ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
For 40 years, the radical right tried to destroy the domestic and international order that American liberals created in the central decades of the 20th century. The people who are known today as "conservatives" are better described as "counterrevolutionaries." The goal of Barry Goldwater and the intellectuals clustered around William F. Buckley Jr.'s National Review was not a slightly more conservative version of the New Deal or the U.N. system. They were reactionary radicals who dreamed of a counterrevolution. They didn't just want to stop the clock. They wanted to turn it back.
Three great accomplishments defined midcentury American liberalism: liberal internationalism, middle-class entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, and liberal individualism in civil rights and the culture at large. For four decades, from 1968 to 2008, the counterrevolutionaries of the right waged war against the New Deal, liberal internationalism, and moral and cultural liberalism. They sought to abolish middle-class entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, to replace treaties and collective security with scorn for international law and U.S. global hegemony, and to reverse the trends toward individualism, secularism and pluralism in American culture.
And they failed. On every front conservatives have failed, completely, undeniably and irreversibly. The failure of the right has left the structure of 20th-century American liberalism standing, battered and cratered but still intact.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
For 40 years, the radical right tried to destroy the domestic and international order that American liberals created in the central decades of the 20th century. The people who are known today as "conservatives" are better described as "counterrevolutionaries." The goal of Barry Goldwater and the intellectuals clustered around William F. Buckley Jr.'s National Review was not a slightly more conservative version of the New Deal or the U.N. system. They were reactionary radicals who dreamed of a counterrevolution. They didn't just want to stop the clock. They wanted to turn it back.
Three great accomplishments defined midcentury American liberalism: liberal internationalism, middle-class entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, and liberal individualism in civil rights and the culture at large. For four decades, from 1968 to 2008, the counterrevolutionaries of the right waged war against the New Deal, liberal internationalism, and moral and cultural liberalism. They sought to abolish middle-class entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, to replace treaties and collective security with scorn for international law and U.S. global hegemony, and to reverse the trends toward individualism, secularism and pluralism in American culture.
And they failed. On every front conservatives have failed, completely, undeniably and irreversibly. The failure of the right has left the structure of 20th-century American liberalism standing, battered and cratered but still intact.
Interesting that it defines great accomplishments of liberalism in the 20th century as including internationalism and social security/medicaid. Really? Is anyone here going to defend the UN as a successful organization in light of how they've handled world crises in the last 20 years? Rwanda anyone? Somalia? Darfur? Never mind the fact that modern day liberals hate parts of internationalism (NAFTA would qualify as an example, right?). Then Social Security and Medicaid which are bankrupting this country (look at spending on those 2 programs as a % of the total). Then it mentions individualism. Now, nobody will argue that the left did well for the civil rights struggle, but what about other facets of individualism/secularism? How about the fact that those trends towards individualism and secularism have coincided with higher divorce rates, more children born to single parents unprepared for parenthood, and the general decline of the family unit in this country?
Hmm, yeah, sounds like a rout of conservatism to me, the UN, medicaid, and broken families, liberalism at its finest!
Interesting that it defines great accomplishments of liberalism in the 20th century as including internationalism and social security/medicaid. Really? Is anyone here going to defend the UN as a successful organization in light of how they've handled world crises in the last 20 years? Rwanda anyone? Somalia? Darfur? Never mind the fact that modern day liberals hate parts of internationalism (NAFTA would qualify as an example, right?). Then Social Security and Medicaid which are bankrupting this country (look at spending on those 2 programs as a % of the total). Then it mentions individualism. Now, nobody will argue that the left did well for the civil rights struggle, but what about other facets of individualism/secularism? How about the fact that those trends towards individualism and secularism have coincided with higher divorce rates, more children born to single parents unprepared for parenthood, and the general decline of the family unit in this country?
Hmm, yeah, sounds like a rout of conservatism to me, the UN, medicaid, and broken families, liberalism at its finest!
There is definitely a dichotomy.
The UN definitely fails when it comes to conflict resolution in the "3rd World".
However, in the 60 years since its inception in 1948, how many wars between nations in the "Developed World" have taken place? Zero. How many in the 300 years before the UN? I'd venture to guess one every 20 years or so.
Without the UN as a contact forum, the earth could have been blown to smithereens in October 1962. It serves a purpose for diplomatic contact. I don't believe it serves much of a "world police" purpose, however.
__________________
"They (Patriots) may be the greatest team ever" - Chris Mortenson, January 18, 2005 on espn.com
Then Social Security and Medicare which are bankrupting this country (look at spending on those 2 programs as a % of the total).
According to polls, most people actually seem to like these programs as they are. Maybe because old people vote and participate in polls more. I don't know, but that's what I meant by "depends on your deginition of winning". Does winning mean getting your way or doing what's best ?
The UN definitely fails when it comes to conflict resolution in the "3rd World".
However, in the 60 years since its inception in 1948, how many wars between nations in the "Developed World" have taken place? Zero. How many in the 300 years before the UN? I'd venture to guess one every 20 years or so.
Without the UN as a contact forum, the earth could have been blown to smithereens in October 1962. It serves a purpose for diplomatic contact. I don't believe it serves much of a "world police" purpose, however.
Is it that, or simply the realization that no one can possibly win? Deterrance is a pretty good...er...ah...deterrent, after all.
Oh...it's been one of those days.
So I went back and read that, and I sound like Yogi Berra in his aflac commercial.
__________________ Questions are a burden
and answers a prison
for oneself.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by otis p. driftwood; 06-11-2008 at 01:22 PM..
Interesting that it defines great accomplishments of liberalism in the 20th century as including internationalism and social security/medicaid. Really? Is anyone here going to defend the UN as a successful organization in light of how they've handled world crises in the last 20 years? Rwanda anyone? Somalia? Darfur?
Hmm, yeah, sounds like a rout of conservatism to me, the UN, medicaid, and broken families, liberalism at its finest![/QUOTE]The UN, within its limitations, has done a very good job on a number of issues -- ongoing immunization of children, eliminating smallpox, helped bring down Apartheid, played a major role in making drinking water safer in third world countries, organizing Democratic elections in several third world countries, promoting women's rights and childrens rights, played a major role in the Egypt Israel peace treaty, and has played a major role in numerous other peace treaties. It has some failures, too, of course, but its strength is derived from its members, and on some issues its members simply do not agree. I think the lack of knowledge of the UN's accomplishments really has more to do with American parochialism than anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stokes
Never mind the fact that modern day liberals hate parts of internationalism (NAFTA would qualify as an example, right?).
Where liberals disagree with internationalism is where it appears to be dictated by corporate interests, not human interests. Liberals want to be sure that both American and foreign workers are treated fairly. They don't want wages driven down because China pays people far less than we pay people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stokes
Then Social Security and Medicaid which are bankrupting this country (look at spending on those 2 programs as a % of the total).
Tax hikes on the wealthy and an end to spending recklessly on false wars will solve that problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stokes
Then it mentions individualism. Now, nobody will argue that the left did well for the civil rights struggle, but what about other facets of individualism/secularism? How about the fact that those trends towards individualism and secularism have coincided with higher divorce rates, more children born to single parents unprepared for parenthood, and the general decline of the family unit in this country?
I think the family unit is quite strong. Of course, we could go back to the days when women had little access to jobs and property and it was socially unacceptable for a woman not to be married. Would you want that?
What is the exit strategy for the failed 40 yr old War on Poverty. We were promised by Libs an end to poverty what happened?
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
Relax, liberals. You've already won
Linear Mode
