New Orleans Saints - Black and Gold - Why Liberalism Will Ultimately Fail

New Orleans Saints - Black and Gold (http://blackandgold.com/community/)

- Poli-Sci (http://blackandgold.com/poli/)

- - Why Liberalism Will Ultimately Fail (http://blackandgold.com/poli/53281-why-liberalism-will-ultimately-fail.html)

Why Liberalism Will Ultimately Fail

Why liberalism will ultimately fail - CNN.com

Quote:

Liberalism's continued success depends on many factors, but two in particular. First, it must paint the political alternative, conservatism, as the faction of social injustice, as anti-immigrant, anti-entitlement, anti-regulation and so on. The Obama campaign did that effectively in this election without an equally effective conservative response. One presumes that conservatives will be ready in 2016.
Second, and more important, effective state intervention of the sort liberals propose depends almost entirely on a state that is strong economically and socially. It is here that liberalism falls short in the long term. The various liberal constituencies are in fact atomized groups of individuals who are relying on government, rather than creating the economic growth or fostering the social and civic health necessary to sustain the ideal liberal state.
Whereas liberals see entitlements as the immediate response to economic injustice, many fail to realize that they alone cannot rebuild a middle class. In fact, they can have the opposite effect in the long term and insulate their recipients from upward mobility. With $16 trillion in national debt, an aging population and an already-overburdened entitlement system, the ideal liberal social welfare state can only sustain itself for so long before it collapses under its own weight. It is a lifeline attached to a slowly sinking ship.
Whereas liberals celebrate subsidized birth control and the unmooring of what they see as narrow-minded religious moral standards, they fail to realize the alternative that is right in front of them: out-of-wedlock birth rates that are at all-time highs and a destructive breakdown in the family unit.
Absent strong, active, character-forming institutions, like families, schools, and churches, single mothers and low-income households in many cases have no where else to turn but to the government. The problem is that liberals often confuse such allegiance with successful governing.
The liberal coalition of the future looks more like Greece, an advanced secular, social welfare state, than the idealized liberal glory days of FDR.

Re: Why Liberalism Will Ultimately Fail

Awesome.

Thatcher summed it up perfectly when she said Socialism fails because you eventually run out of other peoples money.

The thing that gets me is that the policies liberals think helps the working man do exactly the opposite of their intentions.

I look for the middle class to shink and the gap between the haves and the have-nots to increase. Liberal policies make it harder for the average hard working American to climb the ladder.

It punishes effort and success and rewards dependency.

Re: Why Liberalism Will Ultimately Fail

One would have presumed after the shellacking they gave McCain/Palin in '08, that conservatives would have been ready in '12, but it was the same ol' song-n-dance ... trot out an uber-moderate candidate in hopes of drawing enough of the blue-dog, democratic vote. It seems more like "playing not to lose" if you ask me. WTF is wrong with these people and why can't they get their message across? Where is the conservative candidate anymore?

Of course liberalism (in it's purist form) fails, because you do eventually run out of money as people inevitably give up on a failing economy and resign themselves to the public rolls ... it's human nature and in most cases, survival.

I want you guys to think about something, and not in an antagonistic sort of way.

Somewhere once, I saw something like the biggest obstacle to establishing a new-world-order was the American middle-class. It made sense to me because when you're middle-class, you're not rich, but you make have enough to be independent and not have to rely on anyone else for too much. You can't be influenced. The middle-class is where you find the character-forming institutions like families, schools & churches heavily supported ... and god-knows, don't let a middle-class daughter give birth out-of-wedlock, there's usually hell-to-pay somewhere along the line. So it makes sense, in an effort to establish a new-world-order, the American middle-class must be neutralized, which I kinda' wonder is what's going on.

"Expect the gap between the haves and have-nots to increase" ... it's almost like a return to surfdom in the days of old ... class-warfare ... 1% control 97% of the wealth in the country ... blah, blah, blah ... whatever, all's I know is there's a helluva' lot less people out there making a living wage then there used to be ... which brings me to a rather contentious point, ie the union.

The middle-class was born out of the union-movement, it's what made the union strong. The union helped close the gap between the haves and have-nots by giving the average hard-working American the opportunity to earn a living wage and climb the ladder. As the unions decline, so does the American middle-class, so IDK, is the idea of a union a liberal way of thinking, or conservative?

I just wanted to challenge you guys a bit because of some of the previous union-bashing that was going on ... not that I don't necessarily disagree with some of it, but that it's a little short-sighted and paints with a broad brush at times.

We're disenfranchised with the shrinking of the middle class and we hate the unions, yet the middle class exists solely because of the unions. We decry the loss of the American family unit & social values, yet a union enables the average American worker to maintain a decent enough standard-of-living to support a family unit and impress middle-class values upon said unit. Liberal policies (in their purist form) will inevitably fail, but looking back on Conservative policies (in their purist form, before the unions), can you not say those policies have failed for all except 'the haves' also?

IDK, it's just something I think about once in awhile when I want to drive myself crazy ... don't want to necessarily hijack the thread ... or do I? :lol:.