Should Liberals be our next protected minority

[Diddi]

Robert Steinback of the Miami Herald compares today to the 1950s. Today, as in the 1950s, we live in a conservative “fantasy world of domestic harmony while stuck in a costly, endless foreign war.”

“Imagine a decade of domestic peace and harmony – but which is an illusion that ignores the cries of a scorned minority trying desperately to make the majority understand that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

“Today’s political liberals are the black Americans of a half-century ago – social outcasts whose protestations about principles and fair play are heard by no one in power.”

“If the pattern holds, I fear global tensions and increasing economic frailty will cause America’s bubble of self-delusion to burst, leading to a period of national anxiety and stress as we reexamine the wisdom of having endorsed the myopic neo-conservative extremism of our current leaders.”

“But I also believe a new wave of enlightenment will occur as it did among young people in the 1960s, for whom love, freedom, peace and justice became ideals worth standing for.”

commondreams.org/views05/0427-22.htm

Wow! I didn’t realize that political liberals were being held back so much. The political liberals I know are pretty well off – good jobs and nice homes and cars, but maybe they are having problems I wasn’t aware of. This is shocking!

I also wasn’t aware that this had become a conservative dream world. When did they let singing Christmas carols back in the public schools? When was Roe vs Wade rescinded? Did I miss something?

 

[stumbler]

The author is (purposefully?) ignoring the obvious difference between individuals and the ideas they hold. One can repudiate a false idea without repudiating the individual that holds the idea.

Perhaps a more interesting article would be why do present day liberals cling to a false ideology?

 

[jlw]

“Today’s political liberals are the black Americans of a half-century ago – social outcasts whose protestations about principles and fair play are heard by no one in power.”

Equating IDEAS with SKIN COLOR??? :banghead:

 

[siamesecat]

jlw:

Equating IDEAS with SKIN COLOR??? :banghead:

Yeah thats weird. And also, liberals arent much of a minority. Almost half the country voted Kerry. I think we’re pretty well balanced.

 

[BobCatholic]

It is those who are Conservative Christians that should be protected. Look at the congress - democrats are using bigotry to prevent them from getting federal judgeships.

The last acceptable bigotry is anti-Catholicism, and anti-conservative Christianity.

 

[CanonAlberic]

Actually, I think progressives and compassionate people are a majority in this country. You would just never know it with the pablum that Limbaugh, his clones, and the obsequesycophants (sp?) in the MSM spew forth on a daily basis.

Peace.
The Canon (who is absolutely NOT opionated in any way!)

 

[CanonAlberic]

BobCatholic:

It is those who are Conservative Christians that should be protected. Look at the congress - democrats are using bigotry to prevent them from getting federal judgeships.

The last acceptable bigotry is anti-Catholicism, and anti-conservative Christianity.

 

[smackdaddy]

It’s really pretty easy to understand why so many “liberals” dislike conservative “Christians.” Lets see why - conservative “Christians” here after know as CC’s support:

War
Capital Punishment
A corrupt and lying administration
Racism

CC’s don’t support:

the teachings’ of Jesus, especially the Sermon on the Mount

I stopped calling myself a conservative a long time ago. Modern conservatism is the atithesis of Christianity.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

It’s 2:50 a.m. here. I can’t sleep nor have I looked outside. I’m just wondering based upon the last two posts if there is a full moon out tonight. Such hyperbole!:whacky:

I believe we ought to take care with the kinds of labels we through around. We are mixing political and religious categories in ways that aren’t particularly helpful.

The assumption of the article that started this thread is ludicrous. But I suppose a person calling himself a liberal would tend to agree with it.

On the other hand if one were to untangle the threads of opinion on various topics and compare them with Church teaching then one has a worthwhile discussion.

E.g., Is it a worthy goal to curb terrorism and to protect people because of their religion or ethnicity? All serious Christians would answer “Yes”. Those who would answer “No” have a serious uphill battle to demonstrate their position. When is it justified to use force to ensure those goals? The answer to that question is the sticky wicket.

Have the oppressed in Afghanistan and Iraq welcomed our arrival? By all indications the answer is almost unanomously positive.

Are there neo Nazis in Saudi Arabia who would wish to rule instead? You betcha. They included bin Ladin, but he was just the tip of the ice berg. The Salafis and behind them the Wahhabists who are in bed with the Saudis would love to dominated the world and if not that at least the Muslim world. There no doubt in my mind that stopping them is a worthwhile and a just endeavor. Since the Church has not spoken ex cathedra on the subject I guess we will all have to wait and see whether the present effort is worth it. Is it enough? Not by a long shot.

