this country only had the best intentions for minorities. Now listen to my moaning about reverse racism and white persecution.   

Conservatives - Capitalism is god and rich people  are saints  who will always do what's in the public good. And thus should not be regulated or taxed  or they will extort the economy . 

Conservative -Forced rituals and veneration of objects and historical figures is required . And don't you dare question it or you hate the troops . 

Conservatives - Rich people did it all themselves without benefiting from a safe stable society . And if your not rich it's your fault 

Conservative - Free speech until you give Macbeth a modern twist . Call the bible a myth . Won't write Trump on a coffee cup . etc 

Conservatives - All other nations owe us gratitude for acting on our economic and military interests .And any criticism of America will be met with hostility . But were free to bash everyone else .

[Edwardo Piet]

The conservative talk-show host, Dennis Prager, wrote an article in which he compared and contrasted liberalism and leftism. HERE I would like to know if other people, particularly people who consider themselves liberal, progressive, or left-leaning consider his assessment accurate, if not particularly precise. Here is how I would summarize the comparisons made:

Liberal: skin color is irrelevant
Left: skin color is significant

Liberal: Capitalism is good with proper regulation.
Left: Capitalism is essentially exploitative.

Liberal: Love of country is a virtue.
Left: Nationalism is a vice.

Liberal: America is a beacon of freedom and land of opportunity.
Left: America is fundamentally oppressive.

Liberal: The solution to offensive speech is more speech.
Left: Offensive beliefs should be suppressed.

Liberal: The Western tradition has produced the most free, wealthiest, technologically advanced and culturally rich civilization.
Left: All cultures and civilizations are morally, aesthetically, and intellectually equal.

Liberal is left. "Leftist" is the made up bullshit. And all the examples here just seem like stereotypes.

---

I'll now give my own responses.

Liberal: skin color is irrelevant
Left: skin color is significant

Misleading. It's irrelevant in the sense that it doesn't matter what color your skin is. It's significant in the sense that racism is very real and to pretend that people with certain skin colors don't get it harder than others because of racism . . . is just denying reality.

Liberal: Capitalism is good with proper regulation.
Left: Capitalism is essentially exploitative.

False dichotomy.

I'd say a lot of capitalism is exploitative, but it's a necessary evil at worst and there are no better alternatives. Overall it's "good" with proper regulation if only in the sense that it's a system that actually works. Despite its flaws.

Money has its problems, but there's not exactly an alternative to money either.

Liberal: Love of country is a virtue.
Left: Nationalism is a vice.

Full blown nationalism is certainly a vice. Love of country is harmless at best. The idea of it being a virtue makes no sense at all.

Liberal: America is a beacon of freedom and land of opportunity.
Left: America is fundamentally oppressive.

False dichotomy again. The truth is somewhere in between. And yes, I am a liberal and I am left.

Liberal: The solution to offensive speech is more speech.
Left: Offensive beliefs should be suppressed.

You appear to be equating the "left" and "leftists" with SJWs who aren't actually liberal. If you're really liberal, you absolutely do support free speech. Identifying as liberal and then oppressing free speech and having very illiberal policies, doesn't make you a liberal. Just as claiming to be Christian but not believing in God or Jesus Christ, doesn't make you a Christian. What someone identifies as is wholly irrelevant with regards to what they actually are (unless their identity is what we're talking about).

Liberal: The Western tradition has produced the most free, wealthiest, technologically advanced and culturally rich civilization.
Left: All cultures and civilizations are morally, aesthetically, and intellectually equal.

False dichotomy. Again, the truth is somewhere in between. Not all civilizations and cultures are equal, but western civilization hasn't got everything necessarily right either. Some things, such as genital mutilation, is absolutely wrong and I don't care what the culture says, but this doesn't make eastern civilization worthless by any means.

And yes, I am left, and I am a liberal.

[downbeatplumb]

You said patriotism is bad, and so is considering a country better than the others.

I'm an immigrant.

Patriotism is bad because it leads to conflict needlessly.
I don't think my country is better than others.
It may have a better health care system than most other countries, most notably it is superior to the system in the US and much of the world is less democratic and racially integrated but it also has an outdated system of aristocracy and there is a lot of a "little Englander" way of thinking that is xenophobic towards the rest of the world hence the tragic brexit vote.

So its nice but best no, nowhere is.

Most countries have different merits.

Can you say that if you came to England and went "I've come from the best country in the world AMERICA" in a café, that you wont end up with spit in your tea.

So you are an immigrant?
So what?

---

For example, I favor regulations that serve common interests and safety of the general public such as anti-trust laws, pollution control, and building codes, but I generally oppose regulations implemented as means of social engineering with goals like redistributing wealth or that grossly distort the market place, like rent controls, protectionist tariffs, subsidies and tax breaks, etc. I’m not philosophically opposed to government control/ownership of specific infrastructure and industries but state-owned centralized functions are universally inefficient, easily twisted to political aims, and prone to corruption.

All that means is that for public run endeavours there needs to be better regulation and oversight not throw it open to the corrupt capitalist systems. Like in California where the electrical grid was privatised and companies purposely caused rolling blackouts because this made them money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California...ity_crisis

California had an installed generating capacity of 45 GW. At the time of the blackouts, demand was 28 GW. A demand supply gap was created by energy companies, mainly Enron, to create an artificial shortage. Energy traders took power plants offline for maintenance in days of peak demand to increase the price.[8][9] Traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20 times its normal value. Because the state government had a cap on retail electricity charges, this market manipulation squeezed the industry's revenue margins, causing the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and near bankruptcy of Southern California Edison in early 2001.[7]:2-3

I would like to point out to CL et al. debating about whether it is right and proper to consider one’s own country the best that the article did not say that anything about considering one’s own nation the best; but rather, that nationalism is a virtue. I would say that America is the “best” place for American’s to live, Germany is the “best” place for Germans to live, and France the “best” place for the French to live; but only because of cultural norms, attitudes, shared language, and the unique sensibilities of each. Otherwise, the general values of liberty, freedom, and equality, are so broadly similar that living is one place is not all that different from another (IMHO) despite how those get expressed in their respective bodies politic. I have no problem with an Iranian who is very proud of his Persian heritage, the political struggles of his people, and the beauty of his countries and literature, the unique richness of the language. But it’s probably not the “best” place to live by any objective standard.

That is similar to my thoughts, you are allowed to like or even love your country, but to start claiming superiority, them's fighting words.

And I do not see anything wrong with a nation trying to preserve its national identity. I think it is laudable for the French to explicitly promote their language (in part because I think it is beautiful) and I think it is sad to see Dunken Donuts in Paris, not in itself. It is after all a kind of ethnic food, i.e. American, in the same way that I enjoy a good taco. But it isn’t inappropriate to recognize when something is lost when there are fewer frommage shops. Many many good and noble things were lost during Manifest Destiny and those should be remembered. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that it is better to live in a technologically advanced society than in a stone age culture. Organic change cannot be helped but I don’t understand people who what to recreate the countries they left in the countries to which they’ve moved and bring with them the very things they are moving away from.

So while like all countries, the US has moments of shame and historic failures, it should still be a source of pride. I think today’s Germans should be proud of their country, despite the Holocaust, and the Japanese despite its Imperialism. Prager makes a very good point. If you love your wife, it doesn’t mean she is perfect, but you don’t want to fundamentally change her into something else.

Bigger boobs would be nice.

[brewer]

Meanwhile, conservatives:

Conservatives: Black Lives don't matter
Conservative: Capitalism is the only good thing in the world, and there should be zero regulation because the rich and powerful are the only ones that matter
Conservative: Love of country is required
Conservative: America is the land of opportunity, and if you aren't rich you are just LAZY
Conservative: Free speech is great, unless you're saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.  Or want to open a mosque.  Or you know the President is a fucking idiot.
Conservative: We have absolutely nothing to learn from other nations, because America was at it's best in the 1920's when women and blacks couldn't vote and corporations could dick people over all they like without pesky unions

I'm a conservative and don't believe one of those statements. Thanks for the blanket condemnation.

---

We can play the simplistic straw man game too. 

Conservatives- Institutional and cultural racism doesn't exist  anymore and is not cause of minority  suffering . Minorities are lazy and culturally inferior and thus to blame for their struggles . And the majority white leadership of this country only had the best intentions for minorities. Now listen to my moaning about reverse racism and white persecution.   

Conservatives - Capitalism is god and rich people  are saints  who will always do what's in the public good. And thus should not be regulated or taxed  or they will extort the economy . 

Conservative -Forced rituals and veneration of objects and historical figures is required . And don't you dare question it or you hate the troops . 

Conservatives - Rich people did it all themselves without benefiting from a safe stable society . And if your not rich it's your fault 

Conservative - Free speech until you give Macbeth a modern twist . Call the bible a myth . Won't write Trump on a coffee cup . etc 

Conservatives - All other nations owe us gratitude for acting on our economic and military interests .And any criticism of America will be met with hostility . But were free to bash everyone else .

See reply to Divinity.

[Catholic_Lady]

You said patriotism is bad, and so is considering a country better than the others.

I'm an immigrant.