In the long run our dependence upon Middle Eastern oil is the one compromising factor in this whole equastion. The most effective thing we could do is to stop buying oil from any country which supports tyranny or terror. We should not buy one more drop from Saudi Arabia and should seriously consider not buying any or at least as much from Syria and Egypt.

In order to that we will have to ween ourselves away from plastics, big cars, and the like. The citizens of the US will have to redouble our efforts in finding alternative energy sources and in the interim we will have to explore for more domestic sources of oil.

If we would stop calling names and stop selling our souls to political parties right or left we would see that these are worthwhile goals and ones with which we would agree.

Dan L

 

[Richardols]

siamesecat:

And also, liberals arent much of a minority. Almost half the country voted Kerry. I think we’re pretty well balanced.

Agreed. Sure, Right-Wing Christians got their candidate elected this time, but I don’t see any rightist Republican on the horizon for '08. Even if the Repubs win again, the candidate will be a moderate.

The fact that the country voted so closely for the two men shows that there’s no majority for a switch to reactionary government. The country will remain balanced IMO.

 

[David_Paul]

siamesecat:

Yeah thats weird. And also, liberals arent much of a minority. Almost half the country voted Kerry. I think we’re pretty well balanced.

We hear that quite a bit. You put it more nicely than the MSM which says America is “evenly split” and “sharply divided.”

But consider this:

Only two Democrats, FDR and LBJ, in over 110 years recieved more of the popular vote than George W. Bush did in 2004.

Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton never got 50% of the vote. Jimmy Carter squeaked into a majority with 50.1%.

Clinton was first elected with 43% of the vote.

Did we read how evenly split the country was when Democrats were President? Did we hear Clinton didn’t have a mandate when 57% of Americans voted against him? When less then 50% voted for his second term?

No. We did not.

 

[Richardols]

David_Paul:

Only two Democrats, FDR and LBJ, in over 110 years recieved more of the popular vote than George W. Bush did in 2004.

Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton never got 50% of the vote. Jimmy Carter squeaked into a majority with 50.1%.

Clinton was first elected with 43% of the vote.

Did we read how evenly split the country was when Democrats were President? Did we hear Clinton didn’t have a mandate when 57% of Americans voted against him? When less then 50% voted for his second term?

No. We did not.

Your statistics don’t negate the fact that the country is pretty much split with neither side holding an overwhelming majority.

 

[Diddi]

smackdaddy:

It’s really pretty easy to understand why so many “liberals” dislike conservative “Christians.” Lets see why - conservative “Christians” here after know as CC’s support:

War
Capital Punishment
A corrupt and lying administration
Racism

Let’s take these one at a time,

1. War – I’ve lived long enough to know that both liberals and conservatives (and even those who call themselves moderates) have started and escalated wars, even unpopular wars, and have supported the wars people of like ideology in other countries. Now I know that wars supported by liberals are justified in liberal minds and these don’t count, unless a conservative takes them over, then they count. The same could be said about conservatives.
2. Capital Punishment – I know more “conservatives” that are against capital punishment than liberals. Of course, if we place a “conservative” label on anybody who is for capital punishment, then we are begging the question in the classical sense. Let’s call this one a dead heat.
3. A corrupt and lying administration – Have we ever had an administration that hasn’t been “corrupt and lying”??? Not in my half century plus. And it isn’t all their fault either. We have an adversarial form of government where the opposition harasses, baits, probes, taunts, and lies about the party in power with the intent of unseating. An honest administration would give them too much ammunition and couldn’t survive, let alone get anything done. Ford and Carter came the closest to being honest and look how long they lasted.
4. Racism – A year or two ago, the results of a study of European anti-Semitism pointed out that the vast majority of anti-Semitic crimes in Europe during the previous decade had been carried out by people of liberal ideology. It was a surprizing finding for the liberal group that conducted the study. “Hate” is not a “family value” or a conservative value or a liberal value. Hate is an equal opportunity emotion that leads to sin, and if the hatred is against a class of people identified by race, then it is racism.

The article that was quoted at the beginning of this thread expressed the opinion of an liberal that he feels hated in today’s society, and he hates it.

 

[David_Paul]

Doesn’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing:

Clinton 1993-1995
House
Dem 258
Rep 176
Other 1

Senate
Dem 57
Rep 43

Carter 1977-1979
House
Dem 292
Rep 143

Senate
Dem 61
Rep 38
Other 1

LBJ 1965-1967
House
Dem 295
Rep 140

Senate
Dem 68
Rep 32
Other 1

FDR 1937-1939
House
Dem 331
Rep 89
Other 13

Senate
Dem 76
Rep 16
Other 4

 

[Richardols]

David_Paul:

Doesn’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing:

Maybe so. And I can live with Republican administrations as long as they’re right-leaning centrists.