Patriotism is bad because it leads to conflict needlessly.
I don't think my country is better than others.
It may have a better health care system than most other countries, most notably it is superior to the system in the US and much of the world is less democratic and racially integrated but it also has an outdated system of aristocracy and there is a lot of a "little Englander" way of thinking that is xenophobic towards the rest of the world hence the tragic brexit vote.

So its nice but best no, nowhere is.

Most countries have different merits.

Can you say that if you came to England and went "I've come from the best country in the world AMERICA" in a café, that you wont end up with spit in your tea.

So you are an immigrant?
So what?

Good grief, being patriotic does not lead to conflict. Just because I think the country I currently live in is best doesn't mean I'm going to start fights with other people. Just as me thinking my husband is the best husband isn't going to lead to me getting in fights with other wives. It may for the pompus ass hole who likes to look for reason to start shit, but that can be said about anything. Being patriotic does not equal being a dick.

As for the spit in tea comment, did you not read what I said just a few posts ago about being rude?

As for me being an immigrant, I don't know, um, you're the one who asked if I've ever "tried" other countries. Why yes, I was born in a different country and have lived in 2 countries other than this one. So have my entire family.

[Cyberman]

Can you say that if you came to England and went "I've come from the best country in the world AMERICA" in a café, that you wont end up with spit in your tea.

Yeah... 'spit'...

(See also Winner's Sauce; "I can't believe it's nut butter" etc)

[Catholic_Lady]

Sorry for the word wall. I'm trying to give as much nuance and qualification as possible.

I have been listening to Prager for a couple of years now and have been largely puzzled by his insistence that liberalism and leftism are entirely different positions. That is why I searched for and found this article. In the OP, I noted that his assessment seemed accurate but not precise and here is why.

I saw the liberal position presented by Prager as “classical liberalism” as opposed to the type of liberalism that I believe now goes by the name progressivism, largely because in the 1980’s liberalism became stigmatized and identified with maligned “tax and spend” policies. Consequently, it became more popular to call oneself “progressive”. IMHO. As such what Prager presents as liberal principles I think should properly be called conservative. And I think most people would reject the principles he defines as leftist, I know I most certainly do.

My initial opinion however does not seem to fit with the replies by AF members who I believe would identify themselves as liberal or progressive. It seems that pretty much everyone, except those holding the most fringe opinions, would agree with the liberal position as understood by Prager. To me that means that the defining principles laid out by Prager as “liberal” are basically meaningless.  I think the same about the term “progressive” which basically just means advocating for social reform, with which most people agree is a good thing, but seems only to have been adopted by people who would vote for Democrats.

The differences must lie elsewhere.

This is why I said in the OP that Prager may be accurate but it is not precise. Conservatives and liberals would both agree with the opinions Prager attributes only to Liberalism. So the difference is not in the general opinion but in the purposes, means, and results of those we call right-wing, left-wing, conservative, liberal or progressive.

For example, I favor regulations that serve common interests and safety of the general public such as anti-trust laws, pollution control, and building codes, but I generally oppose regulations implemented as means of social engineering with goals like redistributing wealth or that grossly distort the market place, like rent controls, protectionist tariffs, subsidies and tax breaks, etc. I’m not philosophically opposed to government control/ownership of specific infrastructure and industries but state-owned centralized functions are universally inefficient, easily twisted to political aims, and prone to corruption. The conservative matra is smaller government, but I don’t think that is necessarily true. The main issue for conservatives is really to decentralize and widely distribute power to the greatest extent possible, not only to state and local governments, but to community organizations, private businesses, professionals, families, and individuals. It seems to me that progressives generally are distrustful of private entities ability to self-govern and attempt to centralize power in the name of the public good.

I would like to point out to CL et al. debating about whether it is right and proper to consider one’s own country the best that the article did not say that anything about considering one’s own nation the best; but rather, that nationalism is a virtue. I would say that America is the “best” place for American’s to live, Germany is the “best” place for Germans to live, and France the “best” place for the French to live; but only because of cultural norms, attitudes, shared language, and the unique sensibilities of each. Otherwise, the general values of liberty, freedom, and equality, are so broadly similar that living is one place is not all that different from another (IMHO) despite how those get expressed in their respective bodies politic. I have no problem with an Iranian who is very proud of his Persian heritage, the political struggles of his people, and the beauty of his countries and literature, the unique richness of the language. But it’s probably not the “best” place to live by any objective standard.

And I do not see anything wrong with a nation trying to preserve its national identity. I think it is laudable for the French to explicitly promote their language (in part because I think it is beautiful) and I think it is sad to see Dunken Donuts in Paris, not in itself. It is after all a kind of ethnic food, i.e. American, in the same way that I enjoy a good taco. But it isn’t inappropriate to recognize when something is lost when there are fewer frommage shops. Many many good and noble things were lost during Manifest Destiny and those should be remembered. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that it is better to live in a technologically advanced society than in a stone age culture. Organic change cannot be helped but I don’t understand people who what to recreate the countries they left in the countries to which they’ve moved and bring with them the very things they are moving away from.

So while like all countries, the US has moments of shame and historic failures, it should still be a source of pride. I think today’s Germans should be proud of their country, despite the Holocaust, and the Japanese despite its Imperialism. Prager makes a very good point. If you love your wife, it doesn’t mean she is perfect, but you don’t want to fundamentally change her into something else.

I agree with Neo's take here on the patriotism thing.

Just because it is my personal opinion that the US is the best country doesn't mean I think it's perfect, that it can't be improved, that there aren't qualities in other countries we can learn from, etc.

I'm grateful to be here, I think this is the best place for me, and I wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

[downbeatplumb]

Good grief, being patriotic does not lead to conflict. Just because I think the country I currently live in is best doesn't mean I'm going to start fights with other people.

That would very much depend on where you voiced that opinion. I've seen people fight over less.

Just as me thinking my husband is the best husband isn't going to lead to me getting in fights with other wives.

My wife is on her way round to you now.

It may for the pompus ass hole who likes to look for reason to start shit, but that can be said about anything. Being patriotic does not equal being a dick.

But you don't have to be the dick, all you have to do is meet a dick who believes their country is the best and pow.

As for the spit in tea comment, did you not read what I said just a few posts ago about being rude?

No I didn't what did you say?

As for me being an immigrant, I don't know, um, you're the one who asked if I've ever "tried" other countries. Why yes, I was born in a different country and have lived in 2 countries other than this one. So have my entire family.

Those other countries may have been worse in some aspects than America but then the UK has many aspects that are superior to the US and I do not think the UK is the best, its ok.
Some Americans come to other countries and assume we are all in awe of them just because they are Americans.
The "we're better than you all" attitude is what grates, it really does.


Not all, some americans are very nice and I've worked with a fair few over the years, its the flag waving "Merica fuck yeah" yahoos that you meet that are tiresome.

[Brian37]

Meanwhile, conservatives:

Conservatives: Black Lives don't matter
Conservative: Capitalism is the only good thing in the world, and there should be zero regulation because the rich and powerful are the only ones that matter
Conservative: Love of country is required
Conservative: America is the land of opportunity, and if you aren't rich you are just LAZY
Conservative: Free speech is great, unless you're saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.  Or want to open a mosque.  Or you know the President is a fucking idiot.
Conservative: We have absolutely nothing to learn from other nations, because America was at it's best in the 1920's when women and blacks couldn't vote and corporations could dick people over all they like without pesky unions

I'm a conservative and don't believe one of those statements. Thanks for the blanket condemnation.

---

We can play the simplistic straw man game too. 

Conservatives- Institutional and cultural racism doesn't exist  anymore and is not cause of minority  suffering . Minorities are lazy and culturally inferior and thus to blame for their struggles . And the majority white leadership of this country only had the best intentions for minorities. Now listen to my moaning about reverse racism and white persecution.   

Conservatives - Capitalism is god and rich people  are saints  who will always do what's in the public good. And thus should not be regulated or taxed  or they will extort the economy . 

Conservative -Forced rituals and veneration of objects and historical figures is required . And don't you dare question it or you hate the troops . 

Conservatives - Rich people did it all themselves without benefiting from a safe stable society . And if your not rich it's your fault 

Conservative - Free speech until you give Macbeth a modern twist . Call the bible a myth . Won't write Trump on a coffee cup . etc 

Conservatives - All other nations owe us gratitude for acting on our economic and military interests .And any criticism of America will be met with hostility . But were free to bash everyone else .

See reply to Divinity.

There is no polite way to put it when it comes to today's GOP. They are not the party of Lincoln nor Teddy. They have been hijacked by the far right religious, and we have had 36 years of GOP controlling our economic narrative with Reagan's FAILED trickle down economics, which 45 and the GOP are STILL selling.

"Conserving" isn't about greed, or hording wealth. Conservation isn't about exploitation to simply make the top richer while the pay gap keeps exploding for everyone else. Conservation is about, or should I say, SHOULD BE about conserving social stability and natural resources. 

There is absolutely nothing conservative about today's GOP. I warn you that all they are going to do is lead us into another economic bubble that will burst just like the one Bush Jr had. 

None of what I said in this post is anti private sector. I don't want us to become Cuba nor do I want a nanny state for saying we cant keep doing what we are doing. 

But you and I are both atheists. This is a good posts for theists to read when they claim we all agree all the time, this is an example to show them we dont  always agree.

I do not agree with GOP economics, and I do not agree with our religious right or the bully they got elected